Gone Bomb Thrower

A colloquial term used to describe people who stir up trouble, whether because of a legitimate grievance or simply because they are trolling. Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.

We all have some so called liberal friends who constantly post on facebook from their favorite leftist propaganda sites, The Daily KOS, Thinkprogress,Beer Party etc etc etc.  Of course they ignore the fact that these post also appear on their friends timelines. Today is no different than any other.  Today I got online to a series of them.

Original TEA Party

This is not the first time that I have seen revisionist history from these leftist.  They all seem very light on real history and chuck full of progressive revisionist history. I have another friend that posted Thom Hartman’s revisionist version of the Boston Tea party, more on that later. Of course this leftist post was in reference to the riots taking place in Baltimore.  But in the same vein if you call the looters and rioters “Thugs” these leftist will invoke their revisionist dictionary and claim that Thug is the new “N” word.

thugNow onto the other revisionist history perpetrated by Thom Hartman and the left on the TEA party.

To start with let’s look at their revisionist definition of fascism.

And their revisionist version of the TEA Party

On the first video you see they conveniently redefine fascism claiming that it is the corporate takeover of industry when it is in fact the opposite. It is the government takeover of industry through taxation and regulation.  No one in their right mind would argue that corporations controlled  Benito Mussolini or Adoph Hitler.  They both took power engaging in the same “class warfare” and “Race Baiting” as their fascist predecessors.  If you attempted to follow leftist logic you would find yourself running in circles.

CorporationsBut then the Fascist movement was the blending of Syndicalism and Nationalism just like the progressive movement as I have written about earlier. But on to the revisionist history of the Boston TEA Party.  While it is true that they dumped the tea of the East India Tea company, he ignores what led up to that act. Namely the Stamp Act, the Townshend acts.  All of these acts of taxation were only imposed on the colonist and not on those in England.  This caused the colonist to become creative and smuggle the goods from other sources.  The British responded by repealing the tax but only if you bought from British companies. This ignores the fact that even though they were considered British subjects they had no representation in parliament which brought out the rallying cry “no taxation without representation.

And on that note here’s another of his posts from the same day.

Of course the so called liberals are all for silencing the likes of the Koch brothers. They don’t believe that those who’s pockets they intend to pick in order to continue their bribes should have a voice in politics.

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates.

BribeThey claim that the likes of the Koch Brothers are buying elections. I have not received any money from them.  Have you?  On the other hand the so called progressives promise more and more free goodies to those who would vote for them.  Now that’s what I would call buying elections. Of course when the Koch brothers donate to a hospital the lefties protest. When the Koch’s donate to the United Negro College fund the leftist’s heads explode.  But then the only thing the Koch Brothers are guilty of is believing in the “Classic Liberalism” of the founders.  They’re libertarians who believe in “free markets” and free people.  Not crony capitalism aka fascism.

Now the leftist bribes are obvious.

bribe money

But Hey, let’s not let a little thing like facts get in the way.  The path down the road to Fascism started with the first progressive era.

So ask yourself the question.  Which forms of governments engage in race baiting and class warfare in order to gain power, and how did that turn out.

To my liberal friends, yes as long as your propaganda posts appear on my wall, and as long as you spew your propaganda.  I will continue throwing those bombs.

“Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Progressive Roots of Fascism

The modern liberal has hijacked the term liberal and as such also attempted to redefine the political spectrum.  They have attempted to claim that totalitarianism belongs on both extremes leaving themselves as the political middle or moderates. On the right they claim are the fascist using some “Newspeak” to define their version of the political spectrum.  But if one even takes a look at fascism one sees that fascism is the end result of progressiveism and it’s roots are firmly rooted in the progressive movement.

Fascism was crafted by ex-socialist as a third way between socialism and “liberalism” aka free market capitalism and individualism. It is correctly labeled as a nationalist movement but then so was the progressive movement.

First a look at the progressive movement in it’s heyday.

Teddy Roosevelt gave his “New Nationalism” speech based on a book by New Republic co-founder Herbert Croly called “The Promise of American Life

The book is said to “offer a manifesto of Progressive beliefs” that “anticipated the transition from competitive to corporate capitalism and from limited government to the welfare state.”

For Croly, the individualistic, libertarian America of the agrarian 18th and 19th centuries was gone, swept away by the forces of the industrial revolution, urbanization, centralization and modernity. He advocated a new political consensus that included as its core nationalism, but with a sense of social responsibility and care for the less fortunate. Since the power of big business, trusts, interest groups and economic specialization had transformed the nation in the latter part of the 19th century, only the embracing of a counterbalance to this power would serve the society of the future. Croly pressed for the centralization of power in the Federal Government to ensure democracy, a “New Nationalism.”

Herbert Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms.  Syndicalist is a form of socialism.  From Wikipedia;

Syndicalism is a type of economic system, a form of socialism, proposed as a replacement for capitalism. It is a proposal that industries be organised into confederations or syndicates . . .

Syndicalists state that society ought to be organised bottom-up based on direct democracy, confederation, workplace democracy and decentralised socialism.

In Teddy Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” speech he said.

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

Roosevelt were not anti-corporation in fact they were pro-corporation as long as long as the corporations served the “National interests”  His goal and, the progressive goal was to make corporations slaves to the state through regulations. He also didn’t have a problem with people getting rich as long as they used that wealth in the “national interest”  Again from his “New Nationalism” speech.

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

Everything envisioned by the fascist movement.  The only thing that kept the early progressives from turning our country into full fledged fascist country were the restraints put on them by the Constitution.

From Wikipedia.

Fascism /fæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy in the immediate aftermath of World War I,

L.K Samuels wrote an excellent piece called Hitler and Mussolini: History’s Dirty Little Secret

Here is an excerpt.

But how did fascism become anchored to Marxism? Historically, fascism arose in the 1890s out of a crisis in Marxist theory which was making Marxism archaic, obsolete and irrelevant. One of its major crises dealt with class conflict. The problem was, few workers were interested in class struggle. Instead, the populace was drawn to the flags of nationalism, especially with the unification of Italy in 1861 and of Germany in 1871. In an attempt to save Marxism, a number of notable Marxist intellectuals attempted to replace class struggle with revolutionary nationalism. In a well-documented article, “The Mysteries of Fascism,” David Ramsay Steele explained: “Fascism began as a revision of Marxism by Marxists…”[6]

That changed slightly in 1914, when Mussolini joined a splinter group of revolutionary syndicalists who supported Italy’s entrance into World War I.

The modern progressive would have you believe that fascism is the corporate takeover of government when history shows that quite the opposite is true.  Modern progressives as the fascist of old would also deny these industrialist their voice.  This country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation and on the principles that that taxation should be equally applied to all.  You hear the modern progressive scream at the top of their lungs “Corporations aren’t people” while they tax them as one while demanding that they have no political voice in relationship to the amount of taxes paid.  Thomas Jefferson wrote on this abuse.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

I take it a step further, the progressive tax amounts to bribery, it allows the progressives a means of expanding the power and scope of the federal government by promising a free ride to a segment of the population if they are kept in power. Thomas DiLorenzo wrote in “The Founding Fathers of Participatory Fascism

The interventionists eventually won out, so that today’s political/economic system (in the U.S. and in many other copycat countries) can be described as “participatory fascism,” to borrow a phrase used by Robert Higgs. It is a system of crony capitalism financed by a central bank, government borrowing, and pervasive taxation. It is a system that is of plutocratic elites, for plutocratic elites, and by plutocratic elites (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, the true founding father of this system). The massive welfare state is merely used to buy enough votes to maintain the “legitimacy” of the system.

Of course the modern progressives ignore two truisms.

1. Daniel Webster’s quote “ An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy

When taxation is not uniformly applied to all or used by the government as a tool to modify behavior or society, freedom is lost and the “Constitutional Republic is Destroyed” The only fair tax would be a national sales tax or a flat income tax that only applies to individuals.  Then and only then will all of the people have a stake in holding the government accountable.


2. Lord Acton Quote “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

The modern progressive repeatedly calls for more and more regulation on corporations while denying them a political voice.  They cite the corruption of crony capitalism while ignoring the fact that it was the “progressive movement” that created this unholy alliance in the first place.  It was one of the leaders of the movement Teddy Roosevelt who decided that he alone had the power to decide who was a good trust and who was a bad.  And the bad where to be destroyed.  This created the political necessity for business to throw loads of money at the “political class” in order to have a favorable standing and to insure that the regulations favored them.  Of course this put the small business owner at a distinct disadvantage.  The problem is the regulatory climate.  The cure is not more regulation but to take that power away from the politician and to punish the corrupt politicians. Thomas Sowell wrote about the advantages of the modern fascist state.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies,

It’s time to wake up America, take your country back and restore individual rights and reject this modern form of collectivism.

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is America Is Ripe For Authoritarianism?

With the upcoming elections anyone paying attention will have noticed the left has ramped up it’s use of the fascist card and proclaim that fascism is a right wing ideology but they never really define what is left and what is right.  They simply state that communism is on the far left and Fascism on the far right.  If you ask them where anarchy fits in that spectrum, they are unable to answer.  Here is an example of a defined measure and it’s one that I use.

Yesterday on one of the political forums someone posted an article  called “America Is Ripe For Authoritarianism.”  They frequently use the circular reasoning that corporations control the government and therefore government needs more control.

Continue reading

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Video | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

First Amendment Victory and Freedom of the Press

Left wing squawker Sue Wilson has attempted to shut down Right Wing talk radio for the better part of two years. Sue founded Media Action Center a left wing attack group.  I remember the day that she responded to me with

WI Broadcasters Assn knows the rules, don’t you?

To which I responded

You have to read the whole thing. Again equal access only applies to the  candidates themselves, if say WMIN has Scott Walker on then Tom Barret has 7 days to ask for equal time. PERIOD! The time the talking heads spend talking about the candidates means nothing. See pages 2-5 of your own document.

She made several false arguments.  First is that the government owns the airwaves.  The FCC is a regulatory body and they don’t even make such a claim.  However the bulk of her claim was based on the Zapple Doctrine which was an offshoot of the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine. A court case she repeatedly cited was Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCCRed Lion’s radio station, WGCB, aired a program that attacked an author and journalist, Fred J. Cook. Cook requested “equal time” but was refused; the FCC supported his claim because the agency viewed the WGCB program as a personal attack.

The Red Lion case had its origins when author Fred J. Cook criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in his book, Barry Goldwater: Extremist on the Right (1964). A radio station operated by Red Lion Broadcasting Company in Red Lion, Pennsylvania, ran a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis criticizing Cook. Hargis claimed that Cook had been fired from the New York World-Telegram newspaper for false charges against a New York city official and that Cook, writing for The Nation (which Hargis characterized as having “championed many communist causes”), had attacked Federal Bureau of Investigation directorJ. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency.

When Cook heard of the broadcast, he demanded free reply time to address the attack. The broadcast station refused to allow Cook to reply to the allegations. On appeal, the FCC declared that the station should give Cook an opportunity to reply to allegations against him.

The FCC won the appeal based in part on the claim that broadcast stations were scarce. But she conveniently left out a key part of the ruling.  And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. The fairness doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect.”

In fact it was the leftist group California League of Women Voters and Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who sued the FCC to put biased editorial content not on for profit radio but on taxpayer funded “Public Radio”  The finding of the court included the following.

Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380]   of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.

The oral arguments for the FCC’s case were argued by now Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito and was celebrated by the leftist site “Democracy Now” in their piece FCC vs. The League of Women Voters: A Look at the Case That Pitted Samuel Alito Against Pacifica Radio, where they celebrated their victory in putting leftist editorials on taxpayer funded radio. This ruling caused the FCC to reevaluate the “Fairness Doctrine”

In 1984, the FCC began a comprehensive reexamination of the public policy and constitutional implications of the fairness doctrine. . . Commission concluded that the doctrine no longer serves the public interest in access to diverse sources of information. In re Inquiry into Section 73.1910 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations Concerning the General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 F.C.C.2d 143, 147 (1985) (hereinafter 1985 Fairness Report) (Pet. App. 77a, 81a). The Commission also questioned whether the doctrine remained consistent with the First Amendment as it had been applied in Red Lion. Id. at 82a-93a.

Of course the leftist groups were no satisfied with the fact that they helped kill a regulation that they used to stifle free speech so they went to the courts yet again in order to force enforcement of the “Fairness doctrine” The SYRACUSE PEACE COUNCIL (an anti-nuclear power activist group) demanded equal time to the editorials that favored a nuclear power plant.  Initially the FCC found in favor of the activist and the station WTVH petitioned for reconsideration. The station then appealed it  to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge Silberman ordered the commission to reconsider the case because the commission had failed to address WTVH-Meredith Corporation’s claim that the fairness doctrine was unconstitutional.

The court said that the FCC had been “arbitrary and capricious”1 for insisting that WTVH-Meredith Corporation obey a policy that the Commission believed was a First Amendment violation.  The court stated that the FCC would have to address their complaint and/or prove that the doctrine was no longer serving the public interest. The FCC on reconsideration found that the “Fairness Doctrine no longer served the public interest and did violate the First Amendment.  The court concurred.

What this does show is that the left only wants free speech when it suits their agenda and is willing to use both the courts and regulatory agencies to stifle speech they don’t approve of and use them both to push speech that they do.  Sue Wilson’s case is no different.  But ultimately the FCC agreed with every one of my arguments and not Sue Wilson’s.  The following is the FCC’s response to Sue

apstar TX LLC (“Capstar”) for renewal of
its license for WISN(AM), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (“Station”). We also have before us a Petition to Deny
(“Petition”) filed by Media Action Center (“MAC”).
In addition, we have before us a political programming complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Sue Wilson on behalf of several individuals ( “Wilson”). MAC alleges in its Petition and Wilson alleges in the Complaint that Capstar refused to provide air time
on the Station to supporters of Tom Barrett, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Wisconsin, so that
they could respond to statements aired on the Station in support of Scott Walker, the Republican
candidate for that office. MAC and Wilson argue that this refusal violated both the Zapple Doctrine and
the First Amendment. MAC also asserts that Capstar lacks the character qualifications necessary to be a Commission licensee.
4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and the Complaint and grant the Application. . . .  While MAC purports to make Zapple Doctrine (and First Amendment) claims, we find that its real complaints relate to the Station’s programming choices. It is well established, however, that the Commission cannot exercise any power of censorship over broadcast stations with respect to content based programming decisions.A licensee has broad discretion – based on its right to free speech – to choose the programming that it believes serves the needs and interests of the members of its audience.  In any event, we note that we have no basis to enforce the Zapple Doctrine. The doctrine was  based on an interpretation of the fairness doctrine, which the Commission abrogated in Syracuse Peace Council in 1987 after concluding that it no longer served the public interest, was not statutorily mandated, and was inconsistent with First Amendment values. In 1989, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that the fairness doctrine no longer served the public interest, without reaching the constitutional question. In August 2011, the Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director characterized the fairness doctrine as “defunct” and deleted rules referencing the fairness doctrine as “obsolete” after finding them to be “without current legal effect.” Given the fact that the Zapple Doctrine was based on an interpretation of the fairness doctrine, which has no current legal effect, we conclude that the Zapple Doctrine similarly has no current legal effect.

Based on the FCC’s response I would say that the answer to the first question that you posed would be a resounding yes. And your attack on me and my fellow broadcasters is unfounded.

Given their response — and the disinformed Rightwing knee-jerkery it has now inspired across the web, from the likes of Brian Sikma at Media Trackers (“Liberals Pressure Obama Admin to Muzzle Wisconsin Talk Radio”) and Marshall Keith at People’s Republic of Madison (“The Queen of Censorship is Back”!) — it’s no surprise that these folks would have no clue about what “bonafide news” actually is.


Posted in Libertarian | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Thom Hartmann’s Revisionist History

I have had issues with Thom Hartmann’s revisionist history, he tends to take pieces out of context and create an alternate history. His latest piece is no exception.





At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
It’s a debate we haven’t had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn’t be had again in this generation.

But it’s a debate that’s vital to the survival of democracy in America.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, “If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree…”

Of course this begs the question how much wealth becomes a threat to the state? Who gets to decide? And what Due Process is the estate granted before this theft takes place. What Thom ignores are the words in the same paragraph that says otherwise.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

Now why would Thom leave that little tidbit out of his piece and why didn’t he link to the source? Of course it’s because it demolishes the entire concept of the theft in the name of Redistribution called the progressive tax. Thomas Jeffeson was a proponent of the flat tax plain and simple. Now Thomas Jefferson was not heartless, he did make provisions for those too poor to pay, he would have exempted those who made too little. From the same letter.

To this a single observation shall yet be added. Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all.

But it gets even worse for Thom, if it was decided that the tax was an income tax Thomas Jefferson would have abolished all other taxes. The gasoline tax, the coercive sin taxes. Even the Obamacare Penalty aka Tax would be abolished as it amounts to double taxation.

For example, if the system be established on the basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.

So no Thom he did not call for a blanket death tax. His out of context quote “If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State” First you would have to prove in a court of law that the wealth amassed is so great that it’s actually a threat. To do otherwise violates the fifth amendment “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Come on Thom, no more revisionist history.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When Fascism Comes to America

Many have called President Obama a Socialist, they are wrong. He is a Fascist, before anyone invokes Godwin’s law look at the facts. The left loves to claim that Fascism is a right wing philosophy but it is in fact socialism with the illusion of ownership. But that is what ownership in America has become, an Illusion every aspect of the use of your land or business has been regulated to the point that ownership itself is a mere illusion.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

This is not new for the progressive movement it follows the same path of its Progressive predecessors who believed that they could force society to live their utopian dream by banning products such as Alcohol and smoking. We had Prohibition and Tobacco Bans early in the first progressive movements. They failed because they were overly intrusive all at once. On Smoking I can’t do any better then Dave Hitt did at his “Hittman Chronicles“. On Prohibition we see it every day with the tightning of DWI laws to the point that if you even use a mouthwash you are probably in violation. With the extreme takeover of the healthcare industry (1/6th of the economy) we can only expect this to accelerate.

I don’t think when Mitchell said those words but even the ACLU see’s the implication on freedom.

But it’s not only there that this Fascistic regime is attempting to control you life. Obama couldn’t get Cap and Trade passed so he used a regulatory agency the EPA to drive up costs for regular energy in order to force his “green initiative” Of course this will have a devastating effect on working class people making them even more dependent on the government which of course is the goal. But since its inception the EPA and the regulatory climate has been the enemy of freedom and free enterprise as shown by John Stossel’s illegal everything. Yes it’s a long video but it shows that people are thrown in jail not because they harmed someone but because they violated the protected interest of the political elite It also shows that people are stripped of the use of their property based on the whims of the government and they depend on the ability to out spend you and it was money extorted from you.

This was all exposed by Ronald Reagan fifty years ago.

Yes, Yes he did not mention Fascism but he put it bluntly here.

Why would a Marxist like Obama chose Fascism over Communism, well the answer is simple and Thomas Sowell puts it bluntly.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

We may have passed “A Time for Choosing” but the transition is not yet complete. We can take back America and restore the individual rights that we deserve.

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Video | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Autopsy of the GOP

Today while listening to the Vicki McKenna show I found the last segment interesting. You can listen to the segment while reading the post. The segment was about courting college aged students to the GOP.

16 minutes in a caller said that the GOP should embrace the libertarian principles. Brian Schimming immediately chimed in stating that Libertarian principles are unpopular. Of course he ignores the popularity of Ron Paul in the last presidential election. Sorry Brian you are wrong on so many ways. Ron Paul drew crowds bigger then Romney and Obama combined.

The above picture was from the liberal bastion of California.

LOS ANGELES — Thousands gathered tonight at UCLA’s Strauss Stadium to show their support for GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

While a specific head count has not yet been released, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that as many as 8,000 attended. Dr. Paul himself acknowledged that tonight’s overwhelming attendance surpassed his Chico rally which took place yesterday; the Chico event drew 6,200.

“Last night we were in a different part of California up in Chico — we had a little rally up there — and they set a record with the number of people coming out. But the record has been broken today.”

Same thing happened in Florida.

Ron Paul’s We are the Future Rally drew an overflow crowd to the USF Sun Dome in Tampa Sunday afternoon. Event organizers at the Sun Dome, which seats over 10,000 people, had to turn supporters away to watch the event on television screens in overflow seating across the street.

In 2008, Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination catapulted the ten-term US congressman (TX) from obscurity into the national spotlight.

Paul’s philosophy of limited government, individual liberty, and rule-of-law resonated with a large and passionate segment of American voters. His platform of fiscal conservatism, foreign policy restraint, and civil libertarianism offered a fresh and interesting combination of policy positions to voters who felt out of place in the conventional politics of the two-party system.

A maverick who criticizes his own party with as much zeal as he criticizes Democrats, Ron Paul was shut out of the Republican National Convention in 2008, and held a separate rally in the same city.

I was a life long Republican who feels like Ronald Reagan felt about the democratic party when he left it. The party left me I did not leave the party. While the Republican party preaches limited government and lower taxes what they practice is exactly the opposite. They cater to mostly the same special interest groups. There is little doubt that the public at large has had it with both parties, they both spend like drunken sailors. (apologies to sailors, they at least spend their own money)

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

Opinions about Congress, while little changed over the past year, also remain very negative. Just 23% offer a favorable opinion of Congress, while 68% express an unfavorable view. Favorable views of Congress hit 50% in spring 2009 but subsequently have plummeted.

For two decades between 1985 and 2005 Congress was generally viewed more favorably than unfavorably. The low point during that period came in the fall of 1995 – just prior to the government shutdown of that year – when 42% offered a favorable opinion of Congress. This is not a short term trend, it is a direct response to the modern paternalistic “Progressive Era”

government_trustRon Paul’s appeal is not that he wants to create even more “protected classes” He does not offer even more so called free stuff as the left does. What he does do is preach limited government and fiscally conservative views, but he also espouses the civil liberties that were guaranteed in the constitution.

Here in Wisconsin we see the assault on small businesses Like Roll Your Own Shops and small Dairy Farmers. We see the push for illegal searches of our DNA for the slightest infraction of the law.

Is this the version of freedom that the founding fathers had envisioned for us? Audrey Silk of New York Clash put together a video that highlights the paternalistic stance of modern America that former Republicans like me find chilling.

Love him or hate him but the likes of Ron Paul and other Libertarians stand for real liberty and limited government and the Main Stream GOP ignores us at their own peril. Ron not only talks the talk but walks the walk and his voting record reflects that. While Ronald Reagan was a step in the right direction he was not the last “true Republican” That prize goes to Barry Goldwater who defended free markets,individual rights,property rights and didn’t believe you could legislate mortality. Here is a debate between Barry Goldwater and socialist Norman Thomas.

Here is what the Republicans must do to attract the youth.

1) Right to work laws must not only include freedom from forced unionization but eliminate all of the unneeded licensing of most jobs. Do you really need a licence to be a bartender subject to the whims of local government? Barbers? Taxi cab owners? All of these laws are protectionist acts to limit competition and cater to special interest groups. If one has the ability that person should not need permission from the government to make a living. The free market will sort the good from the bad.

2) Don’t ever enact legislation in order to create a so called level playing field. On closer inspection you will find it is usually the government that unleveled the field in the first place. Repeal the law that created the problem rather then create even more regulation.

3) Actually stand for civil liberties whether you approve of the individual or the acts of the individual, as Goldwater said “you can’t legislate morality” and that means “equal protection under the law” not “protected class” where some have more rights then others.

4) Actually push for equal taxation, a flat tax or a consumption tax where everyone has equal skin in the game. No deductions no exceptions. Eliminate the corporate tax. In reality corporations don’t pay taxes, that tax is passed on to the consumer and a hidden tax on the poor and makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. The flat tax if implemented should be on all income including capital gains. It would be fair since it would no longer be double taxation through the corporate tax. It also removes the incentive to invest overseas and would promote investment domestically.

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment