I am back, after a hiatus and the win by Donald Trump. I see how the main-stream media, career government bureaucrats, entertainers and educators are treating our president unfairly. This has inspired me back into action once again.

Socialism is a religion

Socialism postulates a moral structure on insufficient foundations. Beginning from a non-moral beginning and utilizing an amoral process, it hoped to arrive at a moral endpoint through a reasoning that reduced justice, mercy, nature, happiness, and even a shadow of transcendental longing as wholly subservient to determined historical necessity. In retrospect, one could not have designed a more thorough system of slavery: a religious fervor with Man as the object; a Second Coming without a Messiah. Devoid of moral content and without a lasting legacy, nothing remains in its camp but the myriad of unmarked graves stretching out across a century of muddled ideological passion while projecting its unlearned lessons into the ominous future like curling fingers of fire.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/socialism_as_religion.html#ixzz4bT1aENsW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Socialism is the belief that individual private property is a bad idea. It is thus an anti-Christian and anti-biblical belief. Socialists believe that governments should own most or all property and distribute it out as government experts, scientists, politicians, or occasionally voters see fit. Under socialism, the State puts itself in the place of God and says, “The earth is the State’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.” Under this view, the individual has no protection from his neighbor if his neighbor is in the majority, or if the State somehow deems his neighbor as needful in some way; the State simply uses force to take that individual’s property and give it to someone else. In this sense, the State moves landmarks every day. In this view, the State determines our rights, and gives us our freedoms; here there is no appeal beyond the State. Socialism is the belief, therefore, that stealing is acceptable as long as another man or group of men says so. Socialism believes in theft by majority vote, or theft by a majority of representatives’ votes in Congress. Socialism is the belief that armed robbery is OK as long as you do it through proxy of the government’s gun. Socialism places man, and ultimately the State, in the place of God. Man becomes owned by other men, instead of by his Maker. Socialism is an entirely humanistic, God-denying, God-usurping belief.

Read more at http://americanvision.org/6459/god-versus-socialism/

Of all religions, secular and otherwise, that of Marxism has been by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.

In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

And what did Marxism, this greatest of human social experiments, achieve for its poor citizens, at this most bloody cost in lives? Nothing positive. It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster.

The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable.

The Marxists saw the construction of this utopia as a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, “wreckers,” intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.

The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world’s greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics – a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies.

Read more at  http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28036/

China's Now The Worlds Number One Economy

It’s official: America is now No. 2

Below is from an article written by Brett Arends originally published in marketwatch.com on Dec 4, 2014

Hang on to your hats, America.
And throw away that big, fat styrofoam finger while you’re about it.
There’s no easy way to say this, so I’ll just say it: We’re no longer No. 1. Today, we’re No. 2. Yes, it’s official. The Chinese economy just overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world. For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is not the leading economic power on the planet.
It just happened — and almost nobody noticed.

The International Monetary Fund recently released the latest numbers for the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in “real” terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion — compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A.
As recently as 2000, we produced nearly three times as much as the Chinese.
To put the numbers slightly differently, China now accounts for 16.5% of the global economy when measured in real purchasing-power terms, compared with 16.3% for the U.S.
This latest economic earthquake follows the development last year when China surpassed the U.S. for the first time in terms of global trade.
I reported on this looming development over two years ago, but the moment came sooner than I or anyone else had predicted. China’s recent decision to bring gross domestic product calculations in line with international standards has revealed activity that had previously gone uncounted.
These calculations are based on a well-established and widely used economic measure known as purchasing-power parity (or PPP), which measures the actual output as opposed to fluctuations in exchange rates. So a Starbucks venti Frappucino served in Beijing counts the same as a venti Frappucino served in Minneapolis, regardless of what happens to be going on among foreign-exchange traders.
PPP is the real way of comparing economies. It is one reported by the IMF and was, for example, the one used by McKinsey & Co. consultants back in the 1990s when they undertook a study of economic productivity on behalf of the British government.
Yes, when you look at mere international exchange rates, the U.S. economy remains bigger than that of China, allegedly by almost 70%. But such measures, although they are widely followed, are largely meaningless. Does the U.S. economy really shrink if the dollar falls 10% on international currency markets? Does the recent plunge in the yen mean the Japanese economy is vanishing before our eyes?
Back in 2012, when I first reported on these figures, the IMF tried to challenge the importance of PPP. I was not surprised. It is not in anyone’s interest at the IMF that people in the Western world start focusing too much on the sheer extent of China’s power. But the PPP data come from the IMF, not from me. And it is noteworthy that when the IMF’s official World Economic Outlook compares countries by their share of world output, it does so using PPP.
Yes, all statistics are open to various quibbles. It is perfectly possible China’s latest numbers overstate output — or understate them. That may also be true of U.S. GDP figures. But the IMF data are the best we have.

What is Labor day really about part 2?

With all the Progressives dumping on Obama a thought comes to mind. One must be dubious when reading an admitted Progressives diatribe to explain away another failed Progressive. They are quite good at it cause for the last 300 years their leaders and systems have always failed killing millions in the process. The explanation is always the same that they were not Progressive enough when the real problem is simply that the system rewards failure and punishes success but they cannot admit this cause it is the most important feature of their quasi-religious (with Marx as God) like belief system. In fact just like an extremist religious cult some are willing to kill despite even when exposed to simple obvious truths that are counter to their beliefs! The Labor Day holiday is a good time to revisit the Progressive agenda and how they are constantly revising their own history and attempting to evolve their failed beliefs by reinventing who they really are once you peal away their lies they use to cover up the failures of their own past.

What is Labor day really about part 2?

A revisit of a post I put up two years ago.
I thought Labor day was a good day to contrast the unrealistic Marxist redistributive Socialist utopian dream against the simple well proven truth of American Conservatism.

The first Labor Day was founded by the Central Labor Union in New York city on September 5, 1882.

Leftists wanted May 1st but president Grover Cleveland and Congress opted to choose the date of the original Labor Day parade organized by the CLU, September 5, 1884, rather than May 1, as a national holiday. Thus, the first Monday of September became Labor Day and was officially written into law as a national holiday on June 28, 1894.
" But the last holiday of summer is more than a day off work: It's also one of the most controversial of American holidays, a celebration of the laborers -- and more specifically, the unionized laborers"
a quote from Bruce Watson

So it is obvious that the Left uses Labor Day as another day to promote their Marxist redistributive agenda. The rest of us need to counter this false unsustainable utopian dream that has been proven time and time again to be a complete failure that ends up making many suffer worse then before.

"What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union."
a quote from Janet Daley

"We own this country politicians are employees of ours and when somebody does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go!" Clint Eastwood

On the Internet, there is a cry for replacing this year’s Labor Day – as in American workers’ day – with “Empty Chair Day” inspired by Clint Eastwood’s ‘empty chair’ symbolizing the current employment - or should it be said, unemployment - situation in the country.
I feel Labor Day should now be celebrated as Empty Chair Day! Please do join me in celebrating "National Empty Chair Day" on Labor Day!.

Below is another excellent article from
Real Clear Politics

Public Unions & the Socialist Utopia

By Robert Tracinski

The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence.
Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.

It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone explains, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.
But there is something deeper here than just favor-selling and vote-buying. There is something that almost amounts to a twisted idealism in the Democrats' crusade. They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.
Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business.
In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy in miniature, including its political aspect: the grateful recipients of government largesse provide money and organizational support to re-elect the politicians who shower them with all of these benefits.
Put it all together, and you have the Democrats' version of utopia. In the larger American culture of Tea Parties, bond vigilantes, and rugged individualists, Democrats feel they are constantly on the defensive. But within the little subculture of unionized government employees, all is right with the world, and everything seems to work the way it is supposed to.
This cozy little world has been described as a system that grants special privileges to a few, which is particularly rankling in the current stagnant economy, when private sector workers acutely feel the difference. But I think this misses the point. The point is that this is how the left thinks everyone should live and work. It is their version of a model society.
Every political movement needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal works and that it works.
And there's the rub. The left is running low on utopias.
The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of capitalism, particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called the "Third World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on the European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be so much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic. But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.
In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out, within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health care. Public employment is another.
Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode.
On the national level, it has become clear that the old-age welfare state of Social Security and Medicare is driving the federal government into permanent trillion-dollar deficits and a ruinous debt load. Even President Obama acknowledged, in his State of the Union address, that these programs are the real drivers of runaway debt-just before he refused to consider any changes to them. You see how hard it is for the Democrats to give up on their utopias.
On the state level, public employment promises the full socialist ideal to a small minority-paid for with tax money looted from a larger, productive private economy. But the socialist utopia of public employment has crossed the Thatcher Line: the point at which, as the Iron Lady used to warn, you run out of other people's money.
The current crisis exposes more than just the financial unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few.
This is why the left is treating any attempt to fundamentally reform the public workers' paradise as an existential crisis. This is why they are reacting with the most extreme measures short of outright insurrection. When Democratic lawmakers flee the state in order to deprive their legislatures of the quorum necessary to vote, they are declaring that they would rather have no legislature than allow voting on any bill that would break the power of the unions.
National Review's Jim Geraghty describes these legislative walk-outs as "small-scale, temporary secessions." The analogy is exact. One hundred and fifty years ago, Southern slaveholders realized that the political balance of the nation had tipped against them, that they could no longer hope to win the political argument for their system. Faced with a federal government in which they were out-voted, they decided that they would rather have no federal government at all. The Democrats' current cause may not be as repugnant-holding human beings as chattel is a unique evil-but it has something of the same character of irrational, belligerent denial. More than two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left is still trying to pretend that socialism is plausible as an economic system.
The Democrats are fleeing from a lot more than their jobs as state legislators. They are fleeing from the cold, hard reality of the financial and moral unsustainability of their ideal.

Below is another excellent article from
The failure of unions and socialism
from Braincrave Second Life staff
Mar 02, 2011

Someone once made a comment that he was 100% supportive of a tyrannical, socialist government as long as he was the only citizen of his country (paraphrased). Throughout the world, and especially in America, many are still trying their best to pretend that socialism is a plausible economic system and ideology by attaching it to capitalism. No matter how often socialism has proved to be morally and economically destructive, there continues to be those who desperately want to believe that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a sustainable model.

Currently, there are multiple US states (e.g., Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, Florida) that are attempting to "break" public unions. This struggle appears to be bringing those on the left together. Why are public unions such a particularly big deal for Democrats? Is unionized, public employment representative of the socialist utopia? Given what we are seeing with government's income statement - and specifically the cost of entitlement programs which is primary to liberal ideology - is it hubris to suggest that breaking the public unions would effectively destroy the fundamental premises of the Democratic party and, thus, the party itself? Given that Republicans are just as guilty for supporting collectivism, how destructive could this be to RINOs?

FTA: "The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence. Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left... They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable. Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business...

The point is that this is how the left thinks everyone should live and work. It is their version of a model society. Every political movement needs models. It needs a real-world example to demonstrate how its ideal works and that it works. And there's the rub. The left is running low on utopias. The failure of Communism-and the spectacular success of capitalism, particularly in bringing wealth to what used to be called the "Third World"-deprived the left of one utopia. So they fell back on the European welfare state, smugly assuring Americans that we would be so much better off if we were more like our cousins across the Atlantic. But the Great Recession has triggered a sovereign debt crisis across Europe. It turned out that the continent's welfare states were borrowing money to paper over the fact that they have committed themselves to benefits more generous than they can ever hope to pay for.

In America, the ideological crisis of the left is taking a slightly different form. Here, the left has set up its utopias by carving out, within a wider capitalist culture, little islands where its ideals hold sway. Old age is one of those islands, where everyone has been promised the socialist dreams of a guaranteed income and unlimited free health care. Public employment is another. Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode... The current crisis exposes more than just the financial unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few."

Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement

Justina Pelletier freed from her Big Government forced confinement.

We all need to tell our politicians to support this new law being proposed. The pain and suffering inflicted upon this child was appalling and must never be allowed to happen again. This could happen to someone in your family.

Justina’s Law to Follow “Mad Psychiatric Experiment” on Justina Pelletier

Following the incarceration of Justina Pelletier at state institutions for 16 months, four members of the United States House of Representatives are set to introduce bipartisan legislation that will prohibit the federal funding of medical experiments on wards of the state. Nicknamed Justina’s Law the bill has been drawn up by two Democrats and two Republicans following what Justina’s father, Lou Pelletier has labeled a “mad psychiatric experiment” on his daughter.
Last night Justina, together with her parents Lou and Linda Pelletier and her three sisters, Jennifer, Jessica and Julia, appeared live with Mike Huckabee on his popular weekend talk show hosted by Fox News. Huckabee is one of several media personalities who have championed Justina’s rights over the past months in an endeavor to force the State of Massachusetts (MA) to release her from the custody of the MA Department of Children and Families (DCF) following a court order last year. Lou Pellitier told the television audience, “It was all a mad psychiatric experiment.” Justina, in turn said nobody should ever be “put through” what she has been put through.

"They were so mean and nasty to me, and mean and terrible to my family also." Justina Pelletier

The Controversial Re-diagnosis of Justina Pelletier

The Pelletiers with Mike Huckabee. From left to right: Linda, Jennifer, Huckabee, Jessica, Lou, and in front: Justina and Julia

Justina was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), Massachusetts in February last year after contracting flu that had made her severely ill, dehydrated and unable to eat. Already diagnosed by doctors at Tufts as having the very rare mitochondrial (mito) disease, the then 14-year-old was re-diagnosed at BCH by doctors and psychiatrists who insisted it was all in her head and that she was in fact suffering from Somatoform Disorder.
When her parents refused to accept the new diagnosis and sign approval of it, the hospital called in the DCF that took instant legal action and had her declared a ward of the state. They also charged the Pelletiers with “medical child abuse,” stating that they had over-medicated their daughter, in spite of the fact that they were following instructions from reputable doctors at the renowned Tufts Medical Center. The hospital withdrew all her medication, refused to allow her to continue at school, and would not permit her to even go to church, in spite of the fact that the family is very religious.
From being an active figure skater in December 2012, she is now in a wheelchair and cannot stand or walk without help. But after living a life of hell for 16 months, Justina was carried back into the family home in Connecticut on Wednesday last week by her father. At last they were out of what Lou Pelletier described to Mike Huckabee last night as “this Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole.”
BCH Allowed to do Research on Wards of the State
In BCH’s The Clinical Investigation Policy and Procedure Manual that details policy for wards of the state at the hospital, the first clause states: “Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents minimal risk…” It also states: “Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit…”
There are additional clauses in the three-page document that Guardian Liberty Voice has in its possession. This includes the need for approval from the DCF Research Proposal Review Committee before research may begin. Parents of children who are Wards are not consulted and their permission for their children to be “guinea pigs” is not required.
Justina’s Bill
The new bill that has been introduced, H.R. 4989, is aimed at all US hospitals like Boston Children’s because of this very policy that allows patients who are legally Wards of the State to receive whatever treatment the hospital deems fit, or be part of a research program. The four representatives (reps) behind the bill are Republicans Michele Bachmann representing Minnesota and Tom Marino representing Pennsylvania, and Democrats Karen Bass representing California and Jim McDermott representing Washington State.
In a press release issued on Friday June 27, the four reps each made a statement:
• Rep. Michele Bachmann said it was their duty to ensure children were “kept safe from harm while in the custody of their respective states.” Not all families were willing to advocate on the children’s behalf like the Pelletiers had done, she said. What happened to Justina Pelletier was “unconscionable” and it was essential “to prevent it from ever happening again.” The first step would be to remove federal funding that would allow “such experimentation” in future.
• Rep. Tom Marino pointed out how “lucky” Justina Pelletier was to have parents who had fought so hard for her and “leveraged the support of the media and public officials.” He was supporting the other three reps, he said, because it was vital that no child “should be subject to medical experimentation under the legal designation as ward of the state.”
• Rep. Karen Bass said children should be cared for and loved and not “experimented on.” The bill, she said would “make it clear that children are blessings, not guinea pigs.”
• Rep. Jim McDermott highlighted the “strength and bravery” of Justina Pellier and her family, calling it “a guidestar” for the nation. It was their responsibility to make sure children were not the “subject of risky medical experimentation,” he said and for this reason he was working with the other three reps “to pass Justina’s law as quickly as possible.”
Highlights of the Huckabee Interview

Justina Pelletier talks to Mika Huckabee

Probably the biggest highlight of the Huckabee interview last night was the declaration that Justina’s Law would “cut off any funding” to organizations that experiment on children without their family’s permission. This, Huckabee told Justina and his studio audience was “what we hope for.”

Oh my gosh that is awesome. Justina Pelletier

It was not a long interview, but it was a happy one, unlike the many that had gone before. First Mike Huckabee spoke to Justina. Holding her hand tightly he asked her if she knew that so many people had been praying for her. She simply nodded and said that it had made her “feel so much better” and had helped her through the ordeal. Asked what the hardest part had been, she said it was not being able to be with her family, reminding the audience that she was only allowed one telephone call per week, for 20 minutes, and strictly supervised by the DCF whose officials would not allow her to talk about things that were meaningful to her (for instance her health).
Justina Pelletier told Mike Huckabee that all she knew was that the DCF had taken custody of her, and that her family could not talk to her because they had been “over-medicalizing” her – “which they were not.” She said it had been “very scary” because there was no-one on her side and no-one at BCH believed what she said. They stopped all her medication because “they all though I was faking this medical stuff.” She said they also tried to insist that her condition was improving when it was not.

"I love my family so much; I cannot believe I am home with them." Justina Pelletier

Linda Pelletier, Justina’s mother was next. She said she had worried all day, every day not knowing what the medical team at BCH was doing to her daughter. She discovered that Justina had had pneumonia on two occasions when a doctor called her to report, “she (Justina) is really was not doing well.” Linda still cannot fathom “why they did this; there is no explanation.”
Lou Pelletier who earlier this year broke a gag order not to speak to the press, taking his daughter’s plight to every media person and television station willing to listen, said it had been like fighting a “two-headed Goliath” in the form of Harvard Medical School, “the wealthiest college in the land” and BCH which is owned by Harvard. “It was all a mad psychiatric experiment. They said we were jeopardizing her by not following the BCH protocol, which was to take her off all her medications because what she had was all in her head.”
Lou Pelletier has said it before publicly, and he said it again, “Diagnosis of Somatoform takes over a year to diagnose and it is one of the most nebulous diagnoses there is.” Yet the doctors at BCH made this controversial diagnosis 12 hours after she had arrived at the hospital, and after only a 25-minute interview, he said. His explanation was that Somatoform is the “pet project” or specialty at BCH. “They do it because they can.”

"They had their own agenda; and that’s a sad thing." Lou Pelletier

And then the sisters had their turn. Jennifer, the oldest, said she was “a bit shocked” when Justina telephoned suddenly last week to say she was allowed to go home. “It is fantastic to have her back home where she belongs.” Jessica, who as also been diagnosed with mito said she was “beyond shocked.” Julia, the youngest of the four, who has happily gone back to sharing a bedroom with Justina, said she was just longing to get “back to normal.”
The best for Justina Pelletier is that she will be starting school this week and is now able to spend time for her friends and beloved family. “Later I will be ice figure skating again,” she told Huckabee optimistically. Now aged just 16, the teenager who was part of a “mad psychiatric experiment” stands to have Justina’s Law named after her to ensure that nothing like this ever happens to an American citizen again. The Pelletier family concedes it is going to be a long road, but it is one they are happy to be going down it together.
By Penny Swift
Sources
Michele Bachmann
Fox News
Daily News
The Boston Globe

Donald Sterling Spewing Racist Statements is a Democrat

In an article from The Daily Caller - Donald Sterling was exposed Friday by TMZ making racially charged comments about African Americans to his girlfriend V. Stiviano in an audio recording. Between 1990 and 1992 Donald Sterling made a $2,000 donations to the former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, a $1000 donation to current Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, as well as a $1000 donation to the recalled former governor of California Gray Davis. Despite having a 100% track record of donating to Democrats, Littlesis.org has no records of him donating to either of President Barack Obama’s election campaigns.

 This shows that there is still some racism in the world and contrary to the Democratic narative it is on both sides of the isle! This also includes the Democrats in equal measure have some racism within their ranks. In my humble opinion is that it is only a very small minority of Americans are racist and this behavior can not be tolerated on any level. One also can not lightly accuse anyone of racism with out definitive evidence.

I thought this list was interesting and worth posting.
The United States History of Racism Against Blacks by the Democrats who have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism.

1. The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats, and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. As you read the following Democratic atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.
2. March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.
3. May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party.
4. June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party.
5. July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
6. February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet.
7. February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
8. March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.
9. May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover.
10. March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.
11. June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks.
12. October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
13. October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation.
14. June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery.
15. April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.
16. April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.
17. July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver.
18. July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”.
19. August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation.
20. August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army.
21. September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
22. January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect.
23. February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery.
24. June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War.
25. June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts.
26. October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”.
27. January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition.
28. March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.
29. April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.
30. June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation.
31. November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.
32. December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
33. February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.
34. April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
35. April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery.
36. May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.
37. June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
38. July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights.
39. July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen.
40. July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150.
41. January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
42. July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.
43. March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.
44. May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors.
45. September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress.
46. September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress.
47. September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor.
48. October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.
49. October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan.
50. November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation.
51. December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
52. February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.
53. May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies.
54. May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
55. June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.
56. September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.
57. February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.
58. March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.
59. April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.
60. October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands.
61. October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.
62. November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.
63. January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government.
64. September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed.
65. March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.
66. September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”.
67. January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.
68. July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery.
69. August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South.
70. June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates.
71. February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote.
72. December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.
73. May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”.
74. December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools.
75. May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans.
76. January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.
77. October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
78. May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.
79. February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.
80. June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions.
81. August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice.
82. May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no.
83. April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus.
84. August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.
85. January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster.
86. June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.
87. October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention.
88. December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”.
89. June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.
90. August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation.
91. June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it.
92. October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries.
93. April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system.
94. August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
95. February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools.
96. July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters.
97. September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
98. December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education.
99. May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education.
100. November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel.
101. March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation.
102. June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law.
103. October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”.
104. November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.
105. September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act.
106. September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.
107. June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights.
108. February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats.
109. May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
110. July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform.
111. May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights.
112. June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama.
113. September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School.
114. June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate.
115. June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
116. June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act.
117. March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL.
118. March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace.
119. August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose.
120. August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor.
121. July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits.
122. September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders.
123. February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.
124. September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs.
125. June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act.
126. August 10, 1988 Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR.
127. November 21, 1991 Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation.
128. August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law.
129. April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President.
130. January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”.
131. March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference.
132. May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture.
133. February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me”
134. I should also point out that The Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats.

Fascism is a deformity of Socialism, not of Capitalism

Fascism is a deformity of Socialism, not of Capitalism

Someone recently asked what I mean by this so I thought it was worth elaborating. According to Merriam Webster Fascism means -

fas·cism

noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

: very harsh control or authority

1

often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2

:  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism

and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

— fas·cist noun or adjective often capitalized

— fas·cis·tic adjective often capitalized

— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly adverb often capitalize

So with that being said with Socialism being a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. 

As Communism is defined as a :  a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b :  a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c :  a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d :  communist systems collectively

Capitalism is defined as an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

My conclusion after studying the above definitions is that the system and/or systems leaders that has evolved into Fascism the most often would almost all have came from some form of Socialist or Communist system. here are some examples 

• The first Fascist leader was Benito Mussolini who started out as member of the Italian Socialist Party. Upon gaining control of Italy by 1935, Mussolini claimed that three-quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. Does this sound like private ownership?
• The Showa Studies Society of Japan was another "think tank" for future leaders of a radical totalitarian Japan, led by Count Yoriyasu Arima. He was a supporter of radical political experiments. He read Karl Marx and Max Stirner, and other radical philosophers. With Fumimaro Konoe and Fusanosuke Kuhara, they created a revolutionary radical-right policy. These revolutionary groups later had the help of several important personages, making reality to some certain ideas of the nationalist-militarist policy with practical work in Manchukuo. They included General Hideki Tōjō, chief of Kempeitai and leader of Kwantung Army; Yosuke Matsuoka, who served as president of the (South Manchuria Railway Company) and Foreign Affairs minister; and Naoki Hoshino, an army ideologist who organized the government and political structure of Manchukuo. Tojo later became War Minister and Prime Minister in the Konoe cabinet, Matsuoka Foreign Minister, and Hoshino chief of Project departments charged with establishing a new economic structure for Japan. Some industrialists representative of this ideological strand were Ichizō Kobayashi, President of Tokio Gasu Denki, setting the structure for the Industry and Commerce ministry, and Shōzō Murata, representing the Sumitomo Group becoming Communication Minister. Other groups created were the Government Imperial Aid Association. Involved in both was Colonel Kingoro Hashimoto, who proposed a Nationalist single party dictatorship, combined with a state-run economy. The militarists had strong support from the wealthy owners of major industries, but there were also certain socialist-nationalist sentiments on the part of radical officers, aware of poor farmers and workers who wanted social justice. The "New Asia Day" celebration was to remember the sacred mission of extending influence to nearby Asian nations. The Japanese government, possibly following the German example of a "Worker's Front" State Syndicate, ultimately organized the Nation Service Society to group all the trades unions in the country. All syndicates of the "Japanese Workers Federation" were integrated into this controlling body. After reading the preceding from Wikipedia's article on Japan one can conclude it was a sort of hybrid of Nationalist Socialism and Capitalism.
• Germany's Adolf Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist before he became a Fascist Dictator. Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation. Sounds like a twist of Socialism to me and defiantly not based on Capitalism. 
• MaoTse-Tung, Stalin,Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi and Fidal Castro all are closer to Fascism then they were to Capitalism.

Justina Pelletier the Poster Child for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!

Justina Pelletier the Poster Child 

for Excessive BIG Government Oppression!

 What would you do if your child was about to be kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital? This is the question that comes to mind as one learns about Justina Pelletier's plight in Boston Massachusetts.

Sign the petition today and let’s return Justina to her family.

  Story Summary

Justina Pelletier Custody Case

FOX CT’s Beau Berman has been following the case of Justina Pelletier, a West Hartford teen who has been held from her parents since they admitted her to Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013 with flu-like symptoms. Justina had previously been diagnosed with mitochondrial disease at Tufts Medical Center in 2011. Doctors at Boston Children’s questioned the diagnosis and said they believed her symptoms — including weakness, headaches and abdominal pain — were psychologically induced. They diagnosed her with somatoform disorder, a mental disorder. Justina’s parents disagreed with that diagnosis, and have been in a custody dispute with the State of Massachusetts ever since. She remains in Massachusetts custody.

Below is from an article by Ken Klukowski published on 28 Feb 2014 in Breitbart.com/Big-Government

These are the facts as relayed by Staver, parts of which Breitbart News has corroborated with court documents and with a Boston Globe story.
Staver begins:

Prior to her admission to Boston’s Children’s Hospital, Justina was being treated by Dr. Mark Korson associated with Tufts Medical Center, and being treated under a working diagnosis of mitochondrial disease. Korson explained, as does the Mayo Clinic, that your cells are not transmitting enough energy, and the lack of energy impacts different parts of your body in different ways.

Korson referred Lou and Linda to his former colleague, Dr. Alejandro Flores, who had previously worked on Justina’s case and was now at Boston Children’s Hospital. When the parents got there and Justina was admitted, a new doctor took the case before Flores could see Justina.
According to Staver:

Boston Children’s Hospital is a teaching hospital for Harvard. Children who are ‘wards of the state’ are by state law subjects of research for teaching hospitals. So a young doctor and a pediatrician disagree with Justina’s treating physicians and come up with somatoform disorder, which is where a person convinces herself that she’s sick. They change the diagnosis from physical to mental, and suggest it’s all in her head.

Breitbart News was told the first physician is Dr. Jurriaan Peters, a neurologist who had finished his medical training just seven months earlier. Peters brought in Dr. Simona Bujoreanu, a psychologist. Although Tufts had been treating Justina for a physical condition for a year, Peters and Bujoreanu began to believe the problem was mental rather than physical.

 Staver explains that the family is only allowed to see Justina for one hour per week and only under strict supervision. Last week during that one hour, there were four DCF workers and a police officer all present when Linda was with Justina. They are not allowed to take photos or use a cell phone.
Nor are they allowed to go in as a full family. The 92 year-old grandparents have not seen Justina for thirteen months, and one of Justina’s sisters (she’s the youngest of four) has not seen her since May.
Staver adds, “She’s now two full grades behind her class. She has gone from ice-skating competitions to being in a wheelchair.”
The family is Roman Catholic, yet Staver says Justina has not been allowed communion for this entire thirteen-month period.
The Juvenile Court has scheduled a hearing on Justina’s status and care for Mar. 17, though Staver says the family is gravely concerned about her deteriorating health in the meantime. The judge has also scheduled a hearing regarding the gag order for Mar. 24.
Staver argues, “If her condition were not real, if it were mental and not physical, then she should have gotten better; instead she has gotten worse.” He says he asked the parents, “What do you want out of this situation?” He recounts they answered, “We want to take our daughter back to Tufts Medical Center so she can receive the treatment she needs. And we want our daughter to be reunited with the family.”

Emily Gets Her Gun

Emily Gets Her Gun 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/
An Article By Emily Miller - Originally published in the The Washington Times on October 5, 2011, 12:49AM

This is the first of a series of great articles about just how difficult it is to get a handgun in DC.
The article follows Emily Miller as she navigates the government bureaucracy in order to lawfully obtain a gun as is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment to all law abiding American citizens.

I fully endorse a Woman's right to pro-choice of the pistol she desires.

Workers at Tennessee Volkswagen factory reject United Auto Workers union

Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Tennessee have voted against union representation in a devastating defeat for the United Auto Workers union's effort to make inroads in the South.
The 712-626 vote released late Friday was surprising for many labor experts and union supporters who expected a UAW win because Volkswagen tacitly endorsed the union and even allowed organizers into the Chattanooga factory to make sales pitches.
"This is like an alternate universe where everything is turned upside down," Cliff Hammond, a labor lawyer at in Detroit, told The Wall Street Journal, noting that companies usually fight union drives.
"This vote was essentially gift-wrapped for the union by Volkswagen," said Hammond, who previously worked at the Service Employees International Union.
The setback is a major defeat for the UAW's effort to expand in the growing South, where foreign automakers have 14 assembly plants, eight built in the past decade, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the labor and industry group at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank in Michigan.
"If this was going to work anywhere, this is where it was going to work," she said of Chattanooga.
Organizing a Southern plant is so crucial to the union that UAW President Bob King told workers in a speech that the union has no long-term future without it.
"If the union can't win [in Chattanooga], it can't win anywhere," Steve Silvia, a economics and trade professor at American University who has studied labor unions, told the Journal.
But the loss likely means the union will remain quarantined with the Detroit Three, largely in the Midwest and Northeast.
Many viewed VW as the union's only chance to gain a crucial foothold in the South because other automakers have not been as welcoming as Volkswagen. Labor interests make up half of the supervisory board at VW in Germany, and they questioned why the Chattanooga plant is the only one without formal worker representation. VW wanted a German-style "works council" in Chattanooga to give employees a say over working conditions. The company says U.S. law won't allow it without an independent union.
In Chattanooga, the union faced stern opposition from Republican politicians who warned that a UAW victory would chase away other automakers who might come to the region.
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee was the most vocal opponent, saying that he was told that VW would build a new midsized SUV in Chattanooga if workers rejected the union. That was later denied by a VW executive. Other politicians threatened to cut off state incentives for the plant to expand if the union was approved.
“I’m thrilled for the employees and thrilled for our community,” Corker said in a telephone interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I’m sincerely overwhelmed.”
"The UAW had all the advantages," the Republican senator told the newspaper. "Everybody but the UAW had both hands tied behind their backs. I’m just thankful the employees made the decision they made."
After 53 percent of the workers voted against his union, King said he was outraged at what he called "outside interference" in the election. He wouldn't rule out challenging the outcome with the National Labor Relations Board.  "It's never happened in this country before that the U.S. senator, the governor, the leader of the House, the legislature here, threatened the company with no incentives, threatened workers with a loss of product," King said. "We'll look at all our options in the next few days."
The union could contend that Corker and other local politicians were in collusion with VW and tried to frighten workers into thinking the SUV would be built in Mexico if they voted for the union, said Gary Chaison, a labor relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
But Chaison said it will be difficult to tie the politicians to the company, which remained neutral throughout the voting process. "It's the employer that has real power," he said.
The loss put a spotlight on the union's major difficulty in the South: signing up people who have no history with organized labor and are fearful of being the first in the area to join, Chaison said.
Dziczek said the union may have to change its tactics in future organizing efforts, because King's strategy of the union and company working together to help each other did not work.
But she does not expect the well-funded union to give up on organizing Southern factories. "I think they will continue to push everywhere they were pushing and see if they get more traction," she said.
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam said through a spokesman that he was pleased with the vote and "looks forward to working with the company on future growth in Tennessee."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Almost Ten Years Later, Al Qaeda Flags Fly over Fallujah

“At the moment, there is no presence of the Iraqi state in Fallujah,” a local journalist who asked not to be named because he fears for his safety told Sly. “The police and the army have abandoned the city, al-Qaeda has taken down all the Iraqi flags and burned them, and it has raised its own flag on all the buildings.”

The results of the Obama, Clinton, Cary, Pelosi and Reid regimes efforts. Why am I not surprised with this development.

The Affordable Boat Act

The Affordable Boat Act
The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable Boat Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat by April, 2014. These ‘affordable’ boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance, or repair costs.
This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ boat of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ life jackets (does not include monthly usage fees).
In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable boat,’ the cost of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boat(s) to party on until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own boat.
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can’t). If you don’t want or don’t need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable boat’ from a private business, you can buy a starter boat from the U. S. government ‘affordable boat exchange.’ Such a boat will have the basic necessities (hull, oars or paddles) and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar boat purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a boat from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable boat exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a good deal.
Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert, ghettos, inner cities, or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Neither age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.
A government review board (that doesn’t know the difference between the port side, starboard side, or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your boat, along with how many people can ride your boat. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat, and will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories (like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.
Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.
Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.

Obamacare

Some observations on Obamacare also known as the Afordable Care Act.

Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to defend the growing number of cancellation notices sent to people whose plans changed after the law was implemented, but Emanuel could not.
  James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the grandfather clause in ObamaCare too narrow, adding that “the whole point of the exchanges was to close down the individual insurance market.”
Capretta called out Obama’s pitch to the public about the benefits of the plan and repeated pledges that Americans would be able to keep their current insurance providers if they liked it misleading and says Obama should shoulder the blame.
“There’s no extenuating circumstances,” Capretta said. “It was central to passing the law. He said clearly you can keep your plan. This wasn’t a minor pledge. It was central to the law. He broke that pledge.”
Capretta said the Obama administration “shouldn’t be able to play fast and loose” with people’s medical coverage.

The above information came from  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/03/obamacare-architect-defends-plan-insurance-exchanges-on-fox-news-sunday/#

Democrats and racism

I just watched the Movie Lincoln and felt a few facts about the Democratic racists that your Liberal Professor ignores and their deeds of the past were in order.

• African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.

• The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.

• In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.

• The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.

• Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.

• Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.

• In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.

• George Wallace was a Democrat.

• Bull Connor was a Democrat.

• In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.

• In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.

• Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.

• Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.

• Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

• In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).

• Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield.  Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.

• Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.

• By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.

• In 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory.  In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.

• In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”.  That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.

• Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.

• The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.

• In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery:  the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory.  But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.

• Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.  The name of that party?  They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress  had perverted those original principles.

• One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner.  In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death.  According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them.  What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner?  He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.

• In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan.  In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform.  It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

• In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.

• It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred  Scott decision.  In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished.  Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.

• African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today.  Consider:  although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans.  In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies.  Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.