16 Ounces is a pound anywhere on the planet. It doesn’t matter if it is on the left or the right side of the street. What if you were given the choice of a tall glass of ice cold gasoline, a rat poison milkshake, or an amusing walk down a razor blade slope into lake filled with witch hazel and a school of piranha? Is one form of death better than the other? Well maybe the talk of death is a bit animated, but you understand my point. Each of the scenarios I mentioned above are forms of death, and I don’t want to choose from a field of bad just to say that I chose and was a part of the process. What I am talking about is the proverbial “lesser of two evils” cliché in the 2008 US Presidential election. The “lesser of two evils” is still evil. I am not necessarily calling the candidates evil, but if the candidate’s policies are a sweet, covert and warmed over version of an ideology that would overtly be deemed as reprehensible to liberty, then I believe that we should investigate their policies and belief systems a bit more thoroughly. As Edmund Burke once said, “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” This is a philosophical difference, and we need to know what we believe, what the candidates believe, what they are saying, how they say it, and how they legislate currently, as well as in the past.
In the US Presidential race, we see two parties vying for delegates and superdelegates by stating their own platforms, fighting off attacks, and finding ways to magnify the flaws of their opponents. This is just how most people play politics. Meanwhile, Madison Avenue public relations firms are getting rich and having a field day changing images and repackaging the same philosophies right before your eyes. “There is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
“Television was our chief tool in selling our policy.” –Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."Richard Salent, former president, CBS News
Unfortunately, we are living in a feel good age, where it doesn’t matter what’s going on, as long as you’re cool, socially accepted, and looking good. This is the apparent mindset of the American public. If you ask the average person what socialism or communism is, if they know how to count back change from a cash register, or who the Governor of their state is, more times than not, they will give you this glazed over, deer stunned in the headlights look. Then, when they finally snap out of it, they will say some silly remark, name call and keep moving. I must admit that Barack Obama is a very inspiring, well-spoken and is a relatively nice looking man. But what does that matter when it comes to principles and our civic duty? I have met and spoken with many people online and in person about the 2008 election and most people are just caught up in the hype of the primaries and the caucuses. Needless to say, a very small percentage of people actually understand politics, law and/or history.
As I listened to Barack Obama’s speech the other night from Houston, Texas, I also listened to all of the applause that continually thundered through the Toyota Center. I am focusing on Senator Obama because it appears that he has the momentum, and is a seemingly more believable agent of change. Hillary Clinton is perceived as the Washington insider. In actuality, she would be the new boss, same as the old boss; and is trying to continue the Bush/Clinton team in the executive branch from 1980 (Bush Sr. as VP) to 2016.
A few things that Senator Obama called for in that speech in Houston:
- raising the minimum wage rates in line with inflation
- making healthcare affordable for middle class working families
- subsidizing healthcare for those who can’t afford it.
In the first mentioned point, Senator Obama speaks about inflation, but never addresses the cause of inflation. Wages don’t need to be fixed, inflation needs to be fixed. It has nothing to do with raising wages, which ultimately leads to higher priced goods and services. Inflation is chiefly caused by a fiat counterfeit system that adds paper notes with no intrinsic value to our money supply. The average citizen has to go and earn money at a job working for 40-70 hours per week; meanwhile, the central banks can just print dollars at virtually no cost, and then can charge interest on the repayment of that money. If there is a default on the loan, the banks foreclose on tangible assets. Who wins in that system? The big banks (and their shareholders) who issue the currency, of course.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."-- Mayer Amshel Rothschild
The second and third points deal with Healthcare, which the government has absolutely no authority to handle. Life and maintaining life is a private and individual matter. Since our individual lives come from God, we are all individually accountable to Him for how we care for and present our bodies. Healthcare is not a matter of the State; nor is my diet or exercise regimen, etc. So why does Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, want to forcibly enroll us in a healthcare system and forcibly steal our money (taxation) in order to pay for (subsidize) someone else’s healthcare? Well, Hillary Clinton goes a step further in her coercion, and if you don’t buy into the government’s healthcare program, she will have your wages garnished. That came out in an interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC’s “This Week” on February 3, 2008.
In short, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, in principle, socialists. That isn’t a bad term; it’s just an ideological system of governance. However, it happens to be an enemy of freedom, and a kissing cousin to tyranny. Socialism, communism, and fascism, etc. deal with government control, while true free-markets deal with allowing the people the freedom to bargain, barter and/or exchange amongst themselves with no threat of intervention, taxation, regulation or penalty. Tyrannical governments always lead to an uprising of the people in pursuit of liberty.
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”--US Declaration of Independence
“Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”-- Benjamin Franklin
Most people have no concept of tyranny because they are either not students of history or never lived under a tyrannical government. But history is clear and the philosophical writings of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto are very demonstrative. If you read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, it is blatantly obvious that most of characteristics of a Communistic form of government are already going on in 21st century America (and have been for decades). Again, this is not good for personal liberty.
Like I said, socialism, communism and fascism are schools of thought, ideologies. It doesn’t mean that anyone who subscribes to the tenets of these ideologies is sinister. But we need to properly label the mechanisms that are in place in this country.
- Socialism can be defined as the means of producing and distributing goods being owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
- Communism advocates the "collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members."
- Fascism uses a central authority (at times corporations) to maintain control, but "terror and censorship" are common.
Do you want to produce and to be productive, while an unproductive and bureaucratic government uses your resources for their own benefit, and the benefit of others without your consent? If someone is going to get my resources, it should be at my discretion. If it is at my discretion, it is called charity. If it is withdrawn from my paycheck without my consent, it is called theft. You and I were created to be free and sovereign beings, not property of the State to be fleeced like sheep at any given time.
Let’s look at a satirical scenario to understand the principles of governance even more:
SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The State takes one and gives it to someone else.
COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The State takes both of them and gives you milk.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The State takes both of them and sells you milk.
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
FREE MARKET: You have two cows. You do whatever you want with the cows; keep them, milk them, sell them, breed them, or let someone borrow them. It’s your business and property.
Do you see the difference in these ideologies? It’s government control vs. you controlling your own financial affairs. You should be free to make the right or wrong decisions without the threat of someone interfering with your right to choose your own path. So let’s not get sucked into popularity contests, ethnic pride, the “lesser of two evils,” and emotional gender ties during this 2008 election. We should all be people of principle and conviction. Our right to vote was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of those who died and laid the groundwork for the lives that we all live and enjoy today. Don’t let their sacrifice be in vain by making emotional decisions, rather than taking a principled stance on the issues. Why are you voting for your candidate of choice? Remember, socialism in Europe is still socialism in America. The Democratic and Republican candidates are promoting Socialism; but no one is bold enough to admit this because it isn’t politically correct to do so. Don’t be fooled and don’t get caught up in cheerleading; stand your principled ground, get out there and make your voice heard for truth.
Author’s conclusion: My analysis and research has led me to encapsulate this article into a simple analogy. There are many horses running in the race, and a tiny cabal of high-level bureaucrats owns every horse. They fund, strengthen, support and bet on all of the horses. What choice is there for the people in the grandstands who want to vote outside of the establishment structure? The game is fixed because the people are not holding the system accountable; the system is holding the people hostage. This is an upside down game (Picture a pyramid with the widened base and the capstone at the top). The widened base means that the people and the rule of law/principles are the foundation. But today, the capstone is at the base, trying to support the top-heavy structure. It’s all about control!!! Wake up, America!!!!! Most of the candidates running for President in both parties are members or associated with think tanks whose agenda is not for ensuring that America is sovereign, prosperous and free. One think tank in particular is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all-powerful, one world government.”--Rear Admiral US Navy, CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60
Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain are all members of this group. Governor Huckabee gets his briefing on foreign policy from Richard Haas, President of the CFR and others. Congressman Ron Paul is the only US Presidential candidate that is an opponent of the council, and wants to preserve American sovereignty and personal liberty. Look at the following quotes and see the overt socialism, communism and fascism (overwhelmingly minority control over the masses) espoused in each quote. If the Republicans are promoting socialism that you don’t like, then be consistent and don’t accept the Democrats version of it, as well. It doesn’t matter who is spewing the poison; poison is poison. Live well!
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society that originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”--Carroll Quigley, former Georgetown professor and mentor of Bill Clinton
“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”- Carroll Quigley, former Georgetown professor and mentor of Bill Clinton
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.”--Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States
“……….sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”— Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way."--Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd US President
"The case for government by elites is irrefutable." Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?