Two Views on Socialsim/Communism

You're probably wondering why I include both socialism and communism in the title. That's easy. I've always preferred to describe the difference between them this way: Socialism is simply the soft version of communism, or communism  without the gun at your head.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has produced this video explaining socialism this way.

However, another video which immediately followed by someone who has a different view of what socialism is here.

Watching both of them reveals to me that the second video, obviously done by someone who believes socialism is misunderstood based on the phraseology used in it and the way capitalism is portrayed, is essentially inferring that even though it's been tried over and over again, it's just not yet been done right and we need to keep trying until we get it right, while at the same time ignoring all the hundreds of millions of people who've been exterminated or slaughtered in the name of socialism.

I Can See Clearly Now, the Fog is Gone!

You may recognize the words - even if I've changed them slightly - but you get the point that it's read with the tune in mind. But, just what is the "fog" I refer to?

Today's news is so filled with trivial and deliberately distracting "fluff" that the critically significant issues are obscured.

Like what? you ask. 

First, notice how Chris Cuomo begins the video clip in the article cited here with his question. Chris's premise is that conservatives are actively attempting to obstruct the DOJ's efforts to conduct its investigation into "Russia/Trump Collusion". How clever of him!

As Sen. Ron Johnson explains, it's becoming obvious and apparent that the Obama administration, expecting Hillary to win the election, were downplaying the fact that it knew of the Russian's attempts to influence the election, but then changed its tune in order to cover its butt in light of Trump winning unexpectedly. 

In other words, Obama and company of collaborators scrambled to make up a scenario in order to explain away their illegal actions they knew would be covered up had Hillary been elected president.

This verifies and confirms, in my opinion and in the minds of many others, that the media has been the colluders with the previous administration to carry the water for it in order to distract and divert public attitude towards the duly elected president for the purpose of setting him up for impeachment.

But, it has failed miserably! No evidence, just harassment - destroying people's lives - and intimidation - the threat of a process crime of lying - by Mueller's special counsel. Tucker Carlson's show recently had an individual - John Kirkakou - on testifying to the fact that both Comey and Mueller have along track record of doing just this. (The only available video is of the whole show, so one must advance to the 33:45 mark to watch this interview with John Kirkakou.)

Another source which does a wonderful job of sorting through the confusion of all of this is historian Newt Gringrich in this message he recently posted.

This latest revelation, along with all the other disclosures which have come along over the past months, are beginning to establish the truth about what really was being attempted by the leftist/socialists... take total control of our country's democracy so they could subvert our liberties and freedoms.

A Matter of Perspecitve and Perception

Having long paid close attention to the world of politics,  it has become abundantly clear that our nation's social courtesy and willingness to get along, despite our differences, has deteriorated. 

Any student of history knows that our political system, despite the strong differences between opposiing parties, has, until recently, usually been civil in its conduct with the understanding that the ultimate goal was to come to a compromise in the interest of mutual benefit.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.

The beating (with a cane) of a Senator on the floor of the Senate in the heat of debate during the Civil War period is one past example of how passions have flared out of control.

Today, the behavior and language is much more subtle and deceptive. There have been recent times when some politicians have said things which were clearly absurd and uncalled for, but most of the rhetoric has been far more cryptic.

Nearly all liberal/socialists verbiage when speaking about their “progressive” agenda is couched in terms which sound good to the individual who has yet to develop enough life experience to understand the consequences behind them.

Political correctness is probably the most well-known term. While it sounds good, its deeper implications portend a stifling of free thought and speech - something our founding fathers were extremely and deliberately very concerned about to the point of making it one of the first three rights established in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, Benjamin Franklin is quoted on this topic: "Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

Another current and pressing issue is how we, as a people, should react and deal with the epidemic of mass shootings in our public schools. Politicians on the left speak of passing more laws that will, they claim, bring a complete halt to these tragedies. Yet we currently have a massive array of gun restriction laws on the books which are repeatedly ignored!

Group titles, such as the Alliance for Gun Responsibility seem to be for re-establishing responsible gun ownership, but are actually pro gun control. Such a position naively assumes that if you impose a law restricting their use that all outlaws will honor it. If all law abiding citizens who owned guns of any kind turned them in under the new law, who then would have the upper hand over them? What about the ability of the gun owner to adequately respond to a home intruder? Are they supposed to tell them, "Wait, I need to put in my combination to get my gun so I can shoot you."?

Going a bit more specific on this issue, the mayor of a large metropolitan area is proposing a "safe storage" ordinance which would penalize gun owners if they failed to report lost or stolen guns to the authorities.

Do you detect a pattern here?

Liberals are true-blue bureaucrats. They believe that the state has the answer to all of society's problems through legislation, while maintaining a philosophy that criminals don't need to be accountable for their anti-social actions under the premise that they've experienced someone else's unfair or racist treatment in their past. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that if society is to keep crime in check to deter future ones, then our judicial system must be fair, but firm in our dealing with those who deviate from acceptable behavior. After all, soft judges only make hardened criminals.

At the same time, they paint their ideological opposition, conservatives, as selfish, bigoted, racist, corporate loving capitalist monsters. It would appear that their agenda is to destroy the economy by imposing taxes on the very businesses that provide them revenue for their programs – programs that do not produce real results.

Civility has joined common sense on the street. They have been evicted from their homes and excluded from ongoing public discourse.

What Does a "Cold" Civil War Look Like?

This was originally written by Jack Minzey and adapted with a few revisions by me.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Have you ever wondered... how do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.  

That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. 

There's a pattern here.

What do you think the odds are of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president? What does it really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting in a "cold" civil war. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice by some nutcase. Admit it. You know the Democrats have rejected our system of government and that's why they're acting as they are today. Here's a prime example on the issue of immigration.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election by convincing enough voters that the party in power isn't doing it right. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only "legitimate" exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without the judge's say so, that's the "cold" civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system running this country today. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played, that's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. Remember how A.G. Holder dealt with Arizona? But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. In fact, Obama made it difficult to understand which one was safe to use. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left shifts power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. Remember Lois Lerner and the IRS? This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, if you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him too.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail, like Mueller's already done to Mannifort and Flynn. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary text about taking out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials like Samantha Power engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between a conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

The important question remains... what will it take to cause the shift from a "cold" civil war, to a real one?

Whatever Happened With the Anti-Trust Laws?

The real estate collapse of 2008 is fresh enough in our minds to understand and remember the impact it had on our lives.

Over the past decade I've made a point to research and understand at a more detailed level the causes which created that situation. Most of the public has no, to very little, understanding of just how far back events go which contributed to it. Sure, they may have seen the movie "The Big Short" which touches on one of the many facets in the vast web that were part of an eventual trigger point.

In the aftermath of the months which began as Bush's administration came to an end, and Obama's came into power, Congress engaged in creating new laws known as the Dodd-Frank bill which was easily passed in a Democrat controlled Congress in the first two years of Obama's administration.

The media claimed in their reports that it was designed to rectify many of the banking abuses which partially contributed to the circumstances which led up to that devistating point.

However, today, one of our former president's close advisors has released an opinion article which makes claims contrary to what most of us believe that bill supposedly corrected banking practices which contributed to that collapse. 

According to Dick Morris it didn't do any such thing. In fact, it did the opposite. He asserts, and from what I understand from my research is correct, it allowed for the larger mega-banks to absorb the smaller local community banks.

I urge my readers to read his opinion article here to understand more clearly why he makes his assertion, as several others are doing, and why it seems obvious that instead the Anti-Trust laws of just over a hundred years ago are being ignored today. I believe, it is because our elected "leaders" are beholden to, and corrupted by, the very corporate control which keeps them in office; donations to their campaigns for re-election.

The more important issue, in my opinion is, given the reports I've studied - here's one, for example - and the indicators from a variety of financial experts, how much time do we have under the current more fragile economic circumstances we witness going on now before another collapse hits? Some are claiming the next economic collapse could be much worse. After all, we are currently witnessing many, if not more, of the very same circumstances in the housing market which were happening back in 2003 to 2007.

3.5 Million Ghost Voters?

For many years the battle has been going on for cleaning up the voter registration records across the country.

Conservatives assert that too many records are fraught with errors and bogus people that needs to be expunged in order to have a fair and just system of elections. Liberals, on the other hand, assert that they are defending "the people's right to vote" by resisting any attempt to purge voter registration records because it could potentially deny someone that right.

According to Dick Morris's latest video it is the judicial system of our government - the courts - which is perpetuating the high likelyhood of voter fraud.

I ask... Is it not the courts who are repeatedly resisting the president through rulings in Trump's attempt to use the very same tool - executive order - in order to rectify some of the actions which the previous president himself took that has thrown a proverbial "wrench" into the machinery of government's law and order?

Then, it should be obvious to any thinking individual to conclude that during the previous administration, a plethora of key positions in the courts were placed as a way to ensure that policies implemented by Pres. Obama were protected from the future potential of being erased by an opositional administration such as Pres. Trump's. 
 
Before Obama was elected, liberal judges controlled just one out of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. By the time Obama left office, liberal judges controlled nine of the 13 circuits.

It's long been my suspicion that back in the spring presidential campaign of 2008, Sen. Obama and Hillary Clinton met at a secret meeting to negotiate a political arrangement between them which would enhance the progressive agenda.

I conjecture that the meeting's discussion went something like this...

O: Hillary, I recognize that you are a formidible opponent in this race, but you must understand that I have connections in very high places which are backing me who will see to it that I will be the next president-elect.

H: Well, Barrack, I too have many connections in high places as well as  my gender to launch me into the White House. After all, I've been there, done that.

O: I'm more concerned about keeping the Democrat Party unified and strong, so that we can carry out our long term agenda of a globally dependent economy and cooperation with the E.U. to deal with the threat of China's attempt to dominate the game.

H: Well, you do have a good point. We need to remain the dominant player in economics to stave off a global collapse with all the spending we're doing to usher in global socialism.

O: I have a proposal I believe you'll find attractive. Back off of your attacks on me for now. In the meantime, run for the Senate position in New York where it will be easy for you to win, and once I'm President I'll appoint you Secretary of State once you have a term or two under your belt. After all, your only credentials so far is being the First Lady to the first President to get a blow job under the Resolute desk from Monica.

H: Hey, hey! Watch it Barrack, he's still my husband for political purposes... even if we don't have sex any more. That's why he's gone after all those women.

O: Then, after I've served a second term, you can take over in full force to win the White House and carry the mantle of socialism to its full glory with the 3.5 million ghost voters we have backing us. I will set things in motion during my terms in office for you to succeed with ease, and the true cause of our party will be secure.

H: Well, when you put it that way, I don't see how I can refuse. It's a deal!

That's It... Misery for Everyone!

It's finally come to logger heads. Differing ideologies are impacting everyone. Everyone, that is, who are Starbucks devotees.

The Starbucks corporate policies are now affecting those who actually go to local coffee shops to purchase their drinks and, for some, who spend any time in the store relaxing and enjoying their  coffee beverage. 

Wanting to cater to the socialist trends of today, they are conflicted with whether they are a place that is for patrons, or as a public venue that allows non-patrons to spoil the atmosphere for patrons. (This is a prime microcosmic example of how socialist policies ruin the experience for everyone.)

For those readers who still aren't aware of the latest development on Starbuck's use policy, read this article for further details.

I predict that frequent Starbucks patrons will either use the drive-thru window only, or find another coffee vendor altogether for their "daily fix". I'll admit, I love my lattes too, but I quit patronizing this coffee mega corporation years ago due to their other policies.