Tag Archives: individual freedom

Un-American Amnesty?

So the head of the RNC was out ‘Rallying the Base’ by shouting how the Republicans will “Stop the Un-American Amnesty” planned by President Obama.

I have to ask…

What about the Un-American Socialization of Healthcare?

What about the Un-American use of the IRS to target Political Enemies?

What about the Un-American and unconstitutional invasion of Privacy actively being committed by the NSA when they archive every bit of information you receive and produce?

What about the Un-American embrace of myriad Socialist policies?

What about the Un-American education being forced upon our Children?

What about the Un-American support of voter fraud?

What about the Un-American attack on the Electoral College?

What about the Un-American neglect of honoring the Constitution?

What about the Un-American undermining of our Allies Abroad?

What about the Un-American forfeiture of Moral Superiority by abandoning our role as Champion of Individual Freedom and Liberty Worldwide in trade for Democratic Collectivism?

Unless Reince has an answer to these questions…

I think returning to silence is recommended.  It has worked for the Establishment so far.  (Our fight will begin again during the next set of Primaries…)

I have a friend who would offer Mr. Priebus a Steaming Hot Cup of Shut The F*ck Up.  I suggest the Head of the RNC try it.

Using a single issue to distract from a Much Larger Problem is an old tactic.  And using it implies one’s belief that the Voters are Stupid.

When your Entire Car is falling apart you don’t focus all of your attention on a low tire…

It’s time for us to stop being stupid.


I Hate the Way Washington Works!

So we have to keep electing people who know how Washington Works and can Work that Way!

This is what is currently passing for logic.

Make no mistake, the Republican Establishment have a vested interest in convincing you that Non-Establishment Republicans are terrible, terrible human beings… and you MUST support Establishment Republicans because only They know how the System works in D.C.  Of course they will leave out the fact that they are Responsible for how the system works in D.C…

So the Current line, like the latest one offered by Time Magazine (I know, I know… yes, they are still around.), is trying to convince us that Republicans such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Scott Walker et al. will destroy the Republican Party.  Time is still pushing the idea that Ted Cruz’ filibuster trying to push a one-year delay of the employer mandate, which the administration did anyway, led to a government shut down (A shut down that nobody noticed, so the Obama Administration executed the ‘Monument Plan’ in which they roped off open air monuments trying to prevent access to the public… remember that?) which caused horrible things to happen to all of us.  By the way, nothing happened to any of us.

Anyway, In every Wild Accusation there is an element of truth…

Let me ask you, if you don’t like the way Washington Works then what about the Established Republican Party is Worth Saving? Why not destroy the parts we don’t like and build on the parts we Do?

Clearly the Establishment Wing, and Democrats who are used to getting them to do exactly what they want, are not interested in Destroying those parts of the Republican Party… because THEY ARE those parts of the Republican Party.

Folks, anytime a Liberal Media outlet, which is pretty much all of them, tells you that you should choose one person or another person lest you’re going to lose everything and the sky will fall, you should immediately suspect a ruse. The Leftist Media has no interest in Republicans being successful, ever.

And sadly, most of the Republicans have no interest in being successful either, at least not in any way We would define Success. Well over 80% of the Republican Party now in office is far from interested in Limited Government let alone Freedom and Liberty of the Individual. They just want to be the ones controlling the money so they can spiff their families, friends and donors.

For those of you thinking that is an endorsement of ANY Democrat, pull your head out. 100% of the Democrat party is interested in the very same thing, and they will do whatever it takes, including telling you which Republicans “stand the best chance” to win, to keep their power and continue to push their Socialist Utopian Dream thus leaving them in charge forever.

The only difference between Every Democrat and a Majority of Republicans is the ones with a “D” behind their name talk about their genuine Marxist beliefs behind closed doors… the Republicans are so stupid they fail to realize those are the same beliefs they are supporting.  I’m not sure what Establishment Republicans talk about behind closed doors, maybe that they were invited by a prominent Democrat to lunch?  Who knows?  Frankly I don’t care so long as we work to replace them with Non-Establishment Republicans.

So back to the point…

It’s exactly those Republicans who you are hearing the greatest number of “bad” things whom you should be most interested in. And the odds are you should also be voting for them and giving them money.

If they’re being made fun of, you should probably read for yourself what they are saying.  Odds are it’s not what being reported.

They, the Evil Non-Establishment Types who are “Peeing Inside the Tent”, are the ones who will stand any chance of changing things as they are.

The Republicans making enemies are the ones who need our support.

The Battle is within our own Party.

And those who like things as they are know it.


Le Pen

A “Right-Wing” Victory in France?

“The new age of the extreme right” read the headline in the left-leaning Nouvel Observateur magazine.

In yet another attempt to blur the lines of meaning the Left in The United States reports that “Right-Wing” Politician wins in France.

To understand what is going on requires one to understand that the Only Political Governing Theory existing in France is Socialist in Nature.  There is no Capitalism… There are No Candidates representing Free Markets or Freedom and Liberty of the Individual.  There is not a single Person representing Freedom To Choose.

When the French say “Right-Wing” they mean Fascist.  Fascism could be considered the right side of the Socialist Political Spectrum.  Communism would be on the left side of this straight line… all the other variants fall somewhere in between.  (For one commenter I recently had an exchange with, Theocracy is a distinction without a difference.  The Paradigm simply replaces the State with God.  The function, infrastructure, actions and results are otherwise identical.)

The reason I bring this up is Le Pen is being reported here in the States not as a Fascist, which would be appropriate, but rather as “Right Wing”.  You should be asking yourself “Why?”.  The purpose is obvious.  It is an attempt to equate “Right Wing” as used in US Political discussion as Fascist.  It is trying to label those on the Right who subscribe to Capitalism as Fascist…  It is trying to label anyone who has a Religion based world view as Fascist… It is trying to keep you confused…

It is effective as demonstrated by this comment from a post two days old in response from a post Snake put up.  The take-away is how the Leftist is using Le Pen to paint a picture and tries to separate her from Socialism in order to protect the Liberal World View he subscribes to:

Pinkagendist

March 26, 2014

Money, my friend. As a historian I can assure you it’s an old tactic that works very well. Create division and scapegoats and you might never have to have a real job ever again!
Check out how much money Le Pen made from xenophobia- donations like no other. Literally millions.
If one targets a group carefully enough that there are no mainstream shadows cast, it’s like winning the lottery.

Reply

  • Le Pen… She is a Socialist and did what Socialists do. While you’re right about balkanization being used to squeeze money from groups who perceive they are being persecuted, the tactic is purely leftist. Interesting example of Le Pen.

    Reply

    • Pinkagendist

      March 26, 2014

      She’s not a socialist. You’re confusing two very different things, one is political affiliation and the other is political methodology.

      The real difference is authoritarianism versus individual liberties. Authoritarians can come from the left or right. General Franco, Mussolini & Pinochet were right, Mao, Stalin and Castro are left- all used the same authoritarian methodology to attain and maintain power.

       

      Mike

      March 26, 2014

      Your Paradigm is only correct if the entire spectrum is Socialist in nature. Fascism is simply a flavor of Socialism… regardless of what your College Professor told you. All of the Socialist variants set the stage for Authoritarians to rise from them. And they do.
      The effort to use the Label “Right-Wing” is part of the intentional drive by the Left to confuse the public regarding what the different governing theories are.
      We see this when Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet and Hitler are positioned as “Right-Wing” and then the term is used to describe Capitalism. This example is not difficult to find… in fact, reread your comment.
      You see this all over Europe at this very typing. The Greeks use “Capitalism” to describe Fascism (A Socialist Variant) without hesitation. It serves to keep those who do not know ignorant in addition to keeping those who think they know doing the bidding of the Left.

    • Pinkagendist

      March 26, 2014

      You’re way too involved in your good vs. evil, black and white views to comprehend politics in an accurate manner.
      It’s much more complex than that and you should begin by studying more history- including how the term began to be used.

      The first people referred to as the right, or conservatives, were those in the French National Assembly who wanted to conserve the monarchy. Those to the left were in favour of the change to a republic. From there whole ideological packages were put together. The European right generally taking the position of conserving things as they were traditionally and the left proposing change.
      And your ‘Greeks say’, is totally unrealistic. Greeks don’t say anything as a monolith. Greece is made up by a number of different parties and ideologies, each with their own agenda.

    • Hmmm… Even with this new retort I don’t need to add anything to my comment.
      Everything I said is still fact. I’m well aware of the multiple parties in Greece and it changes nothing. The “far too complex” comment is designed to appear deep while being unclear. It is also a weak attempt to stifle an argument you do not want to confront. The preservation of Monarchy (the Feudal system based on Divine Right) is exactly why Socialism exists today. The Statist/Marxist approach was a way to keep the Aristocracy in Power with the support of the Masses. And as you’re illustrating, It still works.
      I know you believe yourself to be better equipped to argue such “complex” issues, but you never know who you’re going to run into on the net. And you never know what credentials they might have. So be careful assuming you’re right and everybody else is ignorant.
      On the upside, these types of exchanges might lead you to new perspectives, then again may be not.
      Finally, when it comes to Freedom and Liberty of the Individual it is Black and White. If you don’t see it that way then you might not have given it enough thought. Keeping people’s minds dwelling in the gray areas and denying Reason, Rationale and Meaning by implying it’s Enlightened is just another way to keep them subservient to those in Control. Don’t fall for that.

      Pinkagendist

    • Again, you’re so taken by your little Cowboys versus Indians war in your own head, that it’s blinding your ability to look at anything in a reasonable manner. As a historian, my interest in the topic is the history of politics and you’re misrepresenting and oversimplifying to a ridiculous degree.
      Do you not realize the very basic notion that preserving monarchies is equally a way of maintaining an aristocracy?

      Authoritarian regimes (whatever they say their political affiliation is, left or right) simply emulated the absolutist monarchies of old. They all function on the model supported by the people who sat on the right of the French assembly, and that model was one of aristocracy. Further, they emulated the symbolism and thought processes that were made popular by monotheistic religions. There’s always a ‘supreme leader’ who represents perfection and everyone else’s value in the social group is measured by their connections to that central figure. Just look at the amount of Lenin statues all over the former Soviet Union, or how many streets and squares in Spain were named after General Franco; Or that North Korea puts out a list of haircuts that are ‘legal’.

      Separating traditional conservatism from monarchy, aristocracy, and the defence of both is a monumental historical error.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  All of the examples of “Right-Wing” pink cites are in fact Fascist.  But what’s even more interesting is the attempt by pink to bring in the term of “traditional conservatism” as a Leftist Ideology as well.  “Traditional Conservatism” does not have the same meaning in the US as it does in Europe because our Political Spectrum is not solely made up of Socialist Variants.  They have done the same thing to the term “Liberal” which has a very different meaning in Europe than it does here in the US.)

This is a common way Leftists pollute the discussion in order to avoid talking about Limited Government and Individual Freedom as a Political Model.  (The Model We in the United States adopted.  And a Paradigm whose mere existence is a threat to every other Governing Theory in the World.)

While there are certainly those on the “Right” of the US political spectrum who erroneously describe themselves as Capitalist when they are in reality Fascist, it does not change the meaning of Capitalism.  Those who describe themselves as such are currently being exposed for their subterfuge.

Capitalism is the Economic/Political Paradigm of Free Markets, Limited Government and the Right of Property Ownership all of which in combination is a formula that protects the Freedom and Liberty of The Individual.

This Concept is foreign to those in France, as it is most of the World over.  It is also oddly foreign to University Students.  Often this discussion can only be found in Economics classes.  Because of this, it is often excused by other areas of study such as History and Political Science as strictly an economic model which has nothing to do with Government.  The fact that we allow this is a luxury for the Left.

In truth, Capitalism is mutually exclusive from any type of Leftist Governing Theory which is why Liberals would rather just ignore it than include it in substantive discussion.  And if they are forced into a corner the last resort is to argue against Fascism and call it Capitalism.

Thus, in trying to win the “high ground” among Leftists they will intentionally confuse the concepts in the hopes of protecting whichever Flavor of Oppressive Government they champion.  (Remember, the most common type of violence the World has known has been Socialist on Socialist.  The only Concept they enjoy attacking more than Individual Liberty is the barely discernible differences they exhibit from each other.  And yes, Religion as Government being a Statist ideology in nature has also exhibited this tendency and is included in this observation.)

In terms of protecting the Individual while promoting the Welfare of All…

Capitalism Stand Alone.

Le Pen no more represents the “Right Wing” as we understand it here in the US than Franco, Mussolini or Pinochet.  Or for that matter, Hitler.

The fact that pink does not expose his ideology specifically doesn’t matter in this example.  The fact that he uses the language of the Left in an attempt to create a separation between those on the “left” side of the Socialist Spectrum and the “right” side of the Socialist Spectrum is what allows for this conversation.  My issue with his posts was the apparent defense of the “left” side…  There is no Defense for Socialism in any form.  But the Progressives know full well that Hitler and the rest of those who kill their own people don’t add anything to promoting Social Control of the Individual.

“Greece is made up by a number of different parties and ideologies, each with their own agenda.” – from above comment thread

In the above sentence pink exposes his tactic.  Indeed there are “a number of different parties”, but the Ideologies are different in only the most minute ways.  And their Agenda’s are all the same… to wrest control of the Government and the Population in order to impose or perpetuate Socialist Governing Theory.  Contrary to pinks final comment, it does not require a “supreme leader” in order to impose Tyranny over a population, the majority can do that all on their own.  And to my point, that is why Democratic Socialism always represents Oppression of the Individual and often fertile ground for the “supreme leaders” pink speaks of to subsequently rise to power.

(In our spectrum, The only Theory to the “Right” of Capitalism is Anarchy.  And it is Rare indeed that One can find anyone capable of defining Anarchy Correctly.  That concept deserves its own place in history as one of the most disfigured concepts.  It’s to the point that Anarchy in present day definition means Angry Bomb Throwers for Communists.  But I digress.)

 

 

 


Keep those Gloves Up and Cover Your Face!

Or,  What has passed for 50-years of Offense by the Republican Party.

All of you in the Establishment RINO crowd like Graham, McConnell, Rove, McCain etc. who wonder why the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party exists should think about what you have done to us.  And then it might dawn on you that the TEA Party exists exactly because you don’t Stand for Anything.

You just keep taking the Hits and look at us with an expression of “I’m trying really hard…”

Need an example?

What is the last major Roll-Back of a Socialist Scheme foisted upon the American People?

You might say “Welfare Reform”.  I’ll give you partial credit… but what has happen to that “reform” over the last several years?

How did That happen?

Or how about this one… Obama Care is now the Law of the Land, we’ll just have to accept it and Try to Fix it.  Hey Bozo’s, Slavery was once the Law of the Land.  Did we just have to accept that and Try to Fix it?

Name a Victory for the Individual beyond what the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights attempts to guarantee.. I’ll wait.

That’s what I thought.

Waiting for the next Progressive Scheme to be implemented so you can walk to a microphone a say “Darn it… We tried.” is unacceptable.

Since you seem to emulate the Democratic Socialists in almost every other arena you should have taken the single most important page out of their play book.

Never give up.  Never.  Never.  Never.

Yet those of you we have sent forward to Champion Liberty, Freedom and Free Markets have adopted the position of concession after concession resulting in decade after decade of Defeat.  You have now embraced the Socialist concept of Balkanization as the only viable way to get your guys elected.  In fact, the person mainly responsible for this fundamental shift from Communicating Freedom and Choice to leveraging groups against each other is your guy Karl Rove.  For his Two Skin-of-the-teeth Presidential wins you gave him the odd nickname of “The Architect”.  (At the time I suggested “Guy Who Barely Wins Elections” but apparently it just wasn’t catchy enough.  Maybe too long, maybe too Native American?)

In the end, the only thing you’ve made clear for us is You RINO’s would rather play golf than dismantle all that threatens the Liberty of the Individual.  Which, makes YOU a threat to the Liberty of the Individual.  Pretty simple.

So there’s your answer Gentlemen and Ladies.  YOU are Why the TEA Party exists.  Pat yourselves on the back.

But, of course, your denial will prevent you from seeing the truth.

Along the same lines, it’s interesting to watch you tell the World the TEA Party needs to come over to your house to play.  The idea of compromising one’s principles, whether inside or outside of your party, as an acceptable approach to defending the Constitution is appalling… but I understand your confusion considering it is now all you know.  (Right John?)

If any of you, if you’re honest enough with yourself to know who you are, happen to be reading this I suggest it’s time for you to Follow or Get out of the Way.  You had your chance to Lead, and you’ve lead us to where we are today.

Between you and me, I prefer you just get out-of-the-way.

You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that none of you can be trusted to defend us against those who seek control.

I know most of you don’t want to go home… so cash in your chips, pull up a seat at the Dubliner and stay there.  Most of you already know the songs.


My Struggle…

and yours too.

I’m finishing up Mein Kampf in a quest to understand why it seems so difficult for individuals to identify Evil.  I have had to read bit’s and peices of it over my lifetime but never beginning to end.  He named it appropriately whether that was his intention or not.

But to the point.

A common film cliché is the inevitable soliloquy offered by the Evil Mastermind outlining his Evil plan for the benefit of the Hero just prior to the Heroe’s anticipated demise.

This scenario, once identified, becomes genuinely funny.

The basic questions are 1.) Why does it matter? 2.) Why is the speech always to blatantly Evil?

Well, writers have long known that it is difficult for individuals to identify, let alone understand, evil when it is right in front of them.  We seem to have little ability to discern what is good from what is bad unless it is spelled out in the simplest terms.  Blame it on whatever you would like, but my experience is even those who have subscribed to a specific morality still fail to recognize evil when it is present.

My question started with “Why?”.  Why do we not see things for what they are?  Why aren’t Bad Guys so easy to spot?

My past has provided me exposure to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Mussolini and of course Hitler.  I have added Hussein (Saddam), Galbraith, Keynes and a list of Fabians among others.

Wrapping up Hitlers vision of government built on racial elitism and a hatred of those he perceived to be responsible for all the evil in the world has yet again left me bewildered.  This book was not just some persons perception of Hitler… it was Hitler’s perception of Hitler.  In his own words he defines Evil without seeing it as such.

So why do many of these same ideas come back to haunt us?  Why are we still arguing the benefits of Socialist planning from the likes of Hitler, Marx and Mao?

Frankly its stunning.

The reason the film cliché is funny is because of the overt maliciousness of the bad guy’s plan for the rest of us.  In other words, even He knows it’s mean.  He knows it’s Evil.

The reason we can’t seem to recognize Evil when it’s right in front of us is because the “true believers” honestly think they have the best interests of the world in mind.  The reason Hitler was able to rise to power is exactly because he didn’t see himself as Evil which allowed many Americans and multitudes of others to also not see him as evil… though it was plainly in front of them should they have had the foundation, desire, or both, to assess it.

That’s really what it comes down to.  A lack of a solid foundation built upon a governing theory that does not require force.  Once you have that, the ideas of those with the best of intentions will no longer escape scrutiny.  The Marx and Engels of the world will no longer get a pass from those who consider themselves better educated, superior, enlightened or whatever adjective they choose to save themselves the effort of being intellectually curious… then intellectually honest, that is unless they see the value of these ideas in terms of the power provided to those in charge.  Socialism will always attract those in search of power over others.

I have long said “If your going to be a Socialist, then be the best Socialist you can be.  But know what that means.”  I take this position because I also believe that once you know what that means the majority of us are repulsed and disgusted.  As a single, simple reason I will refer you to Killer of Men.

It will serve you well to understand that our leaders will not identify themselves, or their ideas, as Evil.

They believe they have your best interests in mind when they propose to force you into a world they see as “fair” and “socially just”… as defined by them.

These people whose ideas should be immediately suspect are those who consider themselves the elite.  By their judgement they have attended the right schools, know the right people and know what’s best for you.  They will tell you right up front what they have in mind… until they realize you have no interest in supporting them.  Then they will work in the background to further their ideas.  Their righteousness drives them.  They feel that if you would simply do what you are told the world will be better for it.  The tragic history of those ideas will always be dismissed by a wave of a hand and the statement “They just didn’t do it right.” In reality,  it’s not about “doing it right”, rather it’s their desire for power over others which motivates them.

None of the individuals mentioned at the beginning of this post would have considered themselves Evil… nor would they have subscribed to the idea that any aspect of what they wanted to do could be construed as such.  The same is true of our leaders today… do not expect any one of them to “wake up” and see the Evil of their ways.

The Enlightenment brought us a group of men who saw Evil clearly over 250 years ago.  Because of that they attempted to establish a governing structure which championed the Individual and secured the concept of Private Property.  We are squandering this gift daily by not recognizing those who wish to destroy such a paradigm because it has no room for their ideas, let alone support for their thirst of control over men.

Speaking of thirst, it’s time for a beer.  Franklin was right… “Beer is proof that God loves us.”