Tag Archives: Communism

Truth Has No Chance

I’ve read several articles thanks to links from bloggers and news pages which claim that the ‘first’ Thanksgiving was nothing but the orgies of Europeans occupying the homes and tilling the fields of the deceased tribes of Native Americans killed by disease brought by previous settlers.

I do not dispute the fact that lack of understanding regarding disease and its transmission and the dangers of introducing societies to new bacteria and germs without proper inoculation contributed to great sickness and death of the Native Americans. But do we judge history for what we know or for what they knew?

Are we to be judged for our lack of understanding about something which lead, through that ignorance, to some loss, or for the fact that we attempt to mitigate the loss and mend the ill where we encounter it?

But beyond that.

I’ve read the entirety of the journal of William Bradford, governor of the colony at Plymouth. In the evidence fields that is called a primary source. There are few sources indeed which would countermand his testimony and then only with a preponderence of testimony sharply contradictory to his own.

And yet even the stories I read in the enlightened media were stretches and extentions of certain facts to the exclusion of others and themselves did not contradict the crux of the history laid down by Bradford.

Yes, many of the Native Americans in the area of Plymouth were wiped out by disease just prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims. Yes, the Plymouth settlers used the fallow-lying fields and empty shelters of the deceased Native Americans to aid them in their survival. I think from our posh couches and deep cushions we are unable to relate to the deep fear of the complete unknown and the pain of true hunger experienced by those brave adventurers and we judge them be a standard we, even with our comforts and conveniences would not judge ourselves by given a situation not half so bad as they experienced.

What were they to do with the empty and waiting fields and shelters? Out of principle were they to dig fresh fields beside the fallow ones and out of misguided respect leave the tents of the Natives standing as empty monuments to a culture they had little to do directly with damaging?

I think not.

And moving to a different tack: In the face of the socialist pushes of our government, is it not telling that even with such paltry feed at a few kernels of corn and with the ethics of a strong religious faith, the early pilgrims, laboring undering a falsly hopeful system of common holdings and cooperative farming were falling prey to the exact same lethargy which would so cripple the vastly wealthy Russion communist experiment.

The reasons were there: doing right and acute starvation. The resources were there: a fertile land and skilled and willing workers. And yet, when they did not directly control the resources of production nor own the fruits of their own labors these men and women worked without will or vigor and many lives were lost.

If we cannot accept the facts of history when the controvert our own closely held presuppositions regarding the nature of the world, is there any hope for us to learn from the mistakes of our forebearers?

When the truth is not accepted, do we have a chance?

Who Owns The Money?

McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.

Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.

Buying votes with your cash.

First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.

But whose money do they use? Yours.

If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.

Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.

It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.

He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.

If only more in the current crop of public megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.

But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.

The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.

The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.

The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:

  • We are better at choosing those causes which are actually worthy.
  • We’re less likely to be duped in significant numbers and for substantial amounts of money than the government with its fat-handed largess.
  • And it doesn’t cost as much for us to get our money to those causes which are worthy, so more money gets to them overall and less is wasted in the endless iterations of bureaucracy.

Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.

Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.

The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.

The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.

Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.

Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.

Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.

Check his closet for skeletons.

Comment Spam Makes You Think

First they went after the Communists, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm, and I did not stand up, because I was neither. Then they went after the Jews, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew. Then they went after the Catholics, and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant. Finally, they went after me, and there was no one left to stand up for me.

Funny thing about spam, some of it makes you think. This is the content of a splog (Spam Blog) spam comment Akismet caught for me this morning. It really is spam, unlike the comments by our friend Random who I initially labeled as spam due to their off-topic nature. The blog the links pointed to exists to make money, not to serve content. But the content of this comment is intriguing.

Many of you may find this quote vaguely familiar. It is, in fact, a misquoting of Pastor Martin Niemueller, a Lutheran Minister during the Nazi rule of Germany. Initially, observing the evil taking over his country, he kept his head down, protecting himself, but then he realized his responsibility before God and began speaking out. He was arrested and tried and sent to prison. His actual quote, while he was in prison, is a haunting reminder of out responsibility before God to stand up for the oppressed:

They came for the Jews and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew. They came for the Catholics and I said nothing, because I was not a catholic. When they came for the workers, I said nothing because I was not a worker. When they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me.

This contrasts sharply with the quote in the spam comment above. A person today with an education derived exclusively from today’s American culture would say that the two quotes are substantively the same: they all reference groups that have been or are currently abused at the hands of the culture in general. But there are significant differences between the two. Deeper than the obvious additions of Communists, Homosexuals, and the infirm, is the idea that all choices are equally valid and that there is no compelling moral argument against certain choices.

This argument, on it’s face, is false. It is simple a retelling of the common and equally false supposition: universal relativism:

“There is no objective truth!” the claim rings across the hills and valleys.

“Oh? Is that true?” the echo returns.

“Yes, it is!” is the reply, ignorant of it’s own disproving irony.

Communism is a demonstrable evil, those who say otherwise are willfully ignorant or evil themselves. There is no comparison between communism and the workers or a religious perspective as similarly misunderstood ideologies or lifestyles. This is not the place and there is not the time to get into a full discussion of the evils of communism.

Homosexuality is a different beast altogether, and there are very emotional arguments and very reasoned arguments on all sides of this beast, (read my previous thoughts on the matter). But at the root is the inherent destructiveness of the lifestyle defined by homosexuality. It is not a matter of two equally valid choices: hetero or homo. It is a choice between life and death.

The infirm are a group that must be stood up for, as the nature of their infirmity may make it difficult for them to protect themselves if not prevent it altogether. It is no surprise that as we devalue the human, turning ourselves into little more than ascended monkeys, capital to be used, abused, and neglected, that the silent members of our species, the unborn and the sick, are being discarded like so much baggage at the whim of our fancy.

The Terri Schiavo incident revealed the culture of death in our society, where people argued that it was in the best interest of humanity to take this humans’ life. With the wonders of modern medicine we see a number of cases where people in what is popularly called “Persistent Vegetative State” are actually quite lucid, and simply unable to respond. In as many as 43% of cases diagnosed as PVS, the patient later recovers and in some cases tells of being able to perceive everything that went on around them and that was done to them.

I rather like reading my comment spam now and again. It is mostly trash filled with links, but every once in a while, a gem comes along, such as this, and thoughts ensue.

Students For Freedom, Nobel For Rush, Bush Is Right

Three stories caught my attention today, and for this reason: That conservative values of individual responsibility, recognition of absolute truth, and consistency of conviction in the face of repeated attack, always resonate, always work (even if they seem to fail in the short term), and always get their reward.

Reagan repealed what is known as the “Fairness Doctrine”, a policy which required that all publicly broadcasting media channels give “equal time” to all viewpoints on any issue or risk losing their licenses. This allowed the growth of Talk Radio, which has blossomed in a way quite without precedent among the conservative mainstream. There have been attempts by private liberal interest groups to duplicate the successes of conservative talk radio, but they have, without exception, failed miserably. Most recently Air America, a Soros-funded venture filed for bankruptcy protection. Only NPR, the federally-funded broadcasting corporation which would appear to be a thinly veiled arm of the American Communist Party.

Now, Pelosi, et al. wish to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine to force broadcast stations to do allow both sides of an argument regardless of monetary feasibility. The idea behind the success of conservative political talk radio is that people enjoy listening to it, they buy the products advertised on it, they support the stations who broadcast it. This is not a wild guess that people like to listen to conservative political talk, it’s a concrete, incontrovertible fact. If the fairness doctrine were reenacted, there would be backlash and then disinterest, lethargy and apathy would kick in. Stations would close and people would lose their jobs. Pelosi likes this idea, she wants Rush to lose his job so badly she’s willing for hundreds and thousands of small-town DJ’s and radio station personnel to lose theirs as well.

Pelosi’s friend, Mr. Chavez down in Venezuela has been enacting the fairness doctrine recently. The most popular radio station in Venezuela, which was critical of Hugo and his policies, was shut down recently amid massive protests. Students have led the protests claiming an affront to their rights as citizens of Venezuela. Students have led many protests and revolutions in recent times, and not always to their benefit. There were the drugged out protests of the rich, lazy, uncaring youth of the 60’s in America. There were the idealistic but misinformed and ultimately evil revolutions in Russia in the early 20th century which brought in the terrible times of communism, of which Hugo Chavez is either a willfully and evilly ignorant blind follower or an evil, knowing proponent. Sometimes, the proposed change is so much more radical than the actual need that in itself it is evil, such as many of the protested things of the 60s. A whole country is enslaved to communism, a whole generation is nearly wiped out, the American flag cannot fly proudly in a section of the world because of the self-interested pursuits of a privileged and drugged generation here in America.

But sometimes it is the courage and strength, the energy of youth which stands up for the right against the tyrannical likes of Mr. Chavez, the evil. Laying down their own bright futures in hopes of a brighter future, if not for themselves, for those who follow.

John Berlau at HumanEvents.com has written a response to the fawning Mr. Gore is receiving at the hands of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. In his article he submits that Mr. Rush Limbaugh is more deserving of a peace prize as through his works of education and confrontation peoples lives have been saved around the world. Mr. Gore, on the other hand, has only globally broadcasted misinformation, personal ideological greed, and terminal stupidity contained in a corpulent animated corpse to lay to his name. An idol of Mr. Gores’ is the author of Silent Spring, which can be directly blamed for causing the shift in public opinion against DDT which has allowed the resurgence of malaria around the world, and the resulting multitude of deaths, nearly all preventable by use of the tiniest amount of DDT.

Andrew McCarthy at NationalReview.com has written an article detailing the multitude of reasons which Bush has been, is, and continues to be right concerning the war on terror, and how those who disagree with him cannot help but follow him if only for self-preservation. While they wish they could pull out, liberals with any sense know they cannot, and therefore they will do nothing more than push mindless and useless “symbolic” and “non-binding” resolutions recommending pull out by certain arbitrary dates (I really should write about how meaningless words can be). Bush’s problem isn’t that he isn’t right, it’s that he’s not the communicator he should be. Reagan was a great communicator, Kennedy was a great communicator, Roosevelt (Franklin) was a great communicator. They communicated the needs and demands of a higher calling effectively and with words powerful and frequent. Bush has repeatedly failed to capture the ideas of the nation and draw them in the direction of his plans of America’s moral projectionism.

Sinning Into Socialism

America is hardly the first nor the last nation to be gripped by socialism. I say this as a matter of fact and in a manner that should not be alarming, because while America is unique in all of history we can’t be so naive to believe it is immune to degradation and failure? No, America is not immune because nothing is free of sin and that which follows in its wake, death. America over the past hundred years and predominantly the last sixty has slowly become more socialistic. I believe taking a look back in history and observing other great nations in history will aid in helping us prevent the failure of another great nation.

I observe the historical empires such as Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Ottoman Empire and all fundamentally fell due to a lack of morality. Morality prevents death, disease and upholds life and produces national vitality as it brings the people together under a common banner. There’s still tension in the nation, but moral anarchy is even more damaging. Just as gravity and thermodynamics are true today and tomorrow, for the workings of mankind morality is equally especial and true.

The moral fiber first breaks down with the rejection of God or an object of worship which is similar to God and secondly the rejection of the family (via abortion, divorces, illegitimate pregnancies, polygamy, pornography, homosexuality). The break down of these two slowly lead to disunity, more sin, unrest and inevitable civil war. I believe the Roman Empire is a very good example because its failure began first within via the worship of Caesar, the peoples’ moral degeneracy and civil wars which allowed the Germanic tribes to easily conquer and ruin the Roman Empire. Another historical power is that of the nation of Israel and its rise and fall is detailed very well in the Bible. Under obedience to God Israel grew and became a regional power under King David and Solomon. However, with the disregard for God by David and Solomon and the people Israel fell under the heel of other pagan nations.

Considering history I must now take a hard look at America and ask the question of whether or not we as a nation are on the path towards becoming another statistic. Now I’ve titled this writing, “Sinning Into Socialism” because an indicator of sin in a nation is directly proportional to socialism in a nation; and vise versa. I generally define socialism as the centralization of the individual’s or families’ responsibilities and power into the State government, due to the individual and family abdicating responsibilities. Now I say sin and socialism are directly proportional, in that order, because sin abdicates responsibility and power and produces a void that the State is often more than happy to fill; thus the centralization of responsibility and power. This filling of the void is also necessary as a last resort to restore relative order. One living example of socialism would be public school.

Public school is not the natural means of education, because before there was ever a State or central school children were raised by their parents into a trade or skill. For thousands of years parents have been raising and educating their children without the help of that State. I’m not saying there were never higher levels of learning like colleges and scholastic programs but that children were first taught by their parents and eventually financed onto higher learning.

In public school from the ages of 4 to 5 years unto age 18 or 19 years (~15 years) parents give up all of their responsibilities in managing the time, money and curriculum in order to educate their children, rather these are given to the State to manage. But the State does not generate wealth of its own and has to tax indiscriminately, so whether you are retired or have no children you are taxed to send children to public school. Curriculum wise the State is allowed to determine what is taught in the classroom which logically is a conflict of interest as hopefully you’d see that the State can teach exactly what will perpetuate the State’s agenda and power. While American government is a constitutional republic and in theory is to represent the people, this belief is based on the assumption that the people will be an active role within the government via voting and petitioning but when none of this happens the State becomes an entity of its own without accountability and thus more power. And the more people abdicate their responsibilities and power the more power the State will receive.

Other examples of the State filling the void of responsibility which the people should be caring for such as, social security, welfare and Medicare. Now what happens when even the states within America abdicate their responsibilities? Naturally the Federal governing body which is even more detached from the people gains power and leads to Statism. Often I hear people bemoaning the fact that public schools are not safe or the students are not getting a good education, or I hear Medicare drugs are to expensive, or I hear the question, “What is the president going to do about it,” and at the same time I hear the chains of the masses sounding. Such statements and questions imply the State and Federal government has the responsibility and power. The people have set themselves in debt to the State and thus bondage.

Now I realize I have implicily jumped over making an argument against socialism or in more general words, relying on the state to fulfill certain needs. As socialism is defined and in practice the power is centralized in fewer people in the body called the State. As history has shown the more power fewer have, the more corrupt they become because there’s no accountability. This is exactly the case for socialism, communism, totalitarianism, fascism, etc. “Absolute power, corrupts man absolutely,” as the phrase goes. Thus the more power that can be spread out over the people, assuming the people willingly take on the responsibilities, the better the health of a nation. All the empires I had listed above didn’t begin as a totalitarian government, but rather the people had more power, and it was over time that the State became absolute. So in short we all must rely on ourselves and call ourselves to be good stewards first because we are the foundation for our society.

Going back to the Garden of Eden we can see the action of Adam and Eve abdicating their responsibility and power to Satan by rejecting God and his commandment and also his blessings. After that moment where did God find Adam and Eve, in the garden hiding (abdicating) their responsibilities and thus began the story of man’s bondage. However, I have not only written this to point out the problem, but also to point out the answer.

The answer is simple! People must take responsibility for themselves and their families. People must take back what they have given up to the State whom they have come indebt to. I don’t call for radical revolutions which would honestly cause more harm to America, but slow generation by generation taking back what is rightfully ours. First we must submit ourselves to God and his revealed word in the Bible. Our attitude and worldview must be centered on God and we must stop being the judge of God and the following steps will naturally fall into place. Secondly we must take back the family which is the cornerstone to all of life and civilizations. One man and one woman is marriage and they are commissioned by God to have children in their means and to raise them in the Lord which means to be a self reliant, contributing citizen. Thirdly the Church must stop dividing over pointless doctrines and pride. Forth would be to be a productive person in the State and Federal government to ensure the people are protected from evil acts.

I realize though that no one is perfect and I can say this especially of Christians. Knowing right and wrong and not living in ignorance of Jesus Christ is not easier, it is in fact harder. It’s harder because it’s taking back responsibility for us and our families and I think that is why Christians have such a hard time. We set ourselves in a place where we can easily be called hypocrites and failures, but it is still better than living in ignorance. To deny the one true God and deny one’s calling is easy and I see many people do it. I don’t expect a revolution over night, but rather a generational progress to taking back dominion and being better stewards.

It would, however, be not wise to rapidly abolish all socialism in America because many would be left destitute and unable to care for themselves or their families. For example, removing public school would ruin families dependent on two incomes or even a single parent. They would not be able to run the home and care for their children’s education and furthermore, the state and federal government wouldn’t remove the tax used to pay for public education. Therefore, it’s a slow step by step process first beginning with the man and woman of a family making the decisions to build a family based around a single income and or income from home and then preparing the home for educating their children. Also it requires these families to rightfully vote down bonds and additional taxes for funding public school as the family is now taking on the responsibilities and costs.

I’d like to note that I am NOT talking about instituting a theocracy or any religious state. I am actually a proponent of the complete opposite, I am calling for the many, the people, to take back upon themselves their own responsibilities that they were born into and that they have chosen. This is quite close to what our Founding Fathers created and intended. Once the people take back their power the State or any other institution will fall into its proper place. This is the price of freedom, it isn’t easy and it never will be. The very nature of man calls him to be in bondage and to break free of that is daily work.

In conclusion, only the straight and narrow path of scripture is the means to any hope for America. Not socialism, post-modernism, humanism, communism, statism, relativism, nihilism, etc. I always relate morality and truth to that of the laws which are observed and govern the universe. If the universe is governed by such strict laws, how can we believe that mankind can be governed by anymore than one law? Morality is not relative and it is not us who determines it. The revolution begins with the individual and the family. If America can take this to heart and slowly remove sin within and without, there will be hope. Otherwise this great nation will come and go as all have! This is not speculation or opinion, the wages of sin is DEATH, death of self, families, and state; nothing is free of the wages of sin. The pyramid of civilization begins with the foundation of the people and if the foundation is weak and crumbling the pyramid will fall. For the sake of my family I hope we all can make wiser choices in the years and generations to come.