Look at the Map and Think

---

NOTE TO MY LIBERAL FRIENDS (of course I have liberal friends, some more liberal than others): This post is not really addressed to you, though you may want to consider what I have to say. Your hearts, I am convinced, are in the right place, even if I think your political thinking has been seriously compromised. This post is addressed to the hard leftists, the thoroughgoing statists, the communists-in-all-but-name, those men and women who know full well that if ever they made a complete public avowal of their real ambitions for America, they would never win another national election and would most likely be run out of town on a rail. It is addressed, sadly, to those driving the train of the Democratic Party. Even for them, I have some sympathy, for whether sooner or later, disaster will inevitably overtake them--it always does, just ask Robespierre--and I wish their fate on no man.

---

As I write, the polling on the race for president is a bit up and down. Some polling shows Mitt Romney--almost certainly the Republican nominee--with an advantage over Barack Obama. Some shows just the reverse. Some makes it look like a toss-up.

I cannot help but think that there is a good--a very good--chance that Barack Obama will be re-elected, yet I am dead certain that, geographically speaking, most of the country doesn't want him. If he is re-elected, it will be because of his strength in more heavily populated, urbanized areas, and even there, because he has successfully demonized his Republican opponent, and because he has lied through his teeth about his background, his political ambitions, and his record. There is no other way. Not enough people want what he is selling. Even his signature achievement, ObamaCare, was achieved only through political skulduggery of the first water and is opposed by a majority of the people. His only hope is to convince an electorate that, in general, barely pays attention to politics until two weeks before the election, that his opponent would be even worse.

And I know that you will be out there, indeed, are already out there, hoping fervently, praying fervently to whatever god it is that you worship (if any), working feverishly to help him do it. You think that if he wins, the long-term success of your ideas, ideas that have never been successful anywhere on the globe, at any time in history, is assured. You think that you will be co-heirs, if not co-rulers, of the kingdom you think you see coming.

You are practically salivating at the thought of victory, aren't you? At the thought of ramming your ideology down the throats of those of us who've long opposed you? I know that you are. I've heard you talk, read what you have to say.

Allow me to suggest that you look again at the map--this map, the county-by-county map of the results of the last presidential election. The one that shows a vast sea of red, with some large blue spots and a number of smaller ones.


It is just as--I know you hate the very sound of his name, but I'm going to say it anyway--Rush Limbaugh has said: Republicans can win most of the counties in the country and still lose the election.

And it is over this that you hope to rule without challenge? Over this vast expanse of land, at least fifty percent of the inhabitants thereof being opposed to your agenda now, and with more who will turn against you as your true nature and agenda becomes progressively more apparent? They will, you know. I know you know. I know you know because you virtually never run under your true colors. You wouldn't dare, not in a national race. You are perpetually running your candidates as centrists, opposed to Republicans whom you relentlessly accuse of "extremism," though their views are well within the mainstream of historical American politics. That this works as often as it does does not mean that Americans are leftists, friends. It means that they prefer, if possible, almost reflexively, to avoid perceived extremes and to be fair, and that you have successfully bamboozled them, lied to them, bewildered them, taken merciless advantage of the fact that you can make most Americans jump through hoops of fire by suggesting that circumstances aren't fair. It means they have given you credit for sincerity that you do not deserve.

It cannot last forever.

I know that you will not listen, but you will not be able to say that I have not warned you. Listen well to one of the wisest statesmen of all time, the right honorable Edmund Burke:

...ask yourselves this question, Will they be content in such a state of slavery? If not, look to the consequences. Reflect how you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free and think they are not.

Palpatine

I'm sure you remember Palpatine. He was that Star Wars character that spent years in the Galactic Senate, pretending to be a good galactic citizen with the noblest of intentions, eventually rising to the position of Chancellor and invested with emergency powers. In reality, he was an evil Sith Lord, whose goal was to eliminate the Republic and replace it with a Sith Empire.

Why bring him up here?

Well, I've been reading a book called The Manchurian President. It is an interesting read, but I will save you the trouble, if you like. It is little but long and meticulous documentation of how Barack Obama, since he was a small child--since birth, really--has been born to, raised among, influenced by, worked with, worked for, been associated with, favored by, etc., etc., etc., an assortment of communists, socialists, hard-leftists, and Islamist radicals. It is not conjecture. The information has been pulled largely from newspaper accounts, newsletters and magazines (like the Trinity United Church of Christ's Trumpet) and personal interviews.

Many of these people come from organizations where one of the chief tactics is what is termed "boring from within":--joining the established system with the express goal of working from within to undermine and demolish it.

Now, I suppose you can believe one of at least three things:

1) Barack Obama has come from a background of anti-capitalist and anti-America-as-we-know-it thugs, risen to the presidency, and is deliberately trying to crash the system so as to replace it with something else, which would be perfectly consistent with his friends' and acquaintances' ideology and tactics, or...

2) He has played along with all these people since he was a boy, waiting for the right opportunity to betray them all, or...

3) He has somehow fit right in with all these people for decades, yet has absolutely no clue what they're about, or what he's doing, for that matter.

My opinion is that his actions since assuming the presidency strongly point to option "1," but that's just my opinion.

At any rate, for a couple of years now, I've vacillated between "Is he really that stupid?" and "Is he really that evil?"

My mind's made up now. As far as this blog is concerned, he is now "Palpatine." Just in case you were wondering.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

---

This was sent to me--again--by a relative. I've seen it before, years ago, as a matter of fact. It's one of those things that keeps going 'round the internet, getting changed bit by bit. I enjoyed this version. Typos, if any, were present in the text as it was sent to me.

---

Two Different Versions! ................. Two Different Morals!


OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant 's ho use where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

A Truly Excellent Post on Government Health Care

The whole post is good. Please read it.

Money quote:

If you allow yourself to be dragged into discussions about effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of various public options -- you have fallen into the trap of having a discussion about how best to "fix" the "system."

No.

You do not want a health care "system." If the "system" is broken, you do not want to fix it or tinker with it. You do not want to give away the argument to your opponents that a system -- albeit a better-operating system -- is what we all desire.

No.

What we desire is liberty. The freedom to choose. Domain over our own bodies. Our selves.

That is what America stands for. That is what the first Americans fought and died for. It is the very essence of the American character. And it is what these people will destroy if they bring in public health care.

Hat tip to the inimitable Tyson Wynn.

Reprinted in Pravda

I saw the link on Drudge, and just had to follow it. Apparently, Pravda reprinted, by permission, a post by a Russian blogger. It is incendiary. I would love, absolutely love, to republish the whole post here, but that is probably bad form. Here's a sample; follow the link to Pravda for the whole thing. Emphasis is mine:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

[snip]

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.

[snip]

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses...

[snip]

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

[snip]

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

[snip]

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

I can hardly wait; somebody out there is going to try to make the case that this guy isn't really a Russian and/or doesn't really understand Marxism, or doesn't understand how what President Obama is doing is different. You watch; someone will try it.

But me, my money's on this guy; I bet he knows Marxism when he sees it.

Hitler on Socialism

There are, if you care to look for them, abundant evidences that Adolf Hitler was a socialist and, socialism being a thing of the political Left, it's fair, in my opinion, to point out that Leftists therefore have the honor of having most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries' genocidal murderers to their credit. Just for giggles, start here, with Hitler himself, quoted, apparently, by John Toland:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

No, I didn't go check the book out from the library to read the quote for myself. Feel free to doubt its veracity if you so choose. For me, I've seen far too many examples of this sort of thing to have any doubt whatsoever that it is representative.

Why write about this? Meh. Annoyance, really. Largely because I get a little tired of Leftists continually painting themselves as innocent of evil, when the reality is that Leftist ideology has been responsible for more war, death, and murder than you can shake a stick at. Will they take responsibility for Mao? No. For Lenin? No. For Stalin? No. Pol Pot? The Khmer Rouge? For Adolf Hitler? No. And yet to argue that these people weren't Leftists, died-in-the-wool Leftists, requires a break from reality of staggering proportions.

And yet they do argue this. Those people aren't real Leftists/Socialists/Communists, you will hear. Real Leftism/Socialism/Communism has never been tried.

So why do Leftists do this? In my opinion, it's because it would require admitting to themselves that their Leftist ideas contain the seed of more hate than just about anything else in the modern world, save, possibly, Islam. And this, they will never do.

Capitalists, Capitalism

The thing to remember about capitalism is that it's not really a system or planned economy, managed by or under the direction of government. Instead, capitalism is simply what happens when the people have property rights--especially documented property rights--and liberty.

You don't have to hunt far for recognition of man's right to own property; it's right there in the Ten Commandments:

You shall not steal.

And then, just a tiny bit later:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

These commands presuppose the right to own property, as though it were so obvious a thing that only a great fool might fail to recognize it. It is not possible to steal what no one owns. The command not to steal necessarily recognizes that someone owns something and that God
does not want that ownership violated. More, He doesn't even want you to think about violating it! There are many other verses that recognize this; Jesus spoke more than once about thieves and robbers, the existence of which, again, presupposes the right to own property.

Man has an inalienable right from God to own property.

The rights to own property and to liberty are recognized--not given, the Constitution protects rights, it doesn't grant or give them--in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the United States is a capitalist country. It doesn't have to. It is the government's protection of your rights to property and liberty that makes it a capitalist country.

Socialism is a government-directed economic system; in order to direct outcomes, a government necessarily places limits on rights to property and liberty. It may readily be seen, then, that as a country becomes more socialistic and less capitalistic, it necessarily becomes less free. Capitalism is the economics of freedom, the freedom of men and women to work and to determine what to do with the fruits of their labor themselves, the freedom not to have their assets plundered, the freedom to crawl up out of poverty without having to have the good fortune of being born into a privileged class or to lick the hands of those above them. Properly instituted, it is the most egalitarian of economic systems, and the only one--the only one!--that demonstrably produces a real increase in the standard of living for multitudes of people.

Mark it well: those who oppose capitalism either do not understand it, or have designs on your liberty. In neither case should their counsel be listened to.

Find more in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, or, if you're feeling more ambitious, The Wealth of Nations.

Communists, Communism, Marxists, Marxism

Not all socialists are communists, but--and, oh, boy, would a lot of people like you to forget this--all communists are socialists. People often overlook this, or try to; many would love to overlook the indisputable fact that one of the worst totalitarian states in history was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, aka "Communist Russia."

Communism is an explicitly godless--it was communists who coined the infamous phrase that "Religion is the opiate of the people", and it is no accident that many atheists are also communists--militant, violently repressive, international-in-design socialism. It is socialism's usual thieving oligarchy carried to a murderous extreme. Communists have been responsible, probably, for the murders of more human beings than any other ideological group--any group period, really--throughout the planet's history.

Communism's most influential and famous theoretician was Karl Marx, hence communism is often called "Marxism." It should send shivers down the spine of any knowledgeable, caring person that Barack Obama said in his own autobiography that he was drawn to Marxist professors in college; that it doesn't, to my mind, indicates that people have no clear idea of what Marxism means anymore.

In short, it means murder and oppression. Murder and oppression by the state, in the name of the people, for the sake of plunder, for the benefit of an oligarchy or dictator.

Occasionally, you will hear some ignorant fool--tool--opine that real communism has never been tried. By this, he means that it's never reached it's ostensible goal of such total brotherhood among men being reached that the state ends up withering away and leaving mankind in a kind of bucolic, egalitarian, eternal brotherhood of love. This is, of course, an admission that it's never worked, not once in all the times it's been tried. Communists often blame this on the fact that they have enemies--that the whole world isn't yet communist--and try to aggressively export their insanity.

At bottom, what you've got with communists are people hell-bent on setting up an oligarchy or dictatorship to dominate and plunder the people, all in the name of the people. I often think of this clip when I think of communists, though I wouldn't go as far as cursing a communist.

I would sure as thunder curse communism, though.

Socialists, Socialism

There are big, long, hairy articles on socialism out there (and it doesn't hurt to read them), but I'll keep my definition of socialism brief if you'll bear in mind that it's not intended to set a standard for the ages.

Socialism might be fairly said to be liberalism run amok. The basic idea is for the community--in practical terms, the government--to either own or control the property and/or the means of production, and to distribute the proceeds thereof to the population. The idea is for this to result in equitable distribution--everyone in the community having enough. The idea has often been summarized by the phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

It sounds all nice and charitable. In practice, it never works. It's never worked as intended throughout, as far as I can tell, all of human history. It doesn't work because it flies in the face of human nature and man's God-given rights--amongst which is, according to Thomas Jefferson, liberty, which surely entails liberty to own something and to dispose of it as one sees fit. Since socialism doesn't work, never works, has never worked, in practice, what actually happens is one of two things. The first is rare; people can admit that they were wrong. This is what happened with the Pilgrim community at Plymouth Rock. At first, they attempted something of a socialistic lifestyle, and the result was a disastrous aggravation of already bad conditions. The next year, they abandoned that plan and assigned each family a plot of ground and gave them the liberty to work it and to do as they would with the proceeds--which lead directly (though admittedly it was not the only factor) to a far better harvest.

The second thing that can happen--what almost always actually happens--is that this theoretically egalitarian system actually turns into a means whereby the few not only plunder the many, they lie about it and expect everyone around them to echo their lies. It turns into robbery by an oligarchy, with the added insult that those being robbed must praise the goodness of the whole system. For an excellent fictional--but very true to life--treatment, read George Orwell's Animal Farm.

When you hear people talk about how wealth is distributed (they won't say, "earned"), and almost always, these days, when you hear people talk about "fairness," or "justice," or, in one famous, recent incident, "spreading the wealth," what they are really talking about is socialism. They just don't want to use that word because they know socialism has been largely discredited in people's minds as a viable system (or possibly, they are just disturbingly ignorant). And where you hear people talk about socialism, what most of them are really talking about is robbery by means of the police power of the state, with themselves cast in the role of robber baron.

Socialism exists in varying degrees. In some countries, it's not too advanced. In others, it's far enough advanced that they are often described as "welfare states." In others, it's a hideous nightmare wherein pointing out that the system doesn't work will cost you your life.

It is possible, in my opinion, to be a Christian and a socialist. Such people would, in my opinion, be terribly misguided and misreading the Scriptures, and ignoring the nature of man and the lessons of history, but they might be educable.