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

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.”

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.

DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

The following two articles illustrate perfectly the concerted effort by some of our elected officials to undermine the 2nd Amendment. I suspect that they are looking to capitalize on the recent horrible murders committed by one lone psycho with a stolen gun.

Statistics prove how unlikely anyone is to die in this manner. So why the urgency to disarm law abiding citizens? Their true motive must be for some reason that would be rejected by most Americans. One possibility that comes to mind would be that they anticipate possible resistance to their future unveiled plans. History proves this indeed a possible scenario!

DHS buys 200,000 more hollow-point bullets

As posted in the teaparty.org website on January 4, 2013.

(Info Wars) – While the Obama administration sets out to eviscerate the gun rights of American citizens in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, earlier this week it was announced that the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a company a contract worth over $45,000 dollars to provide the DHS with 200,000 more rounds of bullets.
This new purchase adds to the staggering figure of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition already secured by the DHS over the last 9 months alone.

A solicitation originally posted on the FedBizOpps.gov website on December 17 on behalf of the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center advertised the need for 200 cases of 13–40 Cal, 180 Grain, Jacketed Hollow Point bullets, with each case containing 1000 rounds, to be delivered almost immediately as soon as the contract is awarded.
The bullets are to be delivered to a training site in North Charleston, South Carolina, which “specializes in Maritime Law Enforcement and Port Security Training. Basic and advanced training programs are conducted in concert with the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Academy, the U.S. Courts Probation and Pretrial Services Training Academy, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Training Academy, the Customs and Border Protection Field Operations Academy, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.”
The winner of the contract to provide the DHS with the ammunition, announced on January 2, was Evian Group Inc., an organization that was formed just five days before the announcement of the solicitation.
As James Smith documents, Evian Group seems to be little more than a front organization and doesn’t appear to have any real business assets, a genuine physical address, a website, or even a phone number.
Back in August, the Department of Homeland Security censored information relating to the amount of bullets purchased by the DHS on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, citing an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation that could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.
The information was blacked out despite the fact that documents are only supposed to be redacted if authorized by Congress or for national security reasons.
The contradiction of the Obama administration preaching gun control while simultaneously the federal government arms itself to the teeth with an arsenal that would be enough to wage a full scale 7 year ground war is jaw-dropping.
As Mike Adams highlights, “A citizen is considered to be a stockpiling “terrorist” prepper if they own just 1,000 rounds of ammo. The government, however, can purchase billions and the mainstream media doesn’t even question it.”
“Where is all this ammunition going? It’s being stockpiled by the federal government, awaiting some future event during which it will apparently be “activated.” Why else would you stockpile something if you don’t anticipate needing to use it someday?”
“During all this, Obama and his cohorts in Washington are loudly insisting that American citizens have no right to purchase firearms or ammunition, and that new laws will soon be enacted to make sure you cannot do what the government does: stockpile weapons and ammo.”
Indeed, the double standard is staggering and while Americans are being raided for stockpiling “arsenals” of weapons that subsequently turn out to be no more than a few guns, the federal government is simultaneously building a very real and substantial arsenal while the mainstream media turns a blind eye.

Boston Mayor Menino: Biden ‘Guaranteed’ Massive Gun Control By February

As posted in the breitbart.com  website on January 14, 2013 authored by Ben Shapiro
.
(Breitbart) – Democrat Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston says that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” him that by the end of January, President Obama would put a vast gun control scheme on the table. Said Menino, “He said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end of January.’ They’re going to get it done.”
Menino co-chairs the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group along with nanny state Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. He says that Obama has “no excuse not to pass strong legislation,” and that the National Rifle Association should be ignored. “It’s time to get this moving and moving quickly.”
Menino’s overbearing big government tendencies have reared their ugly head before. Back in August, Menino tried to bar Chick-Fil-A from Boston after the head of the restaurant chain said that he opposed same-sex marriage.
As per the usual Democratic strategy, Menino has been standing athwart the bodies of the dead children of Sandy Hook to promote his anti-Second Amendment agenda. Back during that tragedy, he said, “There are too many stories of those who have lost loved ones to gun violence – and far too many were added from Newtown just days ago. To honor those we’ve lost, we must continue to demand a plan from lawmakers that will keep gun violence from taking more lives.”
The implication: if you don’t agree with Menino, Obama, Biden, and Bloomberg, you don’t honor those we lost. This sort of emotional blackmail has dominated our politics for far too long. But look for the thuggishness of the left to escalate in Obama’s second term.

I always welcome any input on these matters especially from the Leftists. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will not remove it (I know many of you Liberals struggle with a civil, factual and truthful discussion see
Why Liberals Always Resort To Name-Calling?).

The Truth About Socialism

Irving Kristol once remarked that a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". So based on that I define a Neo-Marxist as a Socialist who was mugged by reality. What I mean by that is they have been forced to take off their rose colored glasses due to the complete failure of every Marxist based redistributive system since the French Revolution. They are now willing to use some aspects of Capitalism in a futile attempt to fund the Large Government required to administer their unattainable Utopian dream state. This is Crony-Capitalism at its worst and it comes from the Neo-Marxist movement to tax and regulate businesses that they deem inappropriate while at the same time attempting to pick and promote the ones they deem best (like Solyndra GM GE etc. etc). The only thing green about all their pet companies is the tax dollars funneled into them. 

The Neo-Marxists know that there will be trouble in a few years as the tax rates are now being maxed out, the predictable inflation from printing money and when we can not borrow any more money. The only choice left will be to cut entitlements and this will cause rioting. Therefore the populous will have to be disarmed beforehand! Here is a nouvelle idea how about we drastically cut government spending now and avoid the inevitable future result of our current path that we are now on!

I welcome any input on these matters especially from the left. Just keep it civil, factual and truthful and I will post it (I know many of you Liberals struggle a civil, factual and truthful discussion).

RIPOFF OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS

This is a great article by John Wallace you must read. I can not beleive how the mainstream media ignores this!

THE PIGFORD vs GLICKMAN CASE: RIPOFF OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS
08-01-2010 9:16 pm - John Wallace
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.

To date, almost $1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement's consent decree.

CASE HISTORY:

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, "farm ownership" loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" $50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called "Track A".[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.

THE RIPOFF OF THE TAXPAYERS BY BLACK ACTIVISTS:

Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.

Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. $995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including $760 million disbursed as $50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.

HOW COULD THERE BE 86,000 DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS IF THERE WERE ONLY A TOTAL OF 26,785 BLACK FARMERS IN 1977?

Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 additional petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement." A provision in a 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, the number of total claims filed by Black people claiming to be farmers not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA's estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977! One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who "attempted to farm" and did not receive assistance from the USDA. So Black people who were thinking of going into the farming business, but never did, were also eligible for the $50,000 fraud award, because they might have been discriminated against. It sounds like "Black Repartions" to me. Paying off the latest group of Pigford fraud application cases is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration. CONNECTION TO SHIRLEY SHERROD - USDA Remember the recent case involving a woman by the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named "Picford" case. In a special article written for the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explained that Shirley Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under the Pigford case. Her organization, New Communities, is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and her husband Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit. What makes this even more interesting is that Charles Sherrod, Sherill's husband, appears to be the same Charles Sherrod who was a leader in the radical group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s. The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away. In his article, Blumer had some interesting questions about this settlement and about Sherrod's rapid departure from the USDA •Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement? •How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities? •Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)? •Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money? Here are some other questions to consider: •Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest? •Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford? •Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly? Here is another area for concern: In her position at the not for profit, "Rural Development Leadership Network," a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford? Did she put Black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA? As many of you may know, there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike. Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots. A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries. I wonder how many of the these owners claimed they had farmed, attempted to farm, or thought about farming such acreage to score a fast $50,000 Black Farmer Fraud Award from Uncle Sam? I guess if you are or were a poor White, Asian, Native American or Hispanic farmer, you're just out of luck in collecting your $50,000 fraud award.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.
2. "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
3. "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].

I pulled this off of the Heritage Organization's website. I could not have stated the hidden excessive taxation and regulations emanating from Obama and his minions any better. Please do enjoy it as I have.

Where Is President Obama Hiding His Tax Hikes?

EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn’t like — whether it’s letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that there are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.
In a new report, Heritage’s Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama’s hidden tax hikes and finds that the President’s proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion – that’s $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s FY 2013 budget proposal.
What’s to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President’s tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,” better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President’s tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.
How’s that for “the most transparent White House in history”?
But wait, there’s even more.
On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn’t deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the “tax extenders” ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion — even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.
Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!
Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:

Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB’s table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President’s budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.

Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven’t been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent — the highest since the 1981-1982 recession — and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems — they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they’re sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.
Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage’s “New Flat Tax” which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.
America doesn’t need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn’t need them slipped through under their noses. The President’s budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn’t deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President’s secret recipe for a weak economy.

Why Socialism Failed

This is a great article written by Mark J. Perry posted on the Freeman Blog on June 1995. It is so timeless that it still rings true today.

Why Socialism Failed

by Mark J. Perry • June 1995 • Vol. 45/Issue 6

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.
The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

---

Article printed from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty: http://www.thefreemanonline.org
URL to article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/why-socialism-failed/

More examples of the Left squashing economic progress

 The following article posted by Eric Burns Bio ↓ on May 1st, 2012 in the FrontPageMag.com blog is another example of the Marxists on the Left using environmental laws to further their agenda with out regard to the well being of an entire community.

Obama Administration vs. Tombstone

 The latest chapter in the Obama administration’s war against state sovereignty and the state of Arizona pits the town of Tombstone against the United States Forest Service. Tombstone is suing the U.S. Forest Service over that agency’s refusal to allow city officials to repair damaged water transport infrastructure in the nearby Huachuca mountains. The Forest Service’s refusal to allow city workers access to damaged reservoirs, pipelines, and pumping stations, has cut Tombstone off from 50 to 80 percent of its water supply; leaving town residents and tourists dependent on two wells for water, and the town acutely vulnerable to fire. In addition, the water in one well is contaminated with arsenic.
Tombstone is a desert town of 1500 residents located in southern Arizona about 70 miles southeast of Tucson in the shadow of 9466 ft. Miller Peak, which is in the Coronado National Forest. Americans associate Tombstone with the October 1881 gunfight at the O.K. Corral; and the resulting tourist trade has supported the town fairly well. Tombstone has survived the closing of local silver mines and a number of fires, thereby becoming known as “The town too tough to die.” Now, however, that proud title is being severely tested, by our own federal government.
Tombstone is supplied with water from 24 springs, located in the Huachuca Mountains on and around Miller Peak. However, nearly a year ago, from May through July 2011, the Monument fire destroyed at least 18,580 acres (640 acres equals one square mile) of forest and vegetation in the Huachuca Mountains, including the Miller Peak Wilderness area. Torrential rains followed soon after the fire, and the resulting mud slides pushed boulders “the size of Volkswagens” down on vital pumping stations, pipes, and other infrastructure. Some water pipes remain buried under twelve feet of mud, while others are without support, ominously hanging in the air, as the ground underneath has been washed away. In August 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer declared a state of emergency in Tombstone, authorizing $50,000 in state funds to help cover engineering and repair costs for Tombstone’s water system. Since many of the pipelines are in areas designated as “wilderness,” the U.S. Forest Service won’t allow access for the mechanized equipment needed to fix the pipelines. Huge boulders, downed trees, and enormous piles of dirt and gravel must be moved, to build the structures that will protect the water lines against future natural disasters. However, these obstacles can’t be moved with the hand tools and horse teams that the Forest Service demands the city use.
As of January 2012, Forest Service officials had granted permits to repair infrastructure for only 2 of the 24 springs that supply Tombstone; and city manager George Barnes said “the city was told that the requests for the remaining permits would take a lot longer” to approve. Meanwhile, the state’s emergency funds are being wasted, as rented vehicles and equipment are sitting idle, and several pieces of heavy equipment have been vandalized, with the city required to pay for their repair. In addition, Tombstone has only a two day supply of water on hand, making the town particularly vulnerable to fire.
The Obama administration and the U.S. Forest Service are clearly attempting to regulate the state of Arizona in violation of the Constitution and impose an arbitrary, draconian environmentalist agenda on the land use rights of Americans. In addition, gold prospectors on western federal lands are routinely harassed by over-zealous park rangers, and ranchers have been pressured to surrender access and water rights. The Forest Service cites The Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines “Wilderness” as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean…an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation…with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”  Under “Prohibition of Certain Uses,” this act states, “[S]ubject to existing private rights, there shall be no…permanent road within any Wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the Administration of the area…(including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area) there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment…no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” However, the Forest Service has gone beyond the Wilderness Act and threatened Arizona’s sovereignty and Tombstone’s very existence.
 On behalf of Tombstone, the Goldwater Institute has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would allow city officials to go into the Huachuca Mountains and repair the damaged water transport infrastructure. Tombstone’s case is supported by the Tenth Amendment and by the fact that the city’s water rights were vested long before the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the concomitant Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” and implicitly embodies “a policy against impairing the states’ integrity or ability to function.”
In Tombstone’s “Memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction,” the Goldwater Institute clearly shows that the city satisfies the four requirements for granting a preliminary injunction. In addition, this document gives numerous examples of how the Forest Service’s refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the Miller Peak Wilderness area, and their inexcusable stonewalling of the permit issuing process, has not only seriously compromised Arizona’s integrity and Tombstone’s ability to function, but has put the town’s very existence in jeopardy. The requirements for the court granting Tombstone a preliminary injunction include, “whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” and “whether an injunction is in the public interest.” [1]
The Forest Service’s refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the damaged water supply infrastructure constitutes unlawful “commandeering” of the city’s water supply, and this commandeering “is certain to cause irreparable harm.” This is because “irreparable injury includes the impairment or threatened loss of rights or interests in real property,” “impairment of sovereign interests without notice or opportunity to be heard,” and “harm or threats of harm to public health and safety.” The Goldwater Institute explains that water rights are “real property interests” in Arizona and that Tombstone holds “title to water rights and water structure and pipeline right of way easements,” pursuant to a Congressional Act of July 26, 1866. By this Act, the Federal government is obligated to “protect the rights of individual possessors of water; and to recognize local customs, laws, and state court decisions.” Indeed, in 1907, Gifford Pinchot (a well-known “progressive”) wrote in the U.S. Forest Service’s book, “Use of National Forests,” “The creation of a National forest has no effect whatever on the laws that govern the appropriation of water. This is a matter governed entirely by state and territorial laws.”
In addition, the Forest Service recognized Tombstone’s vested water rights in 1916, and in 1962 granted the city a special use permit to maintain and repair its water delivery infrastructure. The Goldwater Institute further explains that the city’s “health and safety interest is not offset by any bona fide environmental interest.” This is because “Any environmental footprint from the work Tombstone seeks to perform will be washed away in the next monsoon,” and that “Even if there were a lasting footprint, environmental interests are not better served by requiring Tombstone to build only temporary structures with hand tools. Those structures will be washed away in the next monsoon. Given the inevitability of seasonal monsoons and periodic flood events in the Huachuca Mountains, it makes no sense to force  repair and rebuild temporary structures ad infinitum with the continuous ground displacement that entails.” [2]
Nevertheless, in 2011-2012, the Forest Service has chosen to ignore not only Pinchot’s (the Forest Service’s first Chief Forester) comment, but the above-mentioned July 1866 Congressional Act and a large body of federal and state case law. By their refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the city’s water delivery infrastructure, the U.S. Forest Service has violated Arizona’s state sovereignty, directly regulating the state through a political subdivision (Tombstone), in violation of a Tenth Amendment corollary that the Constitution “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not states.” In addition, the Forest Service has illegally commandeered not only the town’s physical water system, and the authority of Governor Jan Brewer, but Tombstone’s integrity and ability to function.[3] Americans can only hope that the Federal District court will rule against the U.S. Forest Service and order them to allow Tombstone to repair vital water delivery infrastructure as soon as possible, ensuring that the town will continue to exist.
Footnotes:
[1] Goldwater Institute, “City of Tombstone’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for preliminary injunction,” p. 5-6; at www.goldwaterinstitute.org.
[2] Ibid., p. 11
[3] Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898, 920 (1997), as cited by Goldwater Institute, Ibid., p. 15; Goldwater Institute, “Tombstone’s reply in support of motion to extend time by severing and continuing consideration of Tenth Amendment issues,” p. 8-12, at www.goldwaterinstitute.org.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Move Over Leftists: Real feminists reject subsidies

I really enjoyed this great article from the Daily caller.

Published: 6:23 PM 05/04/2012

By Emily O'Neill

Freelance Writer

Move Over Leftists: Real feminists reject subsidies

The Obama campaign released a new ad on Thursday that should be offensive to all of the women who have ever fought for social and financial independence. The ad, featuring a character named “Julia” who uses government assistance from childhood to retirement, speaks volumes about the latest generation of left feminists.
While the feminist philosophy was supposed to encourage women to be self-reliant, left feminists now demand that taxpayers finance their lifestyle choices. From food stamps to birth control, these women are fighting to hold on to their government assistance. What ever happened to the feminist movement that encouraged women to be independent?
Left feminists would be up in arms if an ad promoted the idea that women needed men to survive financially. There would be new feminist slogans, bumper stickers, and rallies across the country to encourage women to stand on their own two feet. So, what’s the difference?
There is none. Left feminists are simply replacing men with government, and calling it empowerment.
A feminist who wants taxpayers to pay for her lifestyle is about as socially and financially independent of a woman as one who marries a wealthy man to pay her bills — and at least the man in the latter scenario chooses to support a woman by his own free will. Whether a man financially supports a woman, or a woman financially supports a man, there is typically a voluntary personal relationship. Absent any force or coercion, both parties consent to this arrangement.
By contrast, the government forces citizens to pay for government assistance through taxes. Leveraging the force of government to finance lifestyle choices is not liberating for women; it perpetuates the falsehood that women need assistance in order to pursue their goals. With all of this talk about a so-called Republican “war on women,” isn’t it the left that is betraying women by suggesting that they need government assistance to survive?
Women are not helpless, nor are they entitled. Government assistance limits lifestyle options and causes women to surrender their financial and social freedom. For decades, feminists fought for women’s financial independence; so why do feminists on the left support trading that in for dependence on government programs?

If women on the left support a government subsidizing their lives, it follows that they no longer believe in women’s financial independence. Thus, their feminist label is merely a cover for what they really believe in: special treatment.
A new kind of feminist is emerging, however — an independent woman who doesn’t believe in the entitlement culture, but instead believes in taking responsibility for herself and her actions. These women are the real feminists because they believe in achieving their goals based on their own merit. With that said, women on the left need to realize their hypocrisy and consider the idea that instead of making women prosperous, government hand-outs hold women back.

Big Socialist Government is Oppressive!

so·cial·ism

noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Definition of SOCIALISM

1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: 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 

I had to put that up first! The Left always obscures their real intent with platitudes, convoluted explanations to simple problems and complete rejection of obvious simple truths.

Example 1 -The Left wants to regulate in an effort to protect the masses, while this is an honorable intention that know one would ever object too, if not for all the predictable unintended consequences and  eventual abuses by government officials. 

This is an excerpt from a Brian Walsh article published in The Foundry on August 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Take a look into what happened to Abner (Abbie) Schoenwetter. Abbie had no criminal record whatsoever. No one alleged that he was smuggling drugs or weapons.  He was not cheating on his taxes. No one alleged that he used or even threatened violence.
What federal prosecutors did allege was that using plastic instead of cardboard violated a Honduran regulation. The Attorney General of Honduras who–like the Attorney General of the United States–is the highest ranking law enforcement official in the nation, certified in writing that this regulation and two others that federal prosecutors alleged that Abbie violated were not applicable to Abbie’s case.
But because these unreasonable prosecutors were armed with a vague, overly broad, and otherwise unjust federal criminal law (the American Lacey Act), none of this mattered to them.  Essentially, the Lacey Act makes it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife regulation of any nation on earth. (What are the chances that Congress reviewed every nation’s fish and wildlife regulations to ensure they are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. policy?)
Abbie Schoenwetter’s business, health, and family life (he has a wife and three kids) were wiped out because unreasonable federal prosecutors – one of whom is now the head of the criminal division in the Alabama U.S. attorney’s office – used an unjust law to target Abbie and a Honduran fisherman from whom Abbie purchased his seafood. Abbie spent six and one half years in confinement and is now under the supervision of a parole officer for three years.

Wetlands dispute endures at Priest Lake

This is another situation of excessive overzealous government officials absolutely destroying a honest hard working family.


 To be continued when I have time.