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.

OMG! Clint Eastwood breaks the leftist Hollywood lock step.

I am enjoying the predictable and completely transparent reaction of the mainstream media along with many  of the leftists in the entertainment industry. Their bias is so obvious it can not be denied by any impartial observer. After two years of complete control of this country starting in 2008 they rammed their Marxist redistributive agenda down our throats. Then in 2010 they lost the house along with their super-majority in the senate. Now they have been slowed moving us all Forward over the cliff.

The issue Leftists have with Clint Eastwood is that he is a successful, critically acclaimed and popular actor/director that is an open and unabashed Conservative. The Hollywood elitist limousine Liberals can not accept one of their own speaking against their Marxist redistributive agenda. When this happens it must in the Lefts eyes be squashed by any means necessary. When Leftist can not support their message with simple facts and truth they resort to redefining the debate. After that fails they then attempt to discredit the messenger and name calling. They are now actively in the discrediting and name calling phase.

The following is a transcript of actor Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention on Aug. 30, 2012. Pulled from a FOX news post

EASTWOOD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Save a little for Mitt.
(APPLAUSE)
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what's a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. At least that is what people
think. That is not really the case. There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative
people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it.
(APPLAUSE)
So -- but they are there, believe me, they are there. I just think, in fact, some of them around town, I saw John Voigt, a lot of people around.
(APPLAUSE)
John's here, an academy award winner. A terrific guy. These people are all like-minded, like all of us.
So I -- so I've got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he's -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions. But -- you know about -- I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama won the election. And though I was not a big supporter, I was watching that night when he was having that thing and they were talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. I was even crying. And then finally -- and I haven't cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven't done enough, obviously -- this administration hasn't done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? Do you just -- you know -- I know -- people were wondering -- you don't -- handle that OK. Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo -- why
close that, we spent so much money on it. But, I thought maybe as an excuse -- what do you mean shut up?
(LAUGHTER)
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City. 

(APPLAUSE)
I've got to to hand it to you. I have to give credit where
credit is due. You did finally overrule that finally. And
that's --
now we are moving onward. I know you were against the war in
Iraq,
and that's okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK.
You
know, I mean -- you thought that was something worth doing. We
didn't
check with the Russians to see how did it -- they did there for
10
years.
(APPLAUSE)
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and
I
think that, when we get to maybe -- I think you've mentioned
something about having a target date for bringing everybody
home. You
gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only
sensible
question, you know, he says, ``Why are you giving the date out
now?
Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?''
(APPLAUSE)
And I thought -- I thought, yeah -- I am not going to shut
up, it
is my turn.
(LAUGHTER)
So anyway, we're going to have -- we're going to have to
have a
little chat about that. And then, I just wondered, all these
promises
-- I wondered about when the -- what do you want me to tell
Romney? I
can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to
himself.
(APPLAUSE)
You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as
bad as
Biden.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course we all now Biden is the intellect of the
Democratic
party.
(LAUGHTER)
Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
(LAUGHTER)
But I just think that there is so much to be done, and I
think
that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys that can come along.
See, I
never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president,
anyway.
(APPLAUSE)
I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always
taught
to argue everything, and always weight everything -- weigh both
sides...
MORE
(INSERT ZACH)
XXX I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're
always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything,
weigh both sides.
EASTWOOD: They are always devil's advocating this and
bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff.
But, I think it is maybe time -- what do you think -- for maybe
a businessman. How about that?
(APPLAUSE)
A stellar businessman. Quote, unquote, ``a stellar
businessman.''
And I think it's that time. And I think if you just step
aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still
use a plane.
(APPLAUSE)
Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you
are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and
stuff like that.
(APPLAUSE)
You are an -- an ecological man. Why would you want to
drive that around?
OK, well anyway. All right, I'm sorry. I can't do that to
myself either.
(APPLAUSE)
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we
-- we own this country.
(APPLAUSE)
We -- we own it. It is not you owning it, and not
politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg
for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just
think it is important that you realize , that you're the best in
the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether
you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should
not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we
got to let them go.
(APPLAUSE)
Okay, just remember that. And I'm speaking out for
everybody out there. It doesn't hurt, we don't have to be
(AUDIENCE MEMBER): (inaudible)
(LAUGHTER)
I do not say that word anymore. Well, maybe one last time.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have to be -- what I'm saying, we do not have to
be metal (ph) masochists and vote for somebody that we don't
really even want in office just because they seem to be nice
guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the
recent ads going out there, I don't know.
(APPLAUSE)
But OK. You want to make my day?
(APPLAUSE)
All right. I started, you finish it. Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: Make my day!
EASTWOOD: Thank you. Thank you very much.

The Obama broken promises from his 2008 election campaign

I was thinking about the Obama 2012 election campaign in relation to his 2008 campaign. The contrast is amazing.

He was voted into office on the theme of Hope and Change that has turned into Nope and Chains.

I can understand how some believed the unsustainable, unachievable Progressive (AKA Marxist redistribution) goals promised by Obama and his facilitators. The harsh reality of humankind is that is an unsustainable model has been proved time after time thru out the last 300 years starting with the French Revolution. The closest thing to Utopia is the United States as the founders defined it in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know that there are flaws and room for improvement in the Exceptional American system but we should proceed carefully and slowly.

NASA

"In August of last year, then-Senator Barack Obama detailed a comprehensive space plan that included $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president. Since then, he has made NASA a low priority, not even bothering to name a director for NASA for several months, and instead of increasing funding by $2 billion, NASA's budget is going to be slashed.This is why I call him the Bizzarro President- whatever he says, you can take to the bank that he is going to do the opposite of what he says. He is a serial liar, a deceitful snake, and an untrustworthy person. His word is meaningless, and his promises worth less."
a quote from a public school teacher

Clean Coal

The Obama campaign added "clean coal" to the energy priorities on its web site this week, days after the president lost several counties in coal-rich West Virginia and criticism from GOP lawmakers.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg hit the Obama administration for his policies on the coal industry.
"President Obama has broken his promise when it comes to pursuing energy independence -- and no politically-expedient website change can hide the fact that President Obama’s energy policies have led to higher prices and destroyed jobs.," she said.

The reality is that he is attacking Oil and Coal producers with his only weapon left excessive regulation thru the EPA.

Obama talked with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 2008 for an interview. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an "aggressive" cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about bankrupting the coal industry.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," he said. In the same interview, the senator said that "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

Fast and Furious & Transparency

The only thing about transparent thing about the Obama administration, is his hope that the guns let loose in the Fast and Furious operation would result in bloody murders that would then allow him to ban guns from honest American citizens!

The Romney campaign leads off its list of transparency failures with Fast and Furious. It points out how then-Senator Obama attacked President George W. Bush for using executive privilege in 2007, and how Obama is now asserting executive privilege to withhold Fast and Furious documents from Congress.
“President Obama has run one of the least transparent administrations in American history,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement accompanying the release. “Whether hiding lobbyists in coffee shops, cutting back-room deals on Obamacare, or concealing the records of ‘Fast and Furious,’ President Obama’s pledge to be transparent has turned out to be just another broken promise. With no rationale for reelection and no plan to help middle-class Americans, President Obama has resorted to running a campaign of distraction, distortion and dishonesty.”

Below is an article published by Business Insider on Mar. 3, 2012. 

Written by Jaywon Choe and Richa Naik.

9 Campaign Promises That Obama Has Broken

Promise #1 - No Super PACs

The Promise: While running for president in 2008, then Senator Barack Obama, in all his fresh-faced, dark haired enthusiasm, pledges that a vote for him means a vote for a candidate who won’t be swayed by the influence of special interests and Super PACs.

"If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs,” Obama said in a campaign speech in Denver, Colorado.

The Reality: Just four years later, faced with another election, now president Obama has second thoughts about those same special interests and Super PACs. He still doesn’t like them, but he’s going to use them, only because everyone else is.

Source: University of California, Santa Barbara
Source: The New York Times

Promise #2 - Closing Gitmo

The Promise: On 60 Minutes in 2008, Obama was asked whether he would take early action on closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and his answer was about as unequivocal as an answer can get:

“Yes. I have said repeatedly that I will close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.”

The Reality: Well, maybe it wasn’t that unequivocal. On March 7, 2011, the president signed an executive order to resume military trials for Guantanamo detainees and allow detainees to continue to be held in the facility.

Though the president said that he is still committed to closing the detention center, the move was largely seen as a concession.

Source: The Washington Post


Promise #3 - Goodbye Bush Tax Cuts

The Promise: Throughout his campaign, Obama played the not-Bush card a lot. And one thing he promised was ending the Bush-era tax cuts, which gave breaks to some of the richest Americans.

The Reality: Obama agreed to temporarily extend the tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and reduction of Social Security taxes. With the 2012 election on the horizon, Obama has now stepped up his criticism of the current tax code and is pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Promise #4 - Get Cap-And-Trade Passed

The Promise: “As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming — an 80% reduction by 2050,” said Obama in 2007 before the Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future.

The Reality: Well it’s not quite 2050 just yet, but it looks like cap-and-trade may be dead. After making it's way through the House, the bill died in the Senate after Democrats lost their majority in 2010. Sensing that getting it passed was unlikely, Obama walked back his commitment on the plan. "[Cap-and-trade] was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end."

Source: NPR


Promise #5 - No New Taxes For Families Making Under $250,000

The Promise: In his campaign, Obama pledged that Americans making less than $250,000 would not see "any form of tax increase." Simple as that.

The Reality: But sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law and increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, and with that, all the smokers making less that $250,000 a year saw their taxes go up.

Source: The Daily Caller

Promise #6 - Encourage states to guarantee same-sex couples are treated equally in regards to family and adoption laws

The Promise: In an open letter to the LGBT community, Obama wrote “I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

Promise #7 - Send people to the Moon by 2020...and then Mars

The Promise: In Obama’s 2008 campaign material “A Robust and Balanced Program of Space Exploration and Scientific Discovery” Obama said, “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”

The Reality: When Obama released his fiscal year 2011 budget, he said he was offering an alternative direction for space exploration.

"NASA's Constellation program - based largely on existing technologies - was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020,” the report says. “However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA's program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA's attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations.”

The NASA space shuttle program officially ended on August 31, 2011. Source: Barack Obama Campaign MaterialSource: whithouse.gov


Promise #8 - Guarantee that employees get at least 7 paid sick days per year

The Promise: During the 2008 campaign, Obama listed on his website his support for a federal guarantee that all employers provide seven paid sick days per year.

The Reality: In the first year of this presidency, Obama expressed support for the Healthy Families Act. However the bill stalled in committee. It is unlikely that this bill, or any version of this bill, will pass anytime soon now that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives.

Source: Department of Labor


Promise #9 - Introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by the end of his first year in office

The Promise: “The American people need us to put an end to the petty partisanship that passes for politics in Washington. And they need us to enact comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. We can’t wait 20 years from now to do it. We can’t wait 10 years from now to do it. We need to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as president,” Obama said during a speech to the League of United Latin American Citizens in 2008.

The Reality: Obama said immigration reform would be a top priority, but by the end of the first year no comprehensive bill supported by Obama had been introduced in Congress.

In April of 2010 a 26-page immigration reform proposal was released. However he has yet to support a bill in Congress. Source: Associated PressSource: senate.gov

Phony Democratic Talking Points And Their Real Meanings!

 The Leftist agenda being espoused by the Socialists (AKA Communists, Marxists, Liberals or Progressives) is all so predictable and easily dismissed with a few common sense simple facts.

1. We need to raise taxes on the rich and not cut spending.
2. The so called war on women.
3. All who oppose Obama or voter ID are racists.

 

Myth 1 - We need to raise taxes.

 This has been proven repeatedly to not work as every time it has been done any where that it has been tried that when you reach a tipping point revenue actually goes down (see the Laffer curve below)

Even if the government took 100% of everything the "rich" earned, effectively destroying the economy, it wouldn't even fund their out of control spending for 5 months. The only logical choice left is to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Myth 2 - The so called war on women.

 

What the left and their minions in the main stream media did to Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann was a real war on women. If anything like that was done to Hillery Clinton or Nancy Palosi by those on the right there would be outrage and calls for immediate dismissals of the perpetrators of that type of hateful rhetoric.


If Julia had a job she could afford her birth control! The BLS data also show that the unemployment rate for women in June was 8.0 percent, up from 7.9 percent in May.  That’s also up from 7.0 percent in January 2009 when Obama became president.  Under President Obama, the number of women living in poverty has skyrocketed. 92 percent of job losses have come among women. Democrats know that today women face really no restrictions getting contraception.
"They know that Republicans aren't going to stop women from getting contraception. They know that nine in 10 employer-based health care plans already cover contraception. Of course the Democrats want to change the subject to a wholly contrived “War on Women” narrative. If there is a war on women, it's on women's pocketbooks and it's being waged by President Obama." Laura Ingraham

Myth 3 - Oppose Obama/Voter ID your racist.

 If one disliked Obama cause he is half black instead of the fact that he is a redistributing Socialist. Then how could those same so called haters on the right then support Condoleezza Rice, General Colin Powell, Lieutenant Colonel Allen West and Hermon Cain as these are all 100% black African American Conservative Patriots.

 

"So sensing the now very real possibility of significant losses of White voters as compared to 2008, Barack Obama is doing all he can to push the numbers of minority voters as high as possible in 2012 – including voters who may very well not be legal citizens – a number that might include hundreds of thousands or even millions of non-citizen votes.  In a close election that could prove the deciding factor between victory and defeat.
As we reported yesterday, there is great irony to be found in the fact that the Obama campaign requires all who attend an Obama campaign speech to  show proof of identification before being granted admission, and yet the Obama administration is aggressively fighting states that wish to require voters to show that same kind of identification before being allowed to vote.
And if Barack Obama runs out of non citizen voters – he can always count on the dead.
That’s the Chicago way…" Ulsterman on June 24, 2012 with 25 Comments in News

 

 Need I say any more. Anyone

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].

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/

I enjoyed this article and think you will also. Yet more examples of the Media Bias against Conservatives.

Four Stories You Won’t Hear About Obama

May 25, 2012 By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown 

inShare8

Most Americans judge a President based on his promises and his results. They measure the success of the nation in part by the question Ronald Reagan asked voters in 1980. Reagan simply said, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

For Barack Obama, this question is deadly. Obama promised big results, but he has failed to deliver. For example, look at these four promises and his results.

Obama’s 825 billion dollar stimulus failed to keep unemployment below 8 percent as Obama promised. Since President Obama’s stimulus passed, America has lost 1.1 million jobs. If you count people who have become discouraged and are no longer seeking jobs, some economists believe that real unemployment rate is above twenty percent.

Obama called his health care package one of his major accomplishments. He told CBS’ Steve Kroft he was “putting in place a system in which we’re going to start lowering health care costs.” Yet it has failed to make health insurance more affordable. According to the fact watchdog website FactCheck.org, ObamaCare is actually making health care “less affordable.” Workers paid an average of $132 more for family coverage just this year.

Obama predicted his investments in green energy would create 5 million jobs, but the Wall Street Journal reports: “The green jobs subsidy story gets more embarrassing by the day. Three years ago President Obama promised that by the end of the decade, America would have five million green jobs, but so far, some $90 billion in government spending has delivered very few.”

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” Even if every part of Obama’s deficit reduction proposal was enacted, the deficit at the end of his first term would still be $1.33 trillion, more than twice what he promised.

But don’t expect much reporting on his record. Instead, watch as the media focuses on polls. They like to treat most campaigns like a horse race. Don’t be bedazzled by the speeches and rhetoric, just look at the promises and his results. Judge Barack Obama by his own expectations and you will see he has been a failure.

But the news media is almost as desperate to ignore Obama’s record as he is to hide it.

As a result of his dismal record, he has decided to run a campaign of attacks on Mitt Romney in the vain hope that the subject will be changed. The mainstream media will help him change the agenda.

We will hear stories about how Bain Capital, Romney’s old firm, restructured business and cut jobs, and the media will forget to talk about how Obama restructured General Motors and cut jobs.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney bullied someone in school nearly 50 years ago, and we won’t hear about Barack Obama doing drugs 25 or 30 years ago.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney is controlled by the far right, and we won’t hear a story about Barack Obama’s associates on the far left.

Expect the media to work as hard to re-elect Barack Obama as they did to elect him. But if Romney stays focused on giving America the facts and forcing the media to report accurately, this election is his to lose.

We are turning a sustainable safety net into a Ponzi scheme hammock!

I am sick and tired of the obvious bias and twisting of the truth by the mainstream media and many professors at our tax funded Universities. What is fair about punishing hard work thru excessive taxation then perpetuating poverty by regulating poor entrepreneurs out of business? We need to allow free mobility of the poor to move up the social-economic ladder instead of locking them into the ghetto with the permanent underclass. I am not advocating the wholesale elimination of our social programs but instead a minimal amount as required to help the unfortunate poorest among us survive while having some programs available providing the needed tools for those willing to work hard thus move up the social economic ladder.

Below is a great article I read published on Canada free Press.

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines then employs class envy

Cultural deconstruction: turning a safety net into a hammock

- David Coughlin  Wednesday, September 7, 2011

---

The Democrat political strategy is to segment the American people into constituency classes that can be served separately.  Al Gore made a Freudian slip when he admitted while campaigning that “We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus Unum—out of one, many.”

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines (region, race, ethnicity, religion, and personal values), rather than along economic lines. The party then employs class envy as an explicit strategy for righting perceived wrongs and offering a goal of future class equity. This strategy tends to be very divisive, pitting one class vs. another in a zero sum game, never completely satisfying any constituent class.

Political power is ensured by retaining this underclass as a permanent voting bloc that can be exploited for ongoing political support. Unfortunately nurturing a permanent underclass for political purposes has had unintended cultural consequences, which may eventually

The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need and ultimately to help welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient.  Medicare was originally designed in 1965 as a Great Society health insurance program for all Americans age 65 and older and for the permanent physically disabled, funded by payroll taxes.  Medicaid is the means tested health program created in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty for people with low incomes and resources, jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and managed by the states.  These social insurance programs have expanded well beyond their original intents, and the unintended consequences has been to grow dependence on government support, instead of a return to self sufficiency. After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1935, “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”  Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching bankruptcy, spending more money each year than is collected.  The destructiveness of welfare goes beyond financial affordability and political dependency. 
The more welfare that families receive from government, the less fathers are necessary for their support, undermining the basic building block of society, the family unit.  Lacking the role model of a responsible father, children grow up to believe that dependency is a natural condition of life.  The children of welfare moms are nurtured in a mentality that perpetuates dependency from generation to generation.  The impact of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid, and other support programs has been to create a permanent welfare class who, in terms of skills and attitudes, are poorly equipped to return to work.  The U.S. has spent $16 trillion since LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” in 1964, but the percentage of people in “poverty” remains essentially the same.  Despite the fact that illegal aliens do not contribute to the program funding, many states cover them despite explicitly being excluded.  Our culture has eroded so much now that dependence on the government has become an acceptable lifestyle for the permanent underclass, which has transformed our temporary economic “safety net” into a comfortable “hammock” for long term living.
By design Democrats have deconstructed our American culture into a loose confederation of disparate class cultures on the verge of open class warfare.  Democrats have nurtured an underclass politically dependent with a well developed sense of entitlement, which has taught generations that society owes them a living; that government is responsible for raising their children; working is not necessary; and everyone is entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor.  This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible. 
Welfare-state paternalism has bred and nurtured immoral, undesirable people because government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment.  If they receive what they’re entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you’re entitled to it.  If they haven’t received an entitlement, then they’re resentful because you haven’t received what you feel you are entitled to.  Evidence of this resentment can be seen in the black “flash mobs” attacking randomly in a number of U.S. cities and the U.K. hoodlum riots attacking random businesses.  We should expect to see more of this violence at the Day of Rage starting on September 17th, since it was originally planned for non-violent protests in three cities, but has already expanded to a week of civil disobedience in at least ten cities.
Nothing less than a culture re-construction is needed to recover from the degradation of our western society.  We must resurrect the culture of personal responsibility.  We must re-teach the cause and effect relationship between hard work and achievement.  Relearning the art of parental discipline, and re-establishing the primacy of the moral code upon which western civilization was built are monumental but necessary tasks.  I hope we are not too late because it will take generations to undo the harm done to our culture.  Ultimately the concept of entitlement must be dismantled from the welfare state.
The Democrats have embraced class warfare as their primary political tactic.  The unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence has been the creation of a permanent underclass totally dependent on the government for their well-being.  Political power is maintained by retaining this dependence in exchange for political support.  Unless you are an unrepentant Marxist praying for a class uprising, this permanent underclass is condemned to a government subsistence existence and an inability to participate in the American Dream.

Saint Patric's day, Failed Socialism and Irish Americans.

This is an old article I stumbled upon in the Irish Echo that nine years later is more true then ever and felt was an appropriate subject for Saint Patric's day.

Failed socialist ideology is alive and well in NYC

THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE THE IRISH ECHO DATED: April, 02-08, 2003

---

If anybody thinks that the failed ideology of socialism perished with the fall of the Communist Bloc, they are mistaken. Cultivated by the tax, fine and spend philosophies of the left, this malignant ideology increasingly paralyzes New York City. It thrives as it devours the city’s economy, parasitically feeds off the body politic and slowly transforms the metropolis into a banana republic.
New York City’s middle class works harder and longer to sustain itself, to feed and shelter its families, to educate its children, to carve out a foothold for the future. Hardworking middle-class families are the true engine of our city’s economy, the people who make our city tick. As the payee of all manner of taxes, the inevitable victim of an A-to-Z of fines and penalties, the middle class is the unwitting financial foundation for the New York City socialist fiasco.
Too busy running from pillar to post making a living, John and Jane Solid Citizen have become disengaged from the political system and are unaware of the absurdities that are being implemented in their name. The left-wing elitists contemptuously dismiss them as inconsequential. Unlike the community activists, the professional whiners and the permanent dependency class, John and Jane Solid Citizen go about their lives quietly, without fuss. Their values and ethos are increasingly dismissed and marginalized. They are merely the means of providing financial fodder for the insatiable appetite of the voracious socialist beast.
There is the hardworking Irish-American family of Woodside. Dad works days, mom works nights. They struggle to keep their heads above water. They strive to give their kids the best. They sacrifice to send their children to Catholic school. However, our left-wing elitist mayor, Mike Bloomberg, and the socialist ideologues of the City Council need revenue to pour into the bottomless pit of designs, programs and patronage. The family’s car is ticketed and towed, on the word of a creative, quota-driven revenue hack, for allegedly violating some inconsequential parking ordinance. Regardless of culpability, a substantial chunk of a week’s salary must be forfeited in order to redeem the vehicle. The apparatchiks are confident that the family will accept its fate, rather than compounding their loss in an uphill fight with City Hall.
In order to evade the increasingly draconian parking polizei, Irish-American entrepreneur, Queens-based Sean Citizen has taken to making his Manhattan deliveries during the ungodly hours. Yet the apparatchiks will not be cheated of their prey. In the early hours, while momentarily double-parked on a deserted Manhattan cross street, a revenue hack emerges from the darkness to serve a $105 summons. In a close-margin business, a few more summonses like that and Sean Citizen may very well be bled dry. However, in the grand design of pseudo Republican Bloomberg and the City Council, the small entrepreneur is expendable.
The Irish-American publican has spent thousands installing a state of the art air filtration system only to be obliged to banish outside, like degenerates, his nicotine-inhaling clientele. As the smoking population is increasingly ostracized, his business falls of by as much as 30 percent. Just another small-business owner to be sacrificed on the left’s altar of political correctness.
Then there is the house-proud Irish-American family in Maspeth. The house is spotless, garden neat and trimmed, and the sidewalk is swept conscientiously twice a day, out of a sense of civic pride rather than fear of sanction. Passerby Lou Litter Lout discards his garbage on the pathway. The sanitation police materializes with summons in hand, not for Lou Litter Lout but for “deep pockets,” the innocent property owner. More hard-earned middle-class dollars for the bottomless socialist pit.
In November 2001, we elected a left-wing Democrat to lead Gotham. Bloomberg was victorious on the anybody-but-Mark Green ticket. Had he not conveniently changed his party label, had he not expended substantial largesse, he would never have occupied City Hall. Though disturbingly familiar with his left-wing credentials, many of us, Irish American Republicans and conservative Democrats alike, deluded ourselves into thinking that, as a highly successful entrepreneur, he would successfully lead the city through what we knew would be challenging times.
Bloomberg is intent on transforming our city into a socialist nanny state where every move, and perhaps every thought, of the citizen will be minutely regulated and oppressively taxed. Devoid of any original or innovative concept, his economic policy consists of mandating yet another element of the human experience to be taxed, of doubling or tripling existing levies and of resurrecting antiquated laws for the sole purpose of picking middle class pockets.
Through it all, his arrogance, and that of his apparatchiks, has been breathtaking. “If they don’t like it they don’t’ have to come,” is becoming mayoral press secretary Ed Skyler’s standard refrain. As the left envelops Gotham in its destructive shroud, Bloomberg, consistent to a fault, implies that if the middle class “don’t like it” it can leave.
Enthusiastic co-conspirators in the quest to tax, fine, levy and ideologically eradicate the middle class are the City Council members. Term limits have given us a council of political-party apprentices. Realizing that that their council careers are finite, they use their terms of office solely as a means to curry favor with their political masters, to ensure their elevation in the Democratic hierarchy. Representing the needs, interests and values of their constituents is an after thought.
The opinions expressed represent those of the writer, not necessarily those of the Irish Echo.

Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law

This is the begining of the Chicago style reelection of Obama. I assume we will see a lot more of this kind of stuf from the Big Guvernment/Big Labor Leftists that are attempting to take this country over. We must be ever vigilent and get the truth out to our fellow Conservatives and educate the Moderates on the fence as to what the Leftists are really up to. Please do enjoy this article by Jeremy Pelofsky.

Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law

Mon, Mar 12 2012
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new law in Texas requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot, citing a concern that it could harm Hispanic voters who lacked such documents.

The law, which was approved in May 2011, required voters to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, military identification card, birth certificate with a photo, current U.S. passport, or concealed handgun permit.

The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 300,000, did not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete.

"Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification," Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, head of the department's civil rights division, said in a letter outlining the objection to the Texas director of elections.

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry criticized the decision, saying he was obligated to ensure the integrity of elections.

"The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane," he said in a statement.

It was the second state voter identification law blocked by the Obama administration, which earlier prevented a strict new law in South Carolina from taking effect. South Carolina then sued in federal court seeking approval of its law.

Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like Texas must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts.

The Obama administration has already challenged the state's attempt to re-draw congressional districts and that fight is before the courts. Texas in January also sued to get approval for its voter identification law.

Several Republican-governed states, including Texas, Kansas and Wisconsin, have adopted stricter new voter identification laws, arguing they were needed to prevent ballot box fraud. A judge in Wisconsin on Monday issued an injunction against that state's law.

Some civil rights groups have said the new laws threatened to suppress minority voters. Democrats have also said they were aimed at squeezing out university students from the polling booths and seniors who tended to vote for Democrats.

"Photo identification requirements for voters drastically affect the electoral participation of the poor, the elderly, and the transient, which means those who need their government's ear most will be the last to be heard," said Representative Trey Martinez Fischer, a Texas state Democratic lawmaker.

The Justice Department said that potential voters in Texas would require two other identification documents to get a certificate allowing them to vote, which could lead to them paying high fees for copies of legal documents such as birth certificates.

Additionally, nearly one-third of the counties in the state do not have offices where potential voters can obtain a driver's license or state identification card and some residents live more than 100 miles away, the Justice Department said.

Efforts to educate voters about the new identification requirements were also incomplete and the state did not submit evidence of voter impersonation not already addressed under existing state laws, the administration said.

"The state has failed to demonstrate why it could not meet its stated goals of ensuring electoral integrity and deterring ineligible voters from voting in a manner that would have voided this retrogressive effect," Perez said.

Republicans said that the Obama administration's decision to oppose Texas' voter identification law smacked of politics ahead of the 2012 congressional and presidential elections.

"Today's decision reeks of politics and appears to be an effort by the Department of Justice to carry water for the President's reelection campaign," said U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

The Texas lawsuit for approval of the voter identification law is: State of Texas v. Holder in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 12-cv-128.

(Editing by Eric Walsh and Paul Simao)

So what have the Democrats brought us since they have been in power starting in 2006!

My rant today is on the unintended consequences that always result from the actions of the Leftists. Detroit comes to mind as a great example. The left has had complete control of that region since the twenties and look where it has gotten them. Greece, Spain, Ireland are all showing the unsustainable predictable result.

The Democrats ruled the Senate and House of Representatives from 2006 till 2008 then they controlled all three political branches of government (the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives) from 2008 till 2010 when the (Republicans took control of only the house). The Democrats have control of the White House and Congress from 2010 till the present. So with that all being said they own this mess we are currently in. It is time to live within our means, reduce the size and scope of the government.

A simple measure of Government is as percentage of GDP we are currently at 24% we need to reduce this level to no more then 20% of our GDP as this has been a time proven health sustainable maximum level government size.

So what have the Democrats brought us since they have been in power starting in 2006!

1. Obamacare (sure to be a drag on the economy for decades)
2. Spendulus Bills in the trillions (that will be sure to be felt by our grand children)
3. Dodd-Frank bill (sure to raise banking costs and reduce lending of available money)
4. 99 weeks of unemployment insurance (sure to prolong unemployment and put further tax burden on businesses)
5. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 (sure to bring on inflation)
6. 8% plus Unemployment with
7. Record food stamp dependency (why Obama's picture should be on the food stamp)
8. 50% of the population paying no income tax (sure to make it difficult to get voters to make the needed tough decisions that have to be made) 

I have pasted a great article below by John Merline of Investors Daily for your consideration.

Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 02/08/2012 08:02 AM ET

 View Enlarged Image

The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."
The two-year increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.
The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.
"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.
Government dependence has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. D.C.-based Heritage has produced the index for nine years.
The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.
At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
Other findings:
The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% in the past two years.
In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.
The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.
Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.
But Beach says his team's research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.
In addition, the index shot up 8% in 2010, a year when the economy grew by 3%.
Also, in the wake of the 1981-82 recession the dependence index climbed only 6%, then fell the very next year. That early-'80s slump was nearly as long as the so-called Great Recession (16 months vs. 18 months) and saw unemployment rise higher (peaking at 10.8% vs. 10%).
The lingering high jobless rate during the slow economic recovery under Obama could also explain dependency's rise. It's also possible that the growth in federal dependency programs is partly to blame for the ongoing jobs recession, not just the result of it.
As the chart above shows, the time it's taken for employment to reach its pre-recession peak has climbed the past four decades, right along with the growth in federal dependency. The current jobs recession hit a post-World War II record of 48 months in January, with payrolls still 5.6 million below their January 2008 high.
Research seems to validate this connection. Various studies have shown that extending unemployment benefits can keep unemployment rates higher than they would otherwise have been.
Obama's own former economic adviser, Larry Summers, noted in the 1999 Concise Encyclopedia of Economics that "government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment ... by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work."

Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism

This is an is an excellent piece I stumbled upon written by Lachan Markay that I happen to agree with and feel it is a must read, please do enjoy.

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -

Morning Bell: Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism

Posted By Lachlan Markay On January 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am In Rule of Law | 181 Comments

^[1]
Last week, President Barack Obama took the latest step on his road toward an arrogant, new authoritarianism with four illegal appointments that entirely trampled on the Constitution’s requirements. More troubling still, the President chose to shred the Constitution all in the name of serving his Big Labor agenda while killing jobs in the process.
The President’s actions once again gave voice to his animating view of governing: doing so is much easier when one isn’t constrained by the Constitution and its checks and balances. “We can’t wait,” the President exclaimed after unilaterally appointing Richard Cordray as director of the newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He also appointed three officials to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), two of whom had been nominated less than a month before.
The policy implications of the President’s appointments? The CFPB will now have unmitigated authority to issue regulation upon regulation, contributing to the already-crippling red tape that is strangling business in America. And the NLRB will have the power to advance the President’s agenda to bolster unions across the country at the expense of job growth in a smarting economy.
For what, exactly, can’t the President wait? Quite simply, constitutional republicanism — the system of checks and balances integral to American government and political freedom. He grew impatient with the delays that inevitably accompany any legislative action an acted outside the Constitution’s mandated process. But the American people should ask, “Is such action really preferable to a deliberative, if slower-moving, constitutional republic?”
The President’s appointments last week, troubling as they are, are but the next steps on the road to a despotic form of governance that has come to characterize his Administration — and all of liberalism in America today — what authors Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin termed in City Journal this week Obama’s “New Authoritarianism.” ^[2] Frustrated by the unwillingness of the people’s representatives to enact his agenda wholesale, Obama has, from early in his Administration, sought to enact a series of proposals through administrative fiat, not the legislative process:

• The Democrat-controlled Senate rejected his cap-and-trade plan, so Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide ^[3], the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
• After Congress defeated his stealth-amnesty immigration proposal, the DREAM Act, the Department of Homeland Security instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ^[4] to “adopt enforcement parameters that bring about the same ends as the DREAM Act,” as Heritage’s Mike Brownfield explained.
• When the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act–explicitly designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls–was defeated by Congress, the NLRB announced a rule ^[5] that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
• After an innovation-killing Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced — on Christmas Eve, no less — that it would regulate the Web anyway, despite even a federal court’s ruling ^[6] that it had no authority to do so.
• In its push for national education standards, the Education Department decided ^[7] to tie waivers for the No Child Left Behind law to requirements that states adopt those standards, shutting Congress out of the effort.
• Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided ^[8] it would no longer enforce those laws.
• DOJ made a similar move with respect to the Defense of Marriage Act: rather than seeking legislative recourse, DOJ announced ^[9] it would stop enforcing the law.

While these efforts are all aimed at circumventing the legislative process, none was so brazen as his four illegal appointments. Last week, Obama went one step further: He violated not just the spirit of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to make laws, but the letter of the law as well.
The move is “a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers,” explain ^[10] former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage colleague Todd Gaziano, a former attorney in DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, in a Washington Post column. “[N]ever before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess,” they note. “That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.”
Dr. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation, explains ^[11] that this “new despotism” — a government where regulations and unilateral actions replace republican governance — runs entirely counter to the Founders’ vision of America:

The greatest political revolution since the American Founding has been the shift of power away from the institutions of constitutional government to an oligarchy of unelected experts. They rule over virtually every aspect of our daily lives, ostensibly in the name of the American people but in actuality by the claimed authority of science, policy expertise, and administrative efficiency.
If this regime becomes the undisputed norm — accepted not only among the intellectual and political elites, but also by the American people, as the defining characteristic of the modern state — it could well mark the end of our great experiment in self-government.

President Obama’s actions are exactly the kind that the Founders feared and sought to guard against. His illegal appointments usurp power from the American people’s duly elected representatives, and the regulations they will promulgate will, undoubtedly, contribute to the unabated growth of the undemocratic administrative state.
Now that the President has crossed the threshold of constitutionality, there really is no telling where he may stop. There is a clear trend here, however, and it leads further and further from the constitutional order. With these illegal appointments, the President has taken to new heights his disdain for the separation of powers. Whether it will stop here depends on Congress — Will lawmakers of both parties reassert the legislature’s constitutional authority and take a stand against Obama’s arrogant new authoritarianism?