Just a little Socialism Progressives to FULL BLOWN SOCIALISM!
Government bureaucrats want their jobs and they keep them by gaining more and more power and control over their serfs and slaves (us). Government produces NOTHING. Government is a PARASITE that lives off the producers, i.e. private business and entrepreneurs who make and sell a product and employ millions of people who are ripped-off by government.
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the primary lesson of the history of socialism.”
The above quote is from Porter Stansberry – from his book, America 2020: The Survival Blueprint. It states a concept I’ve described for years, but Porter states it more succinctly than I ever have. In particular, it negates the argument by many “progressives” that, even if they don’t recommend full-on socialism, they believe in getting “just the right mix” of socialism and capitalism to create the ideal system.
Unfortunately, as viable as this concept may sound, even moderate socialistic national policies result in moderate deterioration of the system. It’s not unlike being “just a little” addicted to heroin.
It may be argued that, “That’s different. With heroin, the addict will always end up wanting more and he’ll become even more dependent.” Exactly so – and that’s unquestionably true for socialism as well. Once the concept of “free stuff” is part of a nation’s governing system, the desire for more free stuff will inexorably rise.
And, of course, historically, we have seen that governments always step up to the plate whenever the demand for more free stuff is suggested. But why should this be so? Wouldn’t a more conservative government be less likely to proffer entitlements than a more liberal government?
Actually, no. To believe this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance. Those who are governed like to believe that their government exists to serve them, and all political leaders are quick to encourage this perception. However, amongst themselves, political leaders fully understand that they exist primarily to feed off of and dominate the electorate. Of course, they can’t actually admit this, but, regardless of party affiliation, that is their very raison d'tre.
In a free-market society, a government is not especially necessary. It may be needed to defend the country if it’s invaded, or, arguably, it may be useful in creating a national currency, building national highways, etc. (But even these needs may be argued.)
A free-market society is beneficial, as it creates prosperity. It enriches the population with money, goods, and services. It also rewards those who are most productive. However, it does tend to leave behind those who are less productive, and here’s where political leaders find their opportunity to cash in.
Let’s say we have a country that’s made up of five voters, with their respective net worth as follows:
Voter A: $1
Voter B: $10
Voter C: $100
Voter D: $1,000
Voter E: $10,000
If I were running for office and declared that no one should own more than $10, I would not be elected, as most voters would quite rightfully regard me as a threat. But if I were to declare that “the greedy rich” have too much money and should be required to “give some back,” I might get all voters except Voter E to vote for me.
Why should this be so? Because no one thinks of himself as being amongst “the greedy rich.” For the man who is worth $1,000, the greedy rich are those who are worth $10,000 or more. But, likewise, the man worth $100 thinks of the greedy rich as those worth $1,000 or more. Human nature dictates that we don’t see ourselves as greedy, but it’s not too difficult for politicians to convince us that those who have more than us are greedy. Further, once we’re convinced of this, it’s not too difficult to fool us into believing that the greedy rich have, in some way, achieved this wealth by swindling us out of it. And, now that you mention it, yes, we would like to have some of it back, thank you.
So, any population becomes an easy target for leaders who promise to take from the rich and “give back” to the less rich, like a modern-day Robin Hood. But what of that claim that “just the right mix” of socialism could take some away from the rich, but leave prosperity intact? Well, here’s why that will never happen in any country…
Political leaders, as stated above, do not exist to serve the populace, they exist to feed off of and dominate them. They cannot do this without the wealth of the electorate passing through their hands. The more of the electorate’s wealth passes through their hands, the greater the amount that can be skimmed off to both enrich themselves and increase their power. (Only in Uruguay does the President leave office driving the same Volkswagen he did when he took office.)
And so, it’s the nature of governments (whether they claim to be conservative or liberal) to seek to increase the size of government annually (requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands) and to take an ever-greater part in the hands-on distribution of the nation’s wealth. All governments will do all they can to grow themselves, as it’s very much in their interest to do so. All governments will, regardless of their party rhetoric, continually pursue a greater level of socialistic policies. In this regard, political parties are interchangeable.
So, where does that leave the individual voter? Well, the vast majority will vote for the candidate whose rhetoric most closely follows his own ideals, but he will surely be the loser as a result. (Campaign rhetoric almost always proves to be a lie.)
The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory.
This is a most unpleasant conclusion to come to grips with, as it informs the individual not only of his current situation, but the rest of his life. In standing back and observing his entire future from a greater vantage point, he realises that, increasingly, he will be beating his head against the wall if he remains where he is.
Those who internationalise do so with the understanding that, if they choose one country because it’s the most ideal to do banking in and choose another because it’s the most productive to invest in, they will prosper. At some point, they additionally realise that it’s also beneficial to apply that logic to their choice of country of residence.
Throughout the life of anyone who advances himself, there’s a tendency to change neighbourhoods from time to time to attain a better quality of life. Yet most people drop this logic as soon as they reach the borders of the country they were born in. In truth, the decision to move beyond national borders to choose a neighbourhood – one where the system has not deteriorated to the point that it’s dramatically usurping the wealth of the individual – is not such a great leap. In fact, it’s relatively easy to do.
In much of the former “free world,” socialism is here to stay, but the individual citizen needn’t be. He may vote with his feet and move to a better neighbourhood.
[Editor's Note: So, what is the purpose of government? WHY do people need government? It is true that Defense of the USA against enemies, foreign and domestic is necessary, but there is no other service besides Defense provided by federal government today that could not be provided by private enterprise for a fee and probably much more efficiently with much less waste and fraud. How much factual evidence is required to convince a significant majority of Americans that government should be cut by at least 50%? No one can deny that the "Legislative-Executive-Judicial Cabal's" organizational failures detrimentally effect citizens. In fact, wasteful, fraudulent government agencies exist merely to expand government employee union ranks and their power both financially and politically. Not one government department or agency provides a NECESSARY service except Defense. The Executive branch with its "independent" agencies is so huge, complex, and organizationally "top heavy" that accountability does not exist. Each generation of Americans loses more "true" information about how government infringes their rights. Each generation loses more and more freedom.]
A recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that a majority of Americans are unaware of what is considered basic knowledge of the Constitution.
This information, which was released Wednesday, comes on the cusp of the 228th anniversary of Constitution Day (Sept. 17).
Here are some of the most surprising findings from the survey:
1 in 3 Americans believe the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to home ownership.
1 in 4 Americans believe the Bill of Rights guarantees “equal pay for equal work.”
1 in 3 Americans (31 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government and 32 percent could not identify a single branch.
1 in 4 Americans (28 percent) believe a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling is sent back to either Congress for reconsideration or to the lower courts for another decision.
1 in 10 Americans (12 percent) believe the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own a pet.
25 percent of respondents agreed that “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it started making a lot of rulings most Americans disagreed with.
26 percent said when Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, it should pass legislation saying the court can no longer rule on that issue.
26 percent favored requiring a person to testify against himself in court.
46 percent opposed a prohibition on “double jeopardy,” or retrying a person for the same crime twice if new evidence emerged after a not-guilty verdict.
54 percent believe the government should not be able to prohibit a peaceful march down a main street, even if the marchers’ views are offensive.
50 percent believe the government should not be able to prohibit practice of a religion if a majority of voters thought that it held un-American views.
76 percent opposed giving the government “prior restraint,” the right to stop the press from publishing articles critical of the government.
The survey was conducted during the last few days of August among 1,012 adults ages 18 and up. Its margin of error is plus or minus 3.7 percent.
See the following links for more related articles:
[Editor's Note: what I have dubbed the "Legislative-Executive-Judicial Cabal" which the American People have caused by ignoring the generational transition from our Constitutional Republic to what now is, in effect, an "elected" dictatorship. Never mind who is elected. Never mind which bogus party is in power. The superficial, theatrically staged, choreographed appearance of debate, disagreement, and stalled legislation always resolves into more government and less FREEDOM. We the People still lose more freedom after every "emergency" or unnoticeably when CON-gress passes another general, open-ended law(?) that enables the Executive (dictator) and its unaccountable agencies to formulate more freedom-restricting regulations (200 pages a day get posted to the Federal Register). The "Dictator's" agencies (police force) continue to pile-up more weapons to squelch uprising(s) when the People finally realize and understand their tyrannical government.
A Constitutional Convention is necessary to amend the Constitution for Congressional Term Limits to twelve (12) years and restrict time in DC to only six (6) months per year. Such an Amendment is only a FIRST step in restoring America to its Constitutional roots. Back in the day when the People still feared kings, the president's term was limited by Constitutional Amendment.
Currently, CONgress is just a group of socialists, progressives, and faux-conservatives (career politicians) that, on a daily basis, ignores the Constitution, many of their own past statutes, and cedes their responsibilities to the president ("elected" dictator). A comparison to the history of Rome becomes more and more credible with the Executive and its "featherbedded" lackeys gaining more power while CONgress sits back all fat-dumb-and-happy.
CONgress has made recent efforts to expose State Dept. failures in Benghazi (inept political leader), Fast-and-Furious gun-running (criminal AG), IRS 1st amendment violations, gov't union Veterans Administration fraud, and whining about Obama(Reid)-killer-Care, but these efforts are mostly politics as usual. Most "citizens" will forget about these infringements from our unaccountable, uncontrollable Executive branch with its tyrannical agencies staffed by socialist unions that extort "juicy" contracts from the "elected" dictatorship.
Most positions in the federal government whether elected, appointed, or hired are nominal, make-work jobs (confidentially) designed merely to grow government, bilk money from private businesses and citizens, and eventually fully transform America into a totalitarian state. When this happens, CONgress will have destroyed the economy and the country by their negligence and counter-liberty policies, and it will be almost impossible to Restore America. The 'Restore America' list is only a beginning too.]
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison, Federalist Paper 47, Friday, February 1, 1788
Anyone who believes this country is free is an idiot!
"Extortion and thuggery are good things when they're called law!"
Larken Rose
[Editor's Note: a Constitutional Convention is required to reverse the damage to freedom and liberty since 1900.
The States must "demand" a Convention and explicitly specify an agenda of:
laws to be repealed or modified,
Amendments to existing constitutional clauses that define the co-equal branches to further specify and define, and
new Amendments or statutes to be eventually ratified by States.
These Amendments should further specify and clarify the powers of the Legislature and Executive Branches. A good example is the definition of a "Bill".
A Bill should contain ONLY verbiage in regards to the topic of the future law. NO earmarks and NO unrelated sections or attacments.
Many past Bills sent to a president for signature contained unrelated but essential funding sections that rendered the Bill veto-proof when it warranted a veto.
CON-gress can override a veto if the Bill is deemed absolutely necessary by CON-gress.
If the Bill requires SPECIFICALLY related amendments, the CON-gress can "debate" (with its usual theater) and vote any new amendments.
The original text of the Constitution contains some very GENERAL clauses enabling both CON-gress and Executive branches to write laws and
regulations with their particular nuances expanding powers beyond intent. "Intent" may be gleaned from a complete understanding of
Federalist Papers.
An example of further specification and clarity for CON-gress should be a clear, very specific definition of the boundaries for the interstate Commerce Clause.
To restore freedom, liberty, and individuality - minimally these must be repealed:
Currently, even with computer-searching systems, the list of antiquated and/or obsolete statutes (and related regulations) is unwieldy.
These statutes must be invalidated unless there remains an applicable reason for retaining the law(s).
Aside from invalidating statutes, there are many regulations that are biased in favor of large enterprises (who buy support from bureaucrats)
at the expense of the competition, effectively repressing the Free Market. Any regulations not related to public safety that gives a financial advantage
to some companies over their smaller rivals must be rescinded to enable all companies with good consumer products to excel without burdensome regulations.
Additionally, the Convention should adopt for ratification at least these new Amendments or statute modifications:
clearly define and limit the role of government in regards to the term "general welfare",
Term Limits for CON-gress (12 years) including a 6 month limit on time residing in DC,
strict Prohibition of Lobbying (with a comprehensive definition of "lobbying"), and
a Balanced Budget Amendment to stop wreckless spending. During a CON-gressionally declared "war" (only after USA is attacked or attack is proven "imminent"),
deficit spending is permissible.
Restore America to its roots, i.e. Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice. Some Agencies are required like CIA and NSA, both respectively focused on defense against real foreign aggressors and not fictitious paranoid delusions of war mongers. Other agencies help where certain interstate communications are necessary. Most agencies like Agriculture, Education, DEA, IRS (eliminated with 16th Amendment) and many other listed here should be eliminated.
Restore the world Gold Standard with five contentious steps, and
Replace the IMF, World Bank, and Export-Import Bank with facilities that reflect the new Gold Standard, and
After decentralizing and economizing, if tax revenue is needed to fund all or part of the federal government, then implement the Fair Tax.
Regarding a Constitutional Convention itself, some of the available literature warns the reader about a possible "unstructured" and "mismanaged"
Convention that might propose and adopt amendments that could damage the Republic.
Possible, however, it is difficult to envisage how much more damage could done over what the L-E-J Cabal has already done.
If the Convention's agenda and rules of order strictly prohibit violation of the rules and enable a vote on unlisted Amendments AFTER all others are adopted,
then the Convention will be properly structured and managed. ]
See the following links for more related articles:
Those who seek out positions of power tend to be paranoid, hypocritical wimps. Consider the issue of firearms. Politicians have many thousands of mercenaries (soldiers and "law enforcers") wielding all sort of deadly weapons--guns, tanks, missiles, drones, etc. Yet those same politicians pee themselves at the thought of the rabble owning semi-automatic rifles. From their twisted, elitist perspective, it's perfectly fine for them to swipe many billions of dollars from their subjects to spend on all manner of armaments, but if YOU want to possess a rifle, they think you should have to ask their permission, and register it, and make sure they always know what you own.
They also expect to be allowed to do things in secret, while claiming the right to spy on you and everyone else. As far as they are concerned, it's none of your business what they do, or what weapons they have, but it is their business to know everything that you do and everything that you have. Of course, they will pretend that their goal is to protect you from the "criminal element," but you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that. Why do you suppose they mostly whine about civilians having weapons that:
are used in only a tiny percentage of actual crime, and;
are the most effective types of weapon for resisting "government"
aggression?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. People who gravitate towards political office think they have the right to rule you. That's the job they applied for. And, of course, extorting you and bossing you around could be rather more difficult if you are better armed than their enforcers. So they hand out machine guns to their mindless thugs, but have tantrums about you having a 30-round magazine.
A new Congress has been seated, and it brings the prospect of perhaps, maybe, potentially, in a possible way doing something about the runaway federal deficits. And in other news, several New York area bridges are for sale, which you can acquire at a bargain price.
Excessive Spending Destroys!
Feds Have a Spending Problem — DO NOT RAISE THE CEILING!
Feds Have a Sewage Problem!
Becky Gerritson: "...government is out of control!" and "...our representative government has failed us."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to detail under oath how some of former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails went missing, as well as any potential methods for recovering them.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month — until Aug. 10 — to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.
Judicial Watch is seeking a wide range of documents from the IRS, including Lerner’s emails, as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. It has complained that the IRS didn’t tell it that the agency couldn’t recover all of Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.
Sullivan cast his ruling as a compromise, and a potential way for Judicial Watch to get answers without the court wading any deeper into the matter. Judicial Watch had asked the court to potentially compel IRS officials to testify about the lost emails, through a process called limited discovery.
The FairTax is a consumption tax unilaterally applied to all Americans at the same rate. For businesses, payroll taxes would no longer exist. Our exports would include a heavy tax for overseas buyers purchasing our products, while our imports would be cheaper for us to purchase. I'm not sure how this would affect GDP, as more information is necessary.
According to the FairTax website, "Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate." The prebate gives every legal resident household an "advance refund" at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free.
So a family of four making something like $50,000/year should not have to pay taxes, thus preventing an unfair burden on low-income families. Since the FairTax eliminates both federal and payroll taxes, you get to keep your gross pay amount of each paycheck earned.
John Adams said, “Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
