Category Archives: COMMUNISM

A few highlights from the draft 2020 Democrat Party Platform

The Democrats released a draft version of their 2020 platform. These are just a few highlights (or lowlights) from this 80-page racist, Marxist disaster.

The draft platform is an 80-page-long, singe-spaced document. It’s very repetitive, repeating the same facts to make different points. It is as hard left as a document can be. It is communism without the bother of a full-scale revolution first. Democrats clearly hope that a few revolutionary battles in a few city streets will be sufficient to scare Americans into voting for them without bringing out the guillotine first.

I don’t have time for a deep dive. This is a shallow dive.

Whose recession? As a general irritant, the document refers to “Trump’s recession.” The reality is that Trump gave us one of the strongest economies ever in American history. It was the Democrats’ lockdowns, followed by the Democrats’ riots, followed by more Democrat lockdowns, that damaged the economy. The only reason people aren’t in worse shape is because of the strong Trump economy, which gave us some resiliency.

Hypocrisy about reparations. On its first page, the document has an acknowledgment that America is built on land once held by Native Americans:

The Democratic National Committee wishes to acknowledge that we gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations who have been here since time immemorial. We honor the communities native to this continent, and recognize that our country was built on Indigenous homelands. We pay our respects to the millions of Indigenous people throughout history who have protected our lands, waters, and animals.

Under the rules of reparations as set out by the Democrat party, every Democrat in America has a moral obligation, if he or she owns land, to donate it the descendants of the Native Americans from whom it was taken. Those Democrats who do not do so are low-down, dirty, lying hypocrites.

Despite lip service to Israel, this is not a pro-Israel document. The Democrats say that they want a strong Israel that has the right to defend itself. They promise to abide by the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which sounds very Israel friendly. It’s not.

First, the MOU was something America forced on Israel so that Israel could continue to buy the weapons it needs against the genocidal nations surrounding it. The agreement makes it impossible for Israel to buy weapons from places other than America, including buying weapons from itself.

The foreign aid dollar amount in the agreement includes the cost of missile defense — but the missile defense amount is dependent on Congress. A hostile Congress will leave Israel without a defense against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The flip side of that is that the MOU bans Israel from asking Congress for extra money, which means it has no flexibility.

Thankfully, Israel has turned herself into an extremely well-trained porcupine, bristling with weapons. However, the agreement places shackles around her that make it very difficult for her to augment her defenses in times of need.

In addition, while professing its love for Israel and (to its credit) saying it will not countenance either the Boycott, Divest, & Sanction movement or the UN’s incessant Israel-targeting, the Democrat party has a few other tricks up its sleeve. It continues to be invested in the two-state solution, which is a meaningless dead end. Israel pulled out of Gaza and all she ended up with was a terrorist state on her border.

And then there’s this a sneaky clause, right in front of saying that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s capital. That clause reads, “We believe that while Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations….” No, it’s not. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. “Final status negotiations” only means that the Democrats will push to divide the City. We know what happens if any part of the city goes to the Palestinians: They will make it Judenrein and will destroy all signs of Jewish presence, historic or current.

Finally, Trump stopped sending “pay-to-slay” money to the Palestinians. Democrats intend to reinstate it.

The Mideast policy isn’t any better. As a general matter, the Democrats’ Middle East plan attempts to turn the clock back to the Obama era. They plan to reinstate the Iran Agreement. This would be terrible, especially considering that Trump has seriously weakened the mullahs who terrorize their own people. It also puts Israel right back in the nuclear crosshairs. Israel has bought itself time with the sabotage all over Iran, but that’s just a year of breathing space.

Shorn of anti-Trump rhetoric, the policy regarding ISIS is Trump’s policy: a small, agile force that can police those sadists as necessary.

The Democrats are obsessed with race and sexual habits. I view Americans as a single people. Ideally, we all want safety, prosperity, and liberty. Democrats, however, see Americans as little nodules of interest. Here’s just a sampling of the pandering to all sorts of different interest groups (a lot of which involves marginalizing less melanized people):

America bills itself as the land of opportunity, but intergenerational mobility has plummeted; children born in the United States are less likely to move up the income ladder than those in Canada, Denmark, or the United Kingdom. Women still earn just 82 cents to every dollar men earn, with even greater disparities for women of color. Median incomes are lower and poverty rates are higher for Black Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, compared to median white households. And there is a persistent, pernicious racial wealth gap that holds millions of Americans back, with the typical white household holding six times more wealth than the typical Latino family and 10 times more wealth than the typical Black family.

Democrats aren’t going to help wealth creation in America. They’re going to have spreadsheets and make sure that only the right people (i.e., non-whites) benefit from a Democrat-run administration. And note the reliance on the canard that women earn less than men because of discrimination. It’s illegal to pay women less for the same work. Women learn less because they gravitate to lower-paying jobs, something that’s often connected with children. They want flex time or, in many cases, they take years or decades off from the job market to raise their children.

Democrats know, though, that it’s all about the racism — which can only be fixed with more racism:

We cannot hope to raise wages without taking on the profound racial biases at work in our employment system. The wage gap between Black workers and white workers is higher today than it was 20 years ago. It takes a typical Black woman 19 months to earn what a typical white man earns in 12 months—and for typical Latinas and Native American women, it takes almost two years. Democrats believe we need to be much more proactive and aggressive in rooting out discrimination in our employment system. We will increase funding to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and increase its authority to initiate directed investigations into civil rights violations and violations of the rights of people with disabilities. Federal contractors should be required to develop and disclose plans to recruit and promote people of color, women, people with disabilities, and veterans—and be held accountable for delivering.

Democrats also demand equality by refusing to recognize that we’re all humans. If you’re really all about equality, all you have to say is that every American deserves and will get equal justice under the law and equal opportunities. End of story. Instead, the Democrats insist on dividing us into useful political victim groups.

Democrats will protect and promote the equal rights of all our citizens—women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, people with disabilities, Native Americans, and all who have been discriminated against in too many ways and for too many generations. We commit ourselves to the vision articulated by Frederick Douglass of “a Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all.”

The same dividing people by race stuff shows up over and over, regarding health care policies, “racial justice and equity,” education, the military, terrorism, and pandemics. And always — ALWAYS — the narrative is that whites are getting more than their fair share and that only government action can create (i.e., force) equality.

It’s a frightening document that blames one race for another’s suffering. Other governments have used the same tactic and it never ends well.

Climate change. Democrats continue to use climate change as a reason to redistribute wealth within America and then to redistribute America’s wealth around the world. The first thing they plan to do is rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, which shackled America while giving China unfettered pollution rights.

Considering that China is responsible for the biggest amount of plastics in the oceans and is responsible for a significant part of pollution in the air, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is a huge gift to a government that terrorizes its people, enslaves its people, commits genocide against its people, is attempting to colonize all of Asia, commits massive financial and industrial espionage around the world, and gave us the gift of the Wuhan virus. China certainly got what it paid for when it bought the Democrats, from Biden on down.

Speaking of China. The Democrats want a reset, bringing our relationship with China back to the way it was during the Biden years: China undercuts us in trade through unfair means, pollutes the air, and steals our intellectual property.

Unions. Let’s just say that the Democrats have lots of goodies for unions. Lots and lots of goodies. Incredible amounts of goodies. Of course, the unions might want to think about the fact that the treats of China will do away with union jobs. In addition, if the Democrats continue to keep schools closed, that will end the teacher’s unions. Police officers’ unions are already figuring out that they’re safer with Trump than they are with the Democrats.

I’ve got to work now so I’ll stop. Overall, the document is 80 pages of racial division, economic destruction, increased worldwide air pollution, brown-nosing China, and helping to nuclearize Iran. If Americans vote for this, the America we know now is gone forever. It remains to be seen whether Americans will like the ZimbabVenezCuba that raises in its place.

A few highlights from the draft 2020 Democrat Party Platform

The Democrats released a draft version of their 2020 platform. These are just a few highlights (or lowlights) from this 80-page racist, Marxist disaster.

The draft platform is an 80-page-long, singe-spaced document. It’s very repetitive, repeating the same facts to make different points. It is as hard left as a document can be. It is communism without the bother of a full-scale revolution first. Democrats clearly hope that a few revolutionary battles in a few city streets will be sufficient to scare Americans into voting for them without bringing out the guillotine first.

I don’t have time for a deep dive. This is a shallow dive.

Whose recession? As a general irritant, the document refers to “Trump’s recession.” The reality is that Trump gave us one of the strongest economies ever in American history. It was the Democrats’ lockdowns, followed by the Democrats’ riots, followed by more Democrat lockdowns, that damaged the economy. The only reason people aren’t in worse shape is because of the strong Trump economy, which gave us some resiliency.

Hypocrisy about reparations. On its first page, the document has an acknowledgment that America is built on land once held by Native Americans:

The Democratic National Committee wishes to acknowledge that we gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations who have been here since time immemorial. We honor the communities native to this continent, and recognize that our country was built on Indigenous homelands. We pay our respects to the millions of Indigenous people throughout history who have protected our lands, waters, and animals.

Under the rules of reparations as set out by the Democrat party, every Democrat in America has a moral obligation, if he or she owns land, to donate it the descendants of the Native Americans from whom it was taken. Those Democrats who do not do so are low-down, dirty, lying hypocrites.

Despite lip service to Israel, this is not a pro-Israel document. The Democrats say that they want a strong Israel that has the right to defend itself. They promise to abide by the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which sounds very Israel friendly. It’s not.

First, the MOU was something America forced on Israel so that Israel could continue to buy the weapons it needs against the genocidal nations surrounding it. The agreement makes it impossible for Israel to buy weapons from places other than America, including buying weapons from itself.

The foreign aid dollar amount in the agreement includes the cost of missile defense — but the missile defense amount is dependent on Congress. A hostile Congress will leave Israel without a defense against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The flip side of that is that the MOU bans Israel from asking Congress for extra money, which means it has no flexibility.

Thankfully, Israel has turned herself into an extremely well-trained porcupine, bristling with weapons. However, the agreement places shackles around her that make it very difficult for her to augment her defenses in times of need.

In addition, while professing its love for Israel and (to its credit) saying it will not countenance either the Boycott, Divest, & Sanction movement or the UN’s incessant Israel-targeting, the Democrat party has a few other tricks up its sleeve. It continues to be invested in the two-state solution, which is a meaningless dead end. Israel pulled out of Gaza and all she ended up with was a terrorist state on her border.

And then there’s this a sneaky clause, right in front of saying that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s capital. That clause reads, “We believe that while Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations….” No, it’s not. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. “Final status negotiations” only means that the Democrats will push to divide the City. We know what happens if any part of the city goes to the Palestinians: They will make it Judenrein and will destroy all signs of Jewish presence, historic or current.

Finally, Trump stopped sending “pay-to-slay” money to the Palestinians. Democrats intend to reinstate it.

The Mideast policy isn’t any better. As a general matter, the Democrats’ Middle East plan attempts to turn the clock back to the Obama era. They plan to reinstate the Iran Agreement. This would be terrible, especially considering that Trump has seriously weakened the mullahs who terrorize their own people. It also puts Israel right back in the nuclear crosshairs. Israel has bought itself time with the sabotage all over Iran, but that’s just a year of breathing space.

Shorn of anti-Trump rhetoric, the policy regarding ISIS is Trump’s policy: a small, agile force that can police those sadists as necessary.

The Democrats are obsessed with race and sexual habits. I view Americans as a single people. Ideally, we all want safety, prosperity, and liberty. Democrats, however, see Americans as little nodules of interest. Here’s just a sampling of the pandering to all sorts of different interest groups (a lot of which involves marginalizing less melanized people):

America bills itself as the land of opportunity, but intergenerational mobility has plummeted; children born in the United States are less likely to move up the income ladder than those in Canada, Denmark, or the United Kingdom. Women still earn just 82 cents to every dollar men earn, with even greater disparities for women of color. Median incomes are lower and poverty rates are higher for Black Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, compared to median white households. And there is a persistent, pernicious racial wealth gap that holds millions of Americans back, with the typical white household holding six times more wealth than the typical Latino family and 10 times more wealth than the typical Black family.

Democrats aren’t going to help wealth creation in America. They’re going to have spreadsheets and make sure that only the right people (i.e., non-whites) benefit from a Democrat-run administration. And note the reliance on the canard that women earn less than men because of discrimination. It’s illegal to pay women less for the same work. Women learn less because they gravitate to lower-paying jobs, something that’s often connected with children. They want flex time or, in many cases, they take years or decades off from the job market to raise their children.

Democrats know, though, that it’s all about the racism — which can only be fixed with more racism:

We cannot hope to raise wages without taking on the profound racial biases at work in our employment system. The wage gap between Black workers and white workers is higher today than it was 20 years ago. It takes a typical Black woman 19 months to earn what a typical white man earns in 12 months—and for typical Latinas and Native American women, it takes almost two years. Democrats believe we need to be much more proactive and aggressive in rooting out discrimination in our employment system. We will increase funding to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and increase its authority to initiate directed investigations into civil rights violations and violations of the rights of people with disabilities. Federal contractors should be required to develop and disclose plans to recruit and promote people of color, women, people with disabilities, and veterans—and be held accountable for delivering.

Democrats also demand equality by refusing to recognize that we’re all humans. If you’re really all about equality, all you have to say is that every American deserves and will get equal justice under the law and equal opportunities. End of story. Instead, the Democrats insist on dividing us into useful political victim groups.

Democrats will protect and promote the equal rights of all our citizens—women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, people with disabilities, Native Americans, and all who have been discriminated against in too many ways and for too many generations. We commit ourselves to the vision articulated by Frederick Douglass of “a Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all.”

The same dividing people by race stuff shows up over and over, regarding health care policies, “racial justice and equity,” education, the military, terrorism, and pandemics. And always — ALWAYS — the narrative is that whites are getting more than their fair share and that only government action can create (i.e., force) equality.

It’s a frightening document that blames one race for another’s suffering. Other governments have used the same tactic and it never ends well.

Climate change. Democrats continue to use climate change as a reason to redistribute wealth within America and then to redistribute America’s wealth around the world. The first thing they plan to do is rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, which shackled America while giving China unfettered pollution rights.

Considering that China is responsible for the biggest amount of plastics in the oceans and is responsible for a significant part of pollution in the air, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is a huge gift to a government that terrorizes its people, enslaves its people, commits genocide against its people, is attempting to colonize all of Asia, commits massive financial and industrial espionage around the world, and gave us the gift of the Wuhan virus. China certainly got what it paid for when it bought the Democrats, from Biden on down.

Speaking of China. The Democrats want a reset, bringing our relationship with China back to the way it was during the Biden years: China undercuts us in trade through unfair means, pollutes the air, and steals our intellectual property.

Unions. Let’s just say that the Democrats have lots of goodies for unions. Lots and lots of goodies. Incredible amounts of goodies. Of course, the unions might want to think about the fact that the treats of China will do away with union jobs. In addition, if the Democrats continue to keep schools closed, that will end the teacher’s unions. Police officers’ unions are already figuring out that they’re safer with Trump than they are with the Democrats.

I’ve got to work now so I’ll stop. Overall, the document is 80 pages of racial division, economic destruction, increased worldwide air pollution, brown-nosing China, and helping to nuclearize Iran. If Americans vote for this, the America we know now is gone forever. It remains to be seen whether Americans will like the ZimbabVenezCuba that raises in its place.

Celebrating Independence Day

On the 244th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America finds itself in a war for its very survival.  Events are being brought to a head with the chaos and uncertainty of the COVID19 pandemic and shutdown of our economy; protests, riots, and looting occurring in major cities across the country in the guise of Black Lives Matter but infiltrated by avowed Marxists; an election year following four years of attacks on President Trump by the media, Democrats and Never Trumpers; the Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, an impeachment farce… the list goes on.

The individuals and organizations behind the riots and tearing down of statues are in their last gasps of attempting to end our great republic.  They have been working for decades in our schools, colleges, media, and government offices to undermine our proud history.  What we are seeing is the culmination of a few generations of our indoctrinated youth who have never been exposed to the whole truth behind the founding of our country.  They are taught only the negative aspects of our founding and historical events.  They are carefully taught to hate everything about America.

As a young woman growing up in the 1960s and 1970s I learned a heartbreaking but powerful lesson.  Good and bad reside together within everyone.  We cannot judge people from our historical past based on our present reality.  Life rarely gives you a binary choice.  Nothing is black and white.

Our children are taught the founding fathers owned slaves so nothing they did could possibly have been good.  End of discussion.  We should be teaching them the complete story.

The Declaration of Independence was written to address the grievances of the Colonies against the King of England.  We have all read the “official” document in American history classes.  What we were not taught, and what we SHOULD have been taught, was the process which brought about this historic document; particularly the missing text of the original draft written by Thomas Jefferson, which  included the following paragraph, taken directly from transcription of “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson” at Princeton University:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…”

As Jefferson points out in his “Autobiography by Thomas Jefferson 1743-1790” this clause was stricken because Georgia and South Carolina were not against slavery and in fact was necessary to continue since their agricultural economies relied heavily upon the practice.  Without the full support of all the Colonies the Declaration of Independence could not have been the transformative document and precursor to the establishment of the United States of America and the Constitution and thus was omitted in the final document in order to get unanimous support from all of the Colonies.

Until the mid -1650s many people came to the Colonies as indentured servants, with colonists paying their fare to immigrate.  These indentured servants worked off their debt for up to seven or eight years at the end of which they were given their “freedom papers” acknowledging their debt was paid in full.  Several of the Colonies and even some of the wealthier colonists themselves gave these freed people land and livestock to establish their own livelihood.  The truth is slavery in the colonies was instituted while under the rule of the British with blacks and whites alike owning slaves of all races.  Many colonists became abolitionists and were vehemently against the practice from its very beginning.

Jefferson acknowledged that during the turbulent Revolutionary War eradication of slavery had not been addressed and he wrote “this subject was not acted on finally until the year [17]78, when I brought in a bill to prevent their further importation.  This passed without opposition, (author’s bold) and stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication”.  Here we see again Jefferson’s personal commitment to the abolition of slavery in America.  This was an important advancement towards ending the practice, and also reveals the Founding Fathers shared the same commitment.

A little research would reveal Thomas Jefferson inherited his slaves from his father and father-in-law and the only slaves he purchased were to reunite families.  While it is also a known fact he kept a slave woman named Sally Hemings and most likely had several children with her, what is not taught is that she was his half sister-in-law, being his deceased wife’s half-sister.  Thomas Jefferson was probably the most enlightened and classic liberal of the Founding Fathers.

When the final draft of the Constitution of the United States of America was completed, Provision 107 from Article 1.9.1 stated “Until A.D. 1808 there shall be no prohibition or interference against the migration or importation of any persons which the “states now existing” shall consider proper for admission”.  In his book The Making of America, W. Cleon Skouson states: “This provision gave the states the RIGHT to continue importing slaves and bond servants for twenty years, but thereafter it gave the federal government the RIGHT to terminate it”.   Skousen elaborates by explaining that this was the compromise made by the original States to assure that three dissenting states; Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina; would sign the Constitution.  Although the consensus of the general populace favored the abolition of slavery, these three States required a period of time to phase out their economic dependence on slavery.  In the same year as the Constitution was written, the Northwest Ordinance was passed assuring that any new States acceding to the United States would be free states and no slavery would be permitted within their borders.

So this Independence Day, as we see anarchists rioting, looting and tearing down statues and memorials representing our history and celebrating our founders, we should be reminded – one of the reasons the Revolutionary War was fought was to break away from England and a monarchy that brought slavery to our shores.  The Declaration of Independence was our first step towards equality for all.

And finally, we must resolve to teach our children the true and complete history of America and not just the skewed anti-American version Marxists have been teaching in our schools.

Our future depends on it.

 

 

What’s the real story behind Right Wing and Left Wing in America?

In America, the term Right Wing is misused to imply that conservative Americans are fascists lusting for world domination; in fact, the opposite is true.

Right Wing Left Wing Conservative

(As my regular readers (to whom I am endlessly grateful) know, I was away from my blog for some time caring for a relative who had surgery. Being away that long gave me time to think about “going a little crazy,” as Bob Ross likes to say when he adds another tree to a painting. In my case, “going a little crazy” meant wondering if I could do a video as well as a podcast.

In addition to the time spent researching how to do go about making a Power Point video (I’ve got to start somewhere), it took me six hours to create a 35 minute video and companion podcast. They both are a little glitchy, but not bad for a first effort. I will get better.  But I will never forget my readers, so here is the same content in written form.)

The idea for this video came when I ended my trip with a much-needed massage. Because this is Tennessee, my masseur is a liberty-oriented man so, in the midst of a far-ranging conversation, he asked this question: “Why are conservatives called “fascists,” when fascism is a socialist doctrine?” An excellent question, and one I wanted to answer here.

The reality is that, even though the media loves to talk about “right wingers” (although never left wingers), there is no “left wing” versus “right wing” in America, at least as those terms are understood in the rest of the world. Instead, we only have liberty versus tyranny, along with the supporters of both those ideologies.

Ironically enough, although the French Revolution post-dated the end of the American revolution by six years, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are leftovers from that overseas kerfuffle. Let me explain.

The French Revolution had as its slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Liberty, equality, fraternity! In the context of the French Revolution, those words were always lies.

At the start of the Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy that sat on top of a large, equally absolutist aristocracy. It was not a sustainable system, and the revolutionaries intended to topple it. However, unlike the American revolutionaries who envisioned limited government coupled with individual liberty, that’s not what the French wanted. Instead, the revolutionaries imagined an absolutist commune, with the monarchy and aristocracy replaced by an equally controlling cabal of “the people.”

But what, you may ask, does this have to do with “left wing” and “right wing”? Simple. In the French Parlement during the lead-up to the Revolution, the representatives who sought to retain an absolutist government led by the monarchy and the aristocracy sat to the Speaker’s right. The representatives who sought to replace the existing government with an absolutist government led by “representatives of the people” sat to the Speaker’s left.

And that’s where the terms still used today in American and around the world came from: Those on the right seek to “conserve” the old ways; those on the left seek to upend them. Except, as I’ll develop at greater length, America has not traditionally had any cognates to this European left/right divide.

And now we get to my favorite chart, one that, for convenience’s sake, uses a left/right continuum to show how there are two sides to the political spectrum:

On the left (although it could just as easily be portrayed on the right side of the line) is absolutist, totalitarian government, something with which we are all familiar. It exists under many names – monarchy, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, theocracy, etc. – but it always plays out the same: maximum government control; minimum individual liberty.

Meanwhile, on the right side of the continuum (although I could have easily placed “liberty blue” on the left), is the political system that has limited government and maximum individual liberty. At its extreme, it’s anarchy. Otherwise, it’s . . . well, it’s really only the American experiment. Everywhere else in the world, government control is the standard.

So what is the American experiment? It was build on Britain’s Magna Carta and its 1689 Bill of Rights. That last document was a statement of limitations on monarchical.  William of Orange and Queen Mary II had agreed to this Bill of Rights in order to to attain the British throne in the wake of 1688’s “Glorious Revolution.” (It was glorious because King James II fled, rather than going to war.)

If you look at the British Bill of Rights, you’ll see many echoes in our own Bill of Rights. However, the British Bill of Rights limits only the monarchy. Parliament was not limited, which is why it felt free to impose all sorts of restrictions on British citizens in the American colonies.

When the Founding Fathers decided to draft a Bill of Rights, they did it correctly. Instead, of stating the items as a negative charter (as Obama wrongly put it), one that simply tells government what it can’t do, the Founders stated our Bill of Rights as a set of rights inherent and inviolable in every individual. No government – no monarchy, no legislature, no judiciary, no official whatever – should be able to impede those rights without a high showing of necessity.

Hold that thought in mind as we look at the three most common forms of government outside of America in the years since WWI.

First, we have socialism, which exists not only as a free-standing form of government (National Socialists), but also as an umbrella term for the evil twins of communism and fascism. Under communism, there is no private ownership. Everything – and everybody – belongs to the government. Examples, all of them tyrannical, are the Soviet Union, China (despite its faux market economy), North Korea, and Cuba.

Back in the 1930s, fascism put a softer face on communism, because it did not nationalize all private property, instead limiting itself to nationalizing a few major industries, especially fuel and transportation. However, there is no freedom in a fascist country. Mussolini provided the ultimate definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I also include today’s oligarchies in the list of fascist states, since they function much the same way.) In the World War II era, fascist states sought world domination and, in Germany’s case, included genocide and slavery in the service of an imaginary “master race.”

Today’s Europe is still fascist, although that would no doubt horrify Europeans were you to tell them that. Under both EU rule and the governments of the individual European states, there is private ownership, but major industries, especially transportation, are still nationalized. Moreover, the EU and the individual governments tightly control every aspect of people’s lives.

(When it comes to nationalized services, I have a real bee in my bonnet about these “soft” socialized states’ so-called “cradle to grave” care, something my parents’ European-based friends and family boasted about non-stop. These benefits had nothing to do with socialism. They were available in Europe because American taxpayers funded European defense costs during the Cold War. It wasn’t socialized medicine; it was American medicine. Now that the Cold War has ended and the money isn’t flowing as much, European socialized medicine is cratering.)

The difference between today’s European fascism and Hitler’s is that (a) it’s not called fascism today and (b) it’s not yet engaged in world domination and anti-Semitic genocide. However, given the speed with which Muslims are populating Europe, all in thrall to an Islamic doctrine that calls for world domination and anti-Semitic genocide, I think it won’t be long before Europe starts to repeat the 1930s.

The third type of government in the world today shows up in monarchies or theocracies, both of which thrive, and are often intertwined in the Middle East. Whether it’s Mullahs in Iran or Kings in Saudi Arabia, these are totalitarian governments that use religious doctrine to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives. (In Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammed bin Salman is slowly trying to change this but, since he holds the tiger by the tail, it’s a very delicate and dangerous process.)

And then there’s America, which has a totally different system, one that, in its purest form, does everything it can both to limit government power and mob rule. There’s nothing else like it in the world.

The American political system as the Founders envisioned it has a limited federal government composed of three parts – executive, legislative, and judicial – each with unique spheres of power, each with some control over the other branches, and each jealous of its own power as a bulwark against any branch becoming too strong.

The Executive branch eschews pure democracy in favor of an Electoral College, forcing presidential candidates to campaign in every state (as Hillary learned to her cost). Without this, all presidents would be elected out of population centers. If the Democrats were able to do away with the Electoral College, something they’re trying to do through the grossly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all future American presidents would be elected by California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington.

Under the Legislative branch, we have two organs. The Senate was originally meant to have its members appointed by each state’s governors, ensuring (a) that the Senators would be responsive to their states and (b) that no senator would be enslaved to the passions of the mob. The 17th amendment changed that in 1912, probably not for the better.

The House controls the power of the purse and, before the 17th Amendment, was the only branch of government with direct democracy. House members must go back to the voters every two years to make their case. This is why impeachment begins in the House and why the current refusal to have a formal impeachment – which would force House members to make their positions known to their voters — is a direct betrayal of the voters.

Finally, the Judicial branch is the least democratic part of our government, for its members get selected by the President, get approved by the Senate, and then sit for life. In theory, it is impartial and rules only on whether matters are constitutional or unconstitutional, a power Chief Justice Marshall arrogated to the Court in the early 19th century.

In recent years, the federal judicial has boldly grabbed for itself both legislative power and executive power. The legislative power appears in its finding emanations of penumbras to justify federally sanctioned abortion, something never contemplated in the Constitution, and writing whole romance novels to allow gay marriage, another concept far afield from the Constitution. Both these issues belong in the states until such time as the Constitution is formally amended. As for executive power, every time some podunk judge in a Leftist district blocks a facially valid executive order from President Trump based upon the judge’s interpretation about the purity of Trump’s mind and soul . . . that’s an improper exercise of executive power.

Lastly, as I said before, our Founders gave us a Bill of Rights holding that certain rights are vested in the people and that the government cannot infringe them. This is extraordinary and differs from all other constitutions in the world, each of which is an endless book of bureaucratic does and don’ts.

So what kind of cool stuff flows from a limited government and a Bill of Rights? For starters, we have free market capitalism, which has been doing wonders since President Trump reformed taxes to leave more money with citizens and cut back on onerous regulations.

Strikingly, our Democrat Party presidential candidates have no room in their platforms for the free market. Bernie is a stone-cold communist. As an aside, given that he’s been alive for the greater part of the 20th century and all of the 21st (to date), he must know about the tens of millions dead and enslaved under communism (a knowledge sadly denied to uneducated millennials). That he still supports communism despite this knowledge means either that he’s the most stupid man ever to walk the earth or an evil tyrant wannabe. Neither reflects well on him or the voters who support him.

Warren also should know better, but I can attest to the fact that she’s stupid. Maybe evil too, but definitely stupid.

The most recent example of the disrespect the Left has for the free market comes from Kamala Harris, another candidate who is dumb as a rock, only dumber. Her candidacy is in free fall, so she’s promising to seize private property to prop it up. (Incidentally, I don’t think the government should fund private companies, but it’s important to note that, government aid notwithstanding, these are still companies with shareholders, employees, and profits.

Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over” Audience asks: “can we do that?” “Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019

Another benefit we have is social mobility of a type that never existed anywhere else in the world before America. I created a little photo montage, just off the top of my head, of people who have attained success in a way that would not have been possible without America:

In America, the fact that your grandparents were rich doesn’t mean you will be, and the fact that they were poor doesn’t mean that is your fate either. We make our own fate in America.

One of my favorite rights – and one that I came to late in life – is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I think this picture says it all:

In Nazi Germany, the government seized arms as a prelude to seizing people. A government should always stand in awe of its people’s right to defend itself against tyranny.

People should also be able to defend themselves against evil-doers in their own community. Mexico, a rapidly failing state, with appalling gun violence and skyrocketing murders, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

Of course, the Democrat Party desperately wants your guns. Beto, before dropping out, was open about this – and please note the audience roar of delight:

And then there’s the right to free speech. In England, the cradle of free speech, it’s already gone:

Free speech isn’t doing so well in Leftist America either. In New York, you can be find $250,000 for “misgendering” someone. And in California, when it comes to long-term care facilities, it’s the law that you can be fined for “misgendering” residents there too.

So, going back to my chart and the left/right divide, here’s what you need to know about the rest of the world: it’s not tyranny versus liberty; it’s two different types of tyrants fighting each other for total control over citizens. In America, we have half of that equation. The American left wants total control over American citizens:

“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product.” – Barack Obama (net worth $40,000,000).

“You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — Elizabeth Warren (net worth $18,000,000).

“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over.” – Kamala Harris (net worth $4,000,000).

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Beto O’Rourke (net worth $10,000,000-$15,000,000).

On the opposite side of the political aisle in America, however, things are different. Conservatives don’t crave power. They crave a smaller government that leaves citizens alone to pursue their own lives, and that concerns itself solely with such core issues as national security, a stable legal system, functional transportation across the country, and managing (God forbid) major health crises.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” – Ronald Reagan

With the above in mind – American conservatives are the sole political movement in the world dedicated to individual liberty – why are American conservatives called “right wing” or “fascist,” terms that are tied to totalitarian control, while American leftists are called “liberal,” implying a dedication to individual liberty? It’s time for a little history lesson to answer that question.

Back in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin both presided over socialist governments. The former was fascist (private ownership but government control), while the latter was communist (no private ownership of the means of production). They were hideous, evil fraternal twins of socialism.

As is often the case with sibling rivalry, the two countries (and their leaders) hated each other. Nevertheless, in August 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, sparking WWII, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under that pact, they swore to be neutral vis-à-vis each other in times of war.

When Hitler invaded Poland, Soviet Russia did nothing. Taking their cue from Russia, in America, communists also took a very lukewarm stance against Hitler.

The Pact ended abruptly on June 22, 1941, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa by invading the Soviet Union. When America entered the War, it found itself allied with Russia against the Nazis. On the American home front, communists instantly became staunch and fervent anti-Nazis.

However, when the war ended, with the Allies victorious, and socialist/fascist Germany in ruins, American communists had a problem: Fascist socialism stood exposed as one of the most evil ideologies of all time. How were they to protect communist socialism, which was also one of the most evil ideologies of all time?

The answer was to create a false syllogism that took hold in academia and media, and that now controls American thought:

Communists and Fascists were enemies.

Communists helped win World War II, with the war’s end providing unquestioned proof that Fascists were completely evil.

Communists and American Republicans are enemies.

Republicans are therefore akin to Fascists and, like fascists, must be completely evil.

And what’s the moral of this story?

Next time someone accuses you, or any other conservative, of being “fascist” or “right wing,” object vigorously. You are a person committed to individual liberty as opposed to being a slave to an all-powerful government (no matter how woke, intersectional, and politically correct that government claims to be).

The post What’s the real story behind Right Wing and Left Wing in America? appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 6/30/19 — the Democrat debates illustrated edition

The Democrat debates are the gift that just keeps giving — for Trump and his supporters. Plus a lot of other pointed and funny posters and cartoons.



























































And lastly, Trump shows that he understands war: You avoid it if you can, but if you can’t, you fight to win — and you let your enemy know your goal:


The post Bookworm Beat 6/30/19 — the Democrat debates illustrated edition appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

THE PROMISE OF SOCIALISM IN A SINGLE SONG

Vassar Bushmills

This says it all.


We’ve been blessed to be able to watch this promise proved before jumping in head first

I have no doubt that Democratic Socialism, when it emerged as the dominant political arrangement in Europe following World War II. It was a slow process, but in 1993 the pact was inked, and now has grown to 28 decreasingly independent states, and 513 decreasingly free people.

They were forewarned.

Modern and urbane, all the Europeans’ socialist plans nevertheless failed, each country at its own pace, to be propped up by introducing hundreds of thousands of immigrants for purposes I’m still not quite sure. All we know is that they can’t let their people, or their domains and return to self-determination.

So now, as predicted, they must begin to consider the darker side of their elusive lover and the role extraordinary cruelty will have to play in holding onto power once all its other now that those schemes have failed. For they will not let go.

There are all sorts of natural laws involved in branding and selling socialism, even if well-intentioned instead of knowing lies.

“The Snake” says it all.

ICYMI: –

The post THE PROMISE OF SOCIALISM IN A SINGLE SONG appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

DEALING WITH THE SEPARATE REALITY OF THE LEFT

Vassar Bushmills

Over Easter weekend my wife and I watched a half-dozen Easter and Passover-themed films. Among them was the 1968 film “Shoes of the Fisherman” which actually laid out the then-current state of liberalism in Hollywood. The Catholic Church, played by Anthony Quinn, as it’s new pope, agreed to give away the Church’s entire wealth; land, reliquaries, art, cash, in order to feed the starving millions of a failed Marxist experiment in China, in order to avoid a war with what Liberals viewed at the time as a stable Marxist experiment in the USSR, played by Sir Laurence Olivier as its General Secretary. America was only a bit player in this drama, but still portrayed as interventionist because of our role in Vietnam, which was depriving China of its rice bowl. In shorthand, if a China-USSR war turned into a world war, it would be America’s fault, which has been a continuing Liberal chant since Ike.

If you weren’t alive in ’68, there are some things you wouldn’t have known, namely that Maoist China and the USSR actually were bitter rivals, with regular firefights along their shared border. I was a newly commissioned infantry lieutenant and we knew.

The theme of this film wasn’t war, however, but on the fantastical notion that the Liberalism of the 1960s should still willingly give its own money away to cure cataclysms such as famine. That noble sentiment would soon die, however, as LBJ cured Democrats of this delusion with his Great Society plan, in favor of the socialist notion that using other peoples’ money was less painful to give away, in fact, even profitable for the middleman.

In 1968 Hillary had not yet drawn the attention of Saul Alinsky, Cronkite had not yet declared the war in Vietnam lost, but American liberalism in Hollywood was already in its thirtieth year of its love affair with Soviet Marxism…only, as the next 30 years would prove, it never fully fathomed the darker side of its lover,, and the role extraordinary cruelty would have to play in holding onto power once all its other schemes have failed. As they invariably do.

Democrats are rehearsing for that eventuality now.

Hillary’s class blamed the failings of Soviet communism on the coarse Russians which held it. Hillary’s class could have done much better. In her class’s scheme, all Marxism needed was the steadying hands of a super-educated, insulated, spoiled rotten class, like Hillary and Barack, who could manage the administration of a multi-trillion dollar economy almost as well as it could their own personal checking accounts.

This was the original “separate reality” of the Left that has spawned all other separate realities ever since. It was predicated on the notion that their class was not a small but exclusive moon orbiting our “free and independent” planet, but rather America’s sole source of light and heat. Our sun.

(Trust me, that was an easy sell to Hillary’s class.)

Over the next 30 years since the Clintons the ruling class lost sight of the most significant difference in the two realities, size, or that even people of ordinary sense would ever notice it.

By 2016 we did.

Today, back on horseback, constitutionally in charge again, while they are now afoot, this has been our first clear look at the America landscape since the Liberals-cum-Left began trying to lay it bare in the 90’s[…]

Continue Reading

The post DEALING WITH THE SEPARATE REALITY OF THE LEFT appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Half of Hispanic Voters View President Trump “Favorably.”

More than half of the Hispanic voters in the United States approve of President Donald J. Trump.  Surprised? Don’t be, add this to the “as not reported by the deep state media complex” pile.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, quoting the stats from a by poll taken McLaughlin & Associates for Newsmax, 47 percent of Hispanics have a positive view President Trump while fifty percent (50%) approve of Trump’s job which includes his handling of the border. One heck of a secret, wouldn’t you say but the facts speak for themselves.

Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard

As President Trump doubles down on his pledge to build a southern border wall, Hispanics are showing broad support for him, according to a new survey.

Some 50 percent of Hispanics approve of the president’s job, according to the latest McLaughlin & Associates poll of likely general election voters.

What’s more, the Republican Party has regained its edge over Democrats in the generic congressional ballot.

Pollsters John and Jim McLaughlin suggested that with the end of the Russia collusion probe aiding the president and Republicans, they are poised to come back in the poll and win re-election in 2020[…]

Continue Reading

Speaking of which, in spite of efforts by the media, the likes of VH1, BET and TMZ’s brainwashing of stupid American voters, Nancy Pelosi’s favorability rating is in the hole.  Voters are not buying what Communists are selling.

— In contrast, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is disliked: 33 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable. Two thirds of independent voters, 63 percent, disapprove of the job Speaker Pelosi is doing and so do a quarter, 25 percent, of all Democrats.

By the way, on the subject of Socialism, dog whistle for Communism, AOC and fellow Commies are on the wrong side of history because Americans, all around and regardless of party affiliation want smaller government, “51 percent, philosophically prefer a smaller federal government and only 30 percent want larger government. This includes 31 percent among all Democrats who want smaller government….”

Below is President Trump’s rally earlier this year in Florida before a majority Hispanic audience of Venezuelans and Cubans, many of whom legally entered the United States after fleeing their countries under Communist regimes.

The post Half of Hispanic Voters View President Trump “Favorably.” appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Steve Hilton: Beware the populism of the left (video)

In between dozing off last night with the television on in the background  I caught tidbits of The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton which airs Sunday night’s on the Fox News channel.  One such block was Hilton’s discussion on “The Right kind of Populism” and populism of the left’

The post Steve Hilton: Beware the populism of the left (video) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.