V-I-C-T-O-R-Y
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
and my personal blog side
http://insidethemindofmatt.blogspot.com/
Wow... I could not be happier than I am right now. Our judicial system just made my day folks. I literally jumped out of my chair at hearing this news!
Okay... catch you up. For those of you who remember my articles when I wrote Patriot Pride News, you will remember the "Fort Dix Six" attackers who were thwarted in their efforts by good old fashioned detective work about 2 years ago.
These Islamofascist, in early 2007, were arrested before they were able to carry out a plot to MURDER American soldiers on a state side Army base located in New Jersey, about 25 miles from where they stayed in Philadelphia.
C.A.I.R., (the council on American Islamic relations) and other islamofascist groups claimed the men were not really going to do anything. Defense attorneys as well argued that the "boys" were just joking around.
Let's do some analyzing really fast.
They illegally purchased fully automatic weapons.
They asked a local video store employee to transfer to DVD videos of them firing those assault weapons and screaming about Jihad (holy war.)
They traveled and hiked deep into, on a regular basis, the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania where they would practice shooting their weapons.
There were hundreds of hours (not a couple joking hours here and there but hundreds) of audio recorded on the 5 men by undercover agents hired and placed by the FBI. These hundreds of hours including talks of Jihad, they spoke of specific details of how they would enter the base. They even spoke about knowing they would be martars because they knew there was no way they were going to make it off the base alive.
They were recorded intending on time lines to get their affairs in order as they would be killed when they carried out their mission on the base.
They were heard hundreds of times stating "...we will kill as many American soldiers as we can..."
And these men are just joking and playing around?
THEY ARE TERRORIST! They should be in Guantanamo Bay! They need to be interrogated until we get every single piece of information out of them that we need. Then they can go spend the rest of their pathetic lives rotting away in a prison somewhere. Preferably deep within the earth isolated from society and sunlight until they die.
I would like to share with you the names of the terrorists who are probably going to spend the rest of their lives in prison after finally being convicted today on the charges of "Conspiring to kill U.S. military personnel."
May the following pieces of cow excrement rot in hell for all eternity.
Shnewer, a Jordanian-born cab driver;
Turkish-born convenience store clerk Serdar Tatar;
Dritan, Eljvir and Shain Duka, ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, who had a roofing business.
The sixth man was only charged with gun charges and plead guilty long ago. His name was not mentioned and I can not find it in my archives right off hand.
Hey Shnewer, Serdar, Dritan, Eljvir and Shain... I'll have you know your virgins are all fat and ugly.
I bid you good day.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Call 911 (bail out story)
Call 911
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
and my personal blog site
http://insidethemindofmatt.blogspot.com/
Someone, anyone, please, I don't care who, please; CALL 911! (Figuratively.) I think I'm going to have a heart attack and/or a stroke before this is over. I can feel my carotid arteries hardening and my cerebral vasculature disintegrating as we speak.
Who else is following the bail out money? I ... I ... damn ... I mean really. I'm at a loss for words. (And that's a rare occurrence.) I really think I'm just going to go out and start screaming at people. I really do. I'm honestly at the point that I went to hire Black Water to interrogate Wall Street. We need to take these big bank executives who, by the way are STILL flying around in private luxury jets, and put them in a room and let black water use whatever tactics it feels necessary, to get the truth out of these pieces of pond scum as to where our money is at. Do I think anyone should oversee these interrogations to assure no illegal tactics are used? HELL NO I DON'T! If Wall Street doesn't have to give accountability then by God neither do we!
So today I am writing to you concerning an article forwarded to me by a fellow political columnist Amy T. in Michigan. I'm willing to bet she is also having a stroke and/or a heart attack over this; as every American should be!
I've switched things up a little bit. The parts of the story I am taking from the Associated Press will be in "blue", my replies will remain in "black".
I want to explain what is happening here for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Congress forced, very rapidly, a bill to steal 700 billion from our pockets and give it to criminals. Let me be politically correct. Washington saw a hurt and a growing crisis within the economy and felt the only appropriate resolution was to move with lightening speed and provide a financial blanket to Wall Street in order to strengthen the resolve of the U.S. economy.
So far $350,000,000,000 of the stolen funds have been distributed to the various thieves. These include criminals such as, but not limited too; JP Morgan Chase, SunTrust Banks, Inc, Regions Financial, Citibank, Bank of America, Marshall & Ilsley Corp, Bank of New York Mellon, BB&T Corp, Comerica, Inc, US Bancorp & Huntington Bancshares, Inc.
Go ahead you robbing, thieving criminal pieces of stinking, steaming cow excrement, sue me for calling you what you are! I beg you! You ARE thieves, you ARE criminals, and frankly, you ARE pieces of ... moving on. (See, I'm getting better, I censored myself.)
These companies refuse to say where the money is going. They will not give any type of accounting. Check out these statements (thank you to A.P. for obtaining.)
Thomas Kelly, spokesman for JP Morgan Chase: "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of... We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
Barry Koling, spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc: "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,"
Tim Deighton, Regions Financial Corp. spokesman: "We manage our capital in its aggregate,"
Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon: "We're choosing not to disclose that," Kevin Heine then added to that "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
The A.P. cornered Carissa Ramirez of Morgan Stanley. She asked to speak under the condition of anonymity, when they refused she replied with ""We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc: "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time,"
Some of the companies have not yet spent the money, but not those listed. They have been spending the money and refuse to give any type of accountability.
Let's play make believe for a minute. It was so much fun in grade school I just like to keep doing it.
Let's first to the land of reality where you are going to the bank to get a loan. Let's say it goes something like this.
Bank: Hi, how can I help you?
You: I would like $5,000.00 please.
Bank: The purpose for your loan.
You: Go f*** yourself!
Bank: Excuse me?
You: Go f*** yourself. I don't have to tell you how I'm going to spend your money. Now give me the 5 grand a** hole.
Bank: We're calling the police, please leave now.
Okay... now let's go to the land of make believe. I like to call this place ... Congress.
Tax payer: Okay, what can we do for you?
Banks: We want X billion dollars.
Tax payer: Okay, where do you intend to spend this money and how can you assure accountability given the history of your company leading up to now. What is your collateral?
Banks: What? Are you serious. F*** you. We don't have to tell you that.
Tax payer: (90%+ of the citizens) Fine, then we aren't giving you our money. [enter Congress stage left] (get it... left.)
Congress: F*** you tax payer. Hi banks, here's X billion.
Banks: F*** you too Congress, and thanks for the cash. Alright boys let's go! It's time for $450,000 corporate vacations, private luxury jets and Christmas bonus's for us executives.
Ha... I bet the banks thought we alread forgot about that $450,000.00 luxury vacation they took right after receiving their bail out money. That one where a bunch of corporate exec's spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on hotels, massages, etc, right after getting our money.
This is absolutely out of hand. But... I found an agenda here.
I was so proud of the A.P. this morning. This whole time they've been pushing the leftist agenda and fighting for the bail out, emphasizing the urgency and making sure to point out how right-winged law-makers were standing in the way. Then they write this story... they start pointing out how there is not accountability and Wall Street as a whole is acting like criminals. Then I come to this paragraph and discover the real agenda behind the story.
"Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent."
And there it is! They could care less what Wall Street is doing with the money. The entire article was a leftist push to further hurt the Bush administration and thus the republican party. They want to make sure the voting public knows who's to blame here. Forget that fact that Bush did push this. They wouldn't talk about that before. They just kept mentioning how his administration is making it too difficult for them to write a real bail out bill. But not now... oh no... now it's completely reversed. If those evil, evil republicans wouldn't have forced us to do this so fast then we wouldn't be getting hosed like this. Democrats, being the responsible party they are, would have haulted the bail out in its tracks until they assured proper accountability was in place. Damn those wascally we-pub-wicans!
I think I'm going to be sick... maybe that's the pizza I left on the counter all night and ate a few minutes ago for lunch. I can't tell.
Alas... I'm growing tired of watching myself type and quite honestly the heart attack I'm having is starting to kill me. You folks have got to do something as well. http://www.congress.org/ Write your elected officials and tell them not to give anymore bail out money to anyone. Tell them to stop everything and reverse everything. Tell them to force accountability on these thieves... wait... thief... acountability... is that an oxymoron? Oh well, I digress.
I bid you good day.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
and my personal blog site
http://insidethemindofmatt.blogspot.com/
Someone, anyone, please, I don't care who, please; CALL 911! (Figuratively.) I think I'm going to have a heart attack and/or a stroke before this is over. I can feel my carotid arteries hardening and my cerebral vasculature disintegrating as we speak.
Who else is following the bail out money? I ... I ... damn ... I mean really. I'm at a loss for words. (And that's a rare occurrence.) I really think I'm just going to go out and start screaming at people. I really do. I'm honestly at the point that I went to hire Black Water to interrogate Wall Street. We need to take these big bank executives who, by the way are STILL flying around in private luxury jets, and put them in a room and let black water use whatever tactics it feels necessary, to get the truth out of these pieces of pond scum as to where our money is at. Do I think anyone should oversee these interrogations to assure no illegal tactics are used? HELL NO I DON'T! If Wall Street doesn't have to give accountability then by God neither do we!
So today I am writing to you concerning an article forwarded to me by a fellow political columnist Amy T. in Michigan. I'm willing to bet she is also having a stroke and/or a heart attack over this; as every American should be!
I've switched things up a little bit. The parts of the story I am taking from the Associated Press will be in "blue", my replies will remain in "black".
I want to explain what is happening here for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Congress forced, very rapidly, a bill to steal 700 billion from our pockets and give it to criminals. Let me be politically correct. Washington saw a hurt and a growing crisis within the economy and felt the only appropriate resolution was to move with lightening speed and provide a financial blanket to Wall Street in order to strengthen the resolve of the U.S. economy.
So far $350,000,000,000 of the stolen funds have been distributed to the various thieves. These include criminals such as, but not limited too; JP Morgan Chase, SunTrust Banks, Inc, Regions Financial, Citibank, Bank of America, Marshall & Ilsley Corp, Bank of New York Mellon, BB&T Corp, Comerica, Inc, US Bancorp & Huntington Bancshares, Inc.
Go ahead you robbing, thieving criminal pieces of stinking, steaming cow excrement, sue me for calling you what you are! I beg you! You ARE thieves, you ARE criminals, and frankly, you ARE pieces of ... moving on. (See, I'm getting better, I censored myself.)
These companies refuse to say where the money is going. They will not give any type of accounting. Check out these statements (thank you to A.P. for obtaining.)
Thomas Kelly, spokesman for JP Morgan Chase: "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of... We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."
Barry Koling, spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc: "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,"
Tim Deighton, Regions Financial Corp. spokesman: "We manage our capital in its aggregate,"
Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon: "We're choosing not to disclose that," Kevin Heine then added to that "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
The A.P. cornered Carissa Ramirez of Morgan Stanley. She asked to speak under the condition of anonymity, when they refused she replied with ""We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc: "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time,"
Some of the companies have not yet spent the money, but not those listed. They have been spending the money and refuse to give any type of accountability.
Let's play make believe for a minute. It was so much fun in grade school I just like to keep doing it.
Let's first to the land of reality where you are going to the bank to get a loan. Let's say it goes something like this.
Bank: Hi, how can I help you?
You: I would like $5,000.00 please.
Bank: The purpose for your loan.
You: Go f*** yourself!
Bank: Excuse me?
You: Go f*** yourself. I don't have to tell you how I'm going to spend your money. Now give me the 5 grand a** hole.
Bank: We're calling the police, please leave now.
Okay... now let's go to the land of make believe. I like to call this place ... Congress.
Tax payer: Okay, what can we do for you?
Banks: We want X billion dollars.
Tax payer: Okay, where do you intend to spend this money and how can you assure accountability given the history of your company leading up to now. What is your collateral?
Banks: What? Are you serious. F*** you. We don't have to tell you that.
Tax payer: (90%+ of the citizens) Fine, then we aren't giving you our money. [enter Congress stage left] (get it... left.)
Congress: F*** you tax payer. Hi banks, here's X billion.
Banks: F*** you too Congress, and thanks for the cash. Alright boys let's go! It's time for $450,000 corporate vacations, private luxury jets and Christmas bonus's for us executives.
Ha... I bet the banks thought we alread forgot about that $450,000.00 luxury vacation they took right after receiving their bail out money. That one where a bunch of corporate exec's spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on hotels, massages, etc, right after getting our money.
This is absolutely out of hand. But... I found an agenda here.
I was so proud of the A.P. this morning. This whole time they've been pushing the leftist agenda and fighting for the bail out, emphasizing the urgency and making sure to point out how right-winged law-makers were standing in the way. Then they write this story... they start pointing out how there is not accountability and Wall Street as a whole is acting like criminals. Then I come to this paragraph and discover the real agenda behind the story.
"Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent."
And there it is! They could care less what Wall Street is doing with the money. The entire article was a leftist push to further hurt the Bush administration and thus the republican party. They want to make sure the voting public knows who's to blame here. Forget that fact that Bush did push this. They wouldn't talk about that before. They just kept mentioning how his administration is making it too difficult for them to write a real bail out bill. But not now... oh no... now it's completely reversed. If those evil, evil republicans wouldn't have forced us to do this so fast then we wouldn't be getting hosed like this. Democrats, being the responsible party they are, would have haulted the bail out in its tracks until they assured proper accountability was in place. Damn those wascally we-pub-wicans!
I think I'm going to be sick... maybe that's the pizza I left on the counter all night and ate a few minutes ago for lunch. I can't tell.
Alas... I'm growing tired of watching myself type and quite honestly the heart attack I'm having is starting to kill me. You folks have got to do something as well. http://www.congress.org/ Write your elected officials and tell them not to give anymore bail out money to anyone. Tell them to stop everything and reverse everything. Tell them to force accountability on these thieves... wait... thief... acountability... is that an oxymoron? Oh well, I digress.
I bid you good day.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Lies, Lies and More Lies
Lies, Lies and More Lies.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
I found today's column on yahoo news. Today's column was inspired by an article I found entitled "Obama left with little time to curb global warming". Credits for that story, though they are horribly researched, go to those indicated on their page.
The story I am taking from will be in "black", my replies will be in "blue".
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.
Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
A ticking time bomb? I think not. Let's go to the real facts here folks. False scares such as global warming have been present in our economy since the media joined the true liberal agenda. In the 1960's we were told there would be a huge population boom that would lead to world starvation. Didn't happen. In the 1960's again, we were told there was a global warming being caused by man's industrialization of the world. We were told, in the 1960's, if nothing was done, we would be dead before the year 2000. Didn't happen. But what did happen? In the 1970's the temperatures started to go back down dramatically. So what did the media and liberals say? We are causing global cooling and were going to cause the next ice age. Didn't happen.
What was the cause behind their global warming scare? Green house gases. The green house gases were trapping hot air and not allowing the world to ventilate into space. What was the cause for the global cooling scare? Green house gases. The green house gases were trapping in cold air and not allowing in heat from space via the sun. Which is it? Are we causing global cooling? Or are we causing global warming? OR... Are we causing neither? This is what I intend to debunk with today's article.
Who knows what caused the warmer temperatures in the 1960's that led to the scare? Anyone? No one? Not a single person? Okay... I'll tell you. Solar flares. Solar flare activity was very high. Now, did liberals ever attribute this to the cause? Nope. However, science, by accident, did.
Recently we discovered that the temperate on Neptune is rising. It's getting hotter... on Neptune. The furthest planet from the Sun (Pluto is now classified a moon not a planet) is getting hotter. What reason did NASA itself give us? It would seem, there was some solar flare activity not long ago with our soon. Appearantly the heat from those flares is now getting to Neptune and increasing it's overall global temperature. Hmm... So... When Neptune heats up, it's because of the sun. When any planet heats up, it's because of the sun. But when the Earth heats up, it's evil industry killing mother earth.
I was actually surprised by the data with Neptune. I automatically assumed the Neptunians were driving their SUV's too often and creating green house gases and thus causing global warming. Or is it global cooling that causes? I can't keep up with which one liberal scientist say it causes from day to day.
We all learned about Global Warming and man destroying the Earth from Al Gore's wonderful science fiction film, An Inconvenient Truth. This is what the media is basing everything off of. They are taking straight from Al's movie and turning into media produced mass hysteria. I think it's only fair we allow real scientist to have their turn when it comes to what they call "A Collection of Convenient Outright Lies."
Thank you to The Science and Public Policy Institute for your years of tireless research which led to exposing the lies about global warming. The Institute found not 1, not 2, not 3, but 35 outright lies. Basically, the entire movie.
You can read all the lies here
The British High Court assigned scientist to investigate the movie. They charged Al Gore, to which he still has not faced accountability, with spreading mass hysteria by telling 9 absolute, definitive, outright lies.
Read that story here
The liberals claim that the hottest years on record have been in our recent history, most within this and last decade. NOT! Again, more lies.
This global warming religion (which I'll prove later) has reached the highest levels of government. Even NASA helped lie about it. NASA scientist came out with research stating that 1998 was the hottest year on record. It was later discovered that the scientist intentionally misfed figures into the database in order to produce the results they wanted. When scientist inserted the real data, they discovered the hottest year on record was 1934. Furthermore, the beginning of this century was the hottest man can remember ever seeing, and over the duration of the century, we've been cooling down.
Read that entire story here
And here are the corrected database records recording temperatures
Folks, I'm going to keep going; but do I really need too? I mean seriously. What more do you want for proof? I can do this all day long. I have researched global warming more than most of you have spent time at work. Let's get back to the Yahoo News story I'm debunking.
"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."
Did you know that Al Gore was the first person in history to nominate themselves for the Nobel Peace Prize? Well, now you do.
In actuality, as we are now seeing as more and more truth comes forward, Al Gore has a group of scientist about 100 strong that are backing his global warming lies. The rest of the scientist in the world completely disagree with the facts being offered by alarmist.
Real scientist hate global warming so much they formed this petition to stop it.
This petition has been signed by MORE than 31,000 scientist in the U.S. alone! Wow!
Okay just so you know, I've left out paragraphs from the Yahoo News story that are irrelevent, such as "he's meeting with so and so to discuss...", etc.
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
People look at conservatives, libertarians, and anyone against the global warming myth as being against the environment. This is an outright fallicy. We are completely for the environment. We believe in improving upon the way we do things. We believe in leaving less and less imprint in the world as we move society forward. But, we do not believe in taking part in a mass hystery based on false testimonies being used to push forward a liberal propoganda to do away with capitalism (get to this later as well.)
"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."
THERE IS NO CRISIS! IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."
Things have been going extinct since the dawn of time. Seriously folks. To debunk these statements just refer to links provided earlier in the column.
I tell you what, if you want to read the rest of the filth Yahoo News adorned it's site with please feel free. I already read it once, and it made me sick the first time. Trust me, it's just the same thing over and over, and if I continue to cover it, I'm just saying the same thing over and over.
So what is global warming? Is it real?
YES! It is. BUT! So is global cooling. The earth's temperature goes up and down all the time. This is part of the natural recycling chain that maintains the environment. Much like our own body has buffer systems designed to maintain homeostasis. Our temperature goes up and down throughout the day too in case you didn't know. As do our blood pressures, pulse and respiratory rate, as well as other metabolic functions.
Did you know that right know the Pacific ocean is actually at its coolest temperature in nearly 20 years? Scientist say this is because the oceans naturally go through cycles of hotter and colder. Again... as long as it's not the temperature affecting man, or if it's on another planet, it's natural. But when it's affecting man, it's caused by evil man.
Did you know many places throughout the world are seeing some of the earliest and heaviest winters they've had in decades? Well, they are.
What is global warming really? It's a religion being formed by the Reverend Al Gore to advance the liberal agenda to abolish capitalism. There, I said it.
Liberals have been trying to abolish capitalism and slowly insert socialism for 50 years. It wasn't until they began their environment scares that they started to receive the public support needed to start having the government take over private industries. They've been using scare after scare to justify this. Offering new plans, reimbursement programs, subsidy programs, etc, while constantly taking more and more government control over private industry.
The larger they can make the false crisis, and the more people they can terrify, the easier it is for them to abolish capitalism and ultimately birth their socialist utopia. For more on this see my examination of the Communist Manifesto.
So it global warming a religion? Yes. Proof? Sure...
Al Gore has been traveling the globe for almost 15 years now. He goes from town to town and holds special meetings. At these meetings, he teaches those attending to go out, form new chapters against global warming. He teaches them how to bring in new members, how to bring in funds, when, where and how to conduct meetings. They are to base everything from his teachings and spread his word throughout the world. Folks, he's going around making disciples, and their Reverend, their, god, is him.
If you still believe in global warming being caused by man, I don't think there is much hope for you left. Global warming is real, but again, so is global cooling. Neither of which are we responsible for nor do we even have the capability to changing if we wanted too. Short of Nuclear Winter, man is far too weak and puny to affect what God so perfectly designed.
I bid you good day.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
I found today's column on yahoo news. Today's column was inspired by an article I found entitled "Obama left with little time to curb global warming". Credits for that story, though they are horribly researched, go to those indicated on their page.
The story I am taking from will be in "black", my replies will be in "blue".
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.
Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
A ticking time bomb? I think not. Let's go to the real facts here folks. False scares such as global warming have been present in our economy since the media joined the true liberal agenda. In the 1960's we were told there would be a huge population boom that would lead to world starvation. Didn't happen. In the 1960's again, we were told there was a global warming being caused by man's industrialization of the world. We were told, in the 1960's, if nothing was done, we would be dead before the year 2000. Didn't happen. But what did happen? In the 1970's the temperatures started to go back down dramatically. So what did the media and liberals say? We are causing global cooling and were going to cause the next ice age. Didn't happen.
What was the cause behind their global warming scare? Green house gases. The green house gases were trapping hot air and not allowing the world to ventilate into space. What was the cause for the global cooling scare? Green house gases. The green house gases were trapping in cold air and not allowing in heat from space via the sun. Which is it? Are we causing global cooling? Or are we causing global warming? OR... Are we causing neither? This is what I intend to debunk with today's article.
Who knows what caused the warmer temperatures in the 1960's that led to the scare? Anyone? No one? Not a single person? Okay... I'll tell you. Solar flares. Solar flare activity was very high. Now, did liberals ever attribute this to the cause? Nope. However, science, by accident, did.
Recently we discovered that the temperate on Neptune is rising. It's getting hotter... on Neptune. The furthest planet from the Sun (Pluto is now classified a moon not a planet) is getting hotter. What reason did NASA itself give us? It would seem, there was some solar flare activity not long ago with our soon. Appearantly the heat from those flares is now getting to Neptune and increasing it's overall global temperature. Hmm... So... When Neptune heats up, it's because of the sun. When any planet heats up, it's because of the sun. But when the Earth heats up, it's evil industry killing mother earth.
I was actually surprised by the data with Neptune. I automatically assumed the Neptunians were driving their SUV's too often and creating green house gases and thus causing global warming. Or is it global cooling that causes? I can't keep up with which one liberal scientist say it causes from day to day.
We all learned about Global Warming and man destroying the Earth from Al Gore's wonderful science fiction film, An Inconvenient Truth. This is what the media is basing everything off of. They are taking straight from Al's movie and turning into media produced mass hysteria. I think it's only fair we allow real scientist to have their turn when it comes to what they call "A Collection of Convenient Outright Lies."
Thank you to The Science and Public Policy Institute for your years of tireless research which led to exposing the lies about global warming. The Institute found not 1, not 2, not 3, but 35 outright lies. Basically, the entire movie.
You can read all the lies here
The British High Court assigned scientist to investigate the movie. They charged Al Gore, to which he still has not faced accountability, with spreading mass hysteria by telling 9 absolute, definitive, outright lies.
Read that story here
The liberals claim that the hottest years on record have been in our recent history, most within this and last decade. NOT! Again, more lies.
This global warming religion (which I'll prove later) has reached the highest levels of government. Even NASA helped lie about it. NASA scientist came out with research stating that 1998 was the hottest year on record. It was later discovered that the scientist intentionally misfed figures into the database in order to produce the results they wanted. When scientist inserted the real data, they discovered the hottest year on record was 1934. Furthermore, the beginning of this century was the hottest man can remember ever seeing, and over the duration of the century, we've been cooling down.
Read that entire story here
And here are the corrected database records recording temperatures
Folks, I'm going to keep going; but do I really need too? I mean seriously. What more do you want for proof? I can do this all day long. I have researched global warming more than most of you have spent time at work. Let's get back to the Yahoo News story I'm debunking.
"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."
Did you know that Al Gore was the first person in history to nominate themselves for the Nobel Peace Prize? Well, now you do.
In actuality, as we are now seeing as more and more truth comes forward, Al Gore has a group of scientist about 100 strong that are backing his global warming lies. The rest of the scientist in the world completely disagree with the facts being offered by alarmist.
Real scientist hate global warming so much they formed this petition to stop it.
This petition has been signed by MORE than 31,000 scientist in the U.S. alone! Wow!
Okay just so you know, I've left out paragraphs from the Yahoo News story that are irrelevent, such as "he's meeting with so and so to discuss...", etc.
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
People look at conservatives, libertarians, and anyone against the global warming myth as being against the environment. This is an outright fallicy. We are completely for the environment. We believe in improving upon the way we do things. We believe in leaving less and less imprint in the world as we move society forward. But, we do not believe in taking part in a mass hystery based on false testimonies being used to push forward a liberal propoganda to do away with capitalism (get to this later as well.)
"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."
THERE IS NO CRISIS! IT DOESN'T EXIST!
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."
Things have been going extinct since the dawn of time. Seriously folks. To debunk these statements just refer to links provided earlier in the column.
I tell you what, if you want to read the rest of the filth Yahoo News adorned it's site with please feel free. I already read it once, and it made me sick the first time. Trust me, it's just the same thing over and over, and if I continue to cover it, I'm just saying the same thing over and over.
So what is global warming? Is it real?
YES! It is. BUT! So is global cooling. The earth's temperature goes up and down all the time. This is part of the natural recycling chain that maintains the environment. Much like our own body has buffer systems designed to maintain homeostasis. Our temperature goes up and down throughout the day too in case you didn't know. As do our blood pressures, pulse and respiratory rate, as well as other metabolic functions.
Did you know that right know the Pacific ocean is actually at its coolest temperature in nearly 20 years? Scientist say this is because the oceans naturally go through cycles of hotter and colder. Again... as long as it's not the temperature affecting man, or if it's on another planet, it's natural. But when it's affecting man, it's caused by evil man.
Did you know many places throughout the world are seeing some of the earliest and heaviest winters they've had in decades? Well, they are.
What is global warming really? It's a religion being formed by the Reverend Al Gore to advance the liberal agenda to abolish capitalism. There, I said it.
Liberals have been trying to abolish capitalism and slowly insert socialism for 50 years. It wasn't until they began their environment scares that they started to receive the public support needed to start having the government take over private industries. They've been using scare after scare to justify this. Offering new plans, reimbursement programs, subsidy programs, etc, while constantly taking more and more government control over private industry.
The larger they can make the false crisis, and the more people they can terrify, the easier it is for them to abolish capitalism and ultimately birth their socialist utopia. For more on this see my examination of the Communist Manifesto.
So it global warming a religion? Yes. Proof? Sure...
Al Gore has been traveling the globe for almost 15 years now. He goes from town to town and holds special meetings. At these meetings, he teaches those attending to go out, form new chapters against global warming. He teaches them how to bring in new members, how to bring in funds, when, where and how to conduct meetings. They are to base everything from his teachings and spread his word throughout the world. Folks, he's going around making disciples, and their Reverend, their, god, is him.
If you still believe in global warming being caused by man, I don't think there is much hope for you left. Global warming is real, but again, so is global cooling. Neither of which are we responsible for nor do we even have the capability to changing if we wanted too. Short of Nuclear Winter, man is far too weak and puny to affect what God so perfectly designed.
I bid you good day.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Realization of Racism
The realization of racism.
By Matthew Quinn Llewellyn, Founder
Americas Conservative Movement
http://www.myspace.com/usaconservativemovement
Barack Obama is now the President elect of the United States of America. While many have taken a tone of hatred and anger I believe we should take a different tone. Regardless of our liking our President or not, he is still our leader. While we don't have to like him, we do need to show him the respect his position deserves.
I would be just as honored to be photographed with Barack Obama as I would Ronald Reagan. Rather than just send slurs of hatred towards Washington, let us send our prayers. Our leaders need direction, they need guidance, and as we know, you don't have to believe in God, for God to believe in you. President Obama, congratulations on your achievement.
Now... that being said, I'm going to start pointing out some fallacies that I've seen present with this election and I've held my tongue. However, now that Mr. Obama has won, I feel a need to point these out.How many of you have ever been to a doctors office? Or seen a medical documentary? How many have ... you know... If I keep this up it'll go on and on so I'll just stop and move forward.
On November 3rd, 2008 (the day before the election), all over America, there were individuals who have achieved amazing success and accomplished huge feats in their lives. They have been an inspiration to the entire world, to their families, colleagues and of course, their children. Who are they? Allow me to explain... Black people.That's right... Black people.
Black brain surgeons, black heart surgeons, black general physicians, black judges, black senators, black representatives, black governors, black mayors, black police chiefs, black fire chiefs, black paramedics, black 4 star generals, black fighter pilots and black CEO's.
Those black men and women spent their lives taking advantage of the American dream. They worked hard, they studied, they pushed through and ultimately they triumphed. Honestly, I would have thought black children everywhere would look at these people as an inspiration, as would any children. Why? Because they are proof that this America is no longer than America of our grandfathers. This America is the one where every man and woman, regardless of their race or religion, can persevere and achieve anything they put their mind to.
Personally, if I were running for President, I would look to these individuals and say something along the lines of; "... and to all of you, I say, thank you, for showing us all that there is a better way, and with work, we can achieve our dreams."
However, if you are Barack Obama running for President, you say "F*** you" you those people.
(Hey, be happy, I actually censored my own typing there... I considered "screw you" in place of "f*** you" but it just didn't have the same emotion behind it.) Moving on.
When Barack Obama's campaign, and supporters, and people like Oprah Winfrey, went on national television after his victory, they literally said "f*** you" to every black man and woman who has grasped the American dream. They stood there and said that Mr. Obama's election is "finally" an affirmative sign that black people in this nation "really do have a chance now" and that they "finally" can become something better.
Wow... how offended I would be if I were a black person. Every single word they used was just another slap in the face to the forward movement of people like Martin Luther King, Jr.Black people have been on the same playing field as white people for decades now. My God, the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff was General Colin Powell, a black man... I studied about him in my elementary school. I remember being in elementary school and my teacher saying "This goes to show us that today, thanks to people who sacrificed, anyone, regardless of their skin color, can be anything they want."
I was taught this was a problem almost 20 years ago, yet on November 4, 2008 I found out we are just now starting to move forward.
Folks... friends... family... this entire mess sickens me... literally... it makes me sick at my stomach... perhaps that's just the bacon pizza settling... I digress...
The point here is what? The point is that President elect Obama and the far left want you to believe this is a nation of poverty and bigotry. They want you to believe that on November 3, 2008 this nation was full of millions of white oppressive racist and millions of oppressed black people, but on November 4, 2008, that day, my friends, is when the Savior changed the nation... he brought forth his promised change... he delivered the promise land.Side note: I was listening to KRMG around 5:13am election day when they interviewed a black man in Chicago near the election party area where Mr. Obama was to speak. He said and I qoute "I know I won't get close to him, but if I can just touch the grass, just touch the grass, that's all I need to know, is that I was here and touched the grass." Folks... remember people saying "...yet if I only touch his cloak I know my daughter will be healed." President elect Obama is the Messiah to these grossly undereducated people.
Mr. Obama wants us all to believe that he is bringing out of the darkness and into a Utopian dream, where people are dancing in circles, everyone is holding hands and all the little boys and girls of the world are using the same baby powder on their bottoms.
It's a myth people... we don't live in a world like this. We live in a world of unfairness. However, we, as Americans, already live in what others in 3rd world countries consider Utopia. We already live in the land where every boy and girl, regardless of race can be whatever they want.
Somehow, I don't know how, but somehow, Mr. Obama caused everyone to forget that.
Let's move on to this other little myth. I am getting sick and tired of hearing everyone say "We finally elected a black President." ... NO WE DID NOT!!! You can't hear me, but if you could, I would be yelling that very loudly I assure you.
NEWSFLASH... OBAMA IS NOT BLACK! He's white!
What's that? You want proof... I'll give you proof... but first... let's play by the myth. The myth is that Obama is half black and half white. Right? Right. So... if this is true, exactly what makes him black? Why can't he be white? He was white before. President elect Obama used to go by a different name than Barack, he was once known as Barry. Barry, was the name he used while growing up, going to college and used shortly after college. Barry clung to his white heritage and completely dismissed his black and other heritage (we'll get to the other later.) He didn't want in any way to have an association to that heritage. He did everything he could to avoid it. Why? Who knows and who cares. The fact is, he did. However, there came a day that Barry decided he wanted to get into politics. All of a sudden he was no longer Barry, but now, he was Barack, the black, minority, just trying to stand up against his white oppressors and make a better future for black people and minorities like him around the world.
Now... here's the truth. Mr. Obama's mother was 100% white, which would make him 50% white. His father was (roughly) 75% black and 25% aramaic, which would make Mr. Obama (roughly) 35% black and 15% aramaic. Wait a minute? Does that mean? YES! It does! Here everyone is shouting victory for electing the first black President when in reality... you just elected another white guy. One that I am sure will forget the minorities now just as quickly as he did before he started this campaign.
My final thought is that or ironic nature. Oprah, the Reverend Jackson, and the largest majority of big Obama supporters came out and told the world that this election was proof that a black man in this nation could do anything. Their logic, a black man finally can run for President in this country and win. WOW... this one is so easy to take apart I didn't even have to try.
This may come as a surprise to you, but since the early 20th century, there has been a black man run for President in every single election. I'm serious... look it up. In fact, on average, there are 20-30 people running for President in every election. As time progresses those with the largest amounts of money make it to the final 4-6 and those with even more money make it to the final 2, then, the 1 that is the member of the party that the nation currently dislikes the least wins the election. Black people have ran for President for decades folks. What made Obama different? Money... good old fashioned green paper.
Up until President elect Obama announced he was running for President he was a no-name to everyone outside of Illinois. In fact, even after he announced it, he was still a no-name. The media noticed him about just as much as anyone else who wasn't already a big national name. So what changed? Mr. Obama went out and spent millions and millions of dollars getting his name out there so he would have to be a well known name across the country, thus, the media had to pick it up, because people we're then getting interested. Everyone says Obama won because he was black... no he didn't... he's not black. Others say he won for his policies... no he didn't... his voters didn't know what his policies were.
Howard Stern had a feature just the other day where voters were asked who they supported. Those that said Obama were then presented with McCain's policies and asked since those are Obama's policies do they still support him, and they all said yes.
He won the election why? Because he had a whole lot more money than McCain to spend on the election. So... considering that's what really happened. What message is really being sent to the black children in this country? Is it: you can be anything you want to be no matter what? Or is it: You can be anything you want, so long as you have a whole, whole lot more money than whitey does, otherwise... you're screwed.
I bid you good-day and good-night.
By Matthew Quinn Llewellyn, Founder
Americas Conservative Movement
http://www.myspace.com/usaconservativemovement
Barack Obama is now the President elect of the United States of America. While many have taken a tone of hatred and anger I believe we should take a different tone. Regardless of our liking our President or not, he is still our leader. While we don't have to like him, we do need to show him the respect his position deserves.
I would be just as honored to be photographed with Barack Obama as I would Ronald Reagan. Rather than just send slurs of hatred towards Washington, let us send our prayers. Our leaders need direction, they need guidance, and as we know, you don't have to believe in God, for God to believe in you. President Obama, congratulations on your achievement.
Now... that being said, I'm going to start pointing out some fallacies that I've seen present with this election and I've held my tongue. However, now that Mr. Obama has won, I feel a need to point these out.How many of you have ever been to a doctors office? Or seen a medical documentary? How many have ... you know... If I keep this up it'll go on and on so I'll just stop and move forward.
On November 3rd, 2008 (the day before the election), all over America, there were individuals who have achieved amazing success and accomplished huge feats in their lives. They have been an inspiration to the entire world, to their families, colleagues and of course, their children. Who are they? Allow me to explain... Black people.That's right... Black people.
Black brain surgeons, black heart surgeons, black general physicians, black judges, black senators, black representatives, black governors, black mayors, black police chiefs, black fire chiefs, black paramedics, black 4 star generals, black fighter pilots and black CEO's.
Those black men and women spent their lives taking advantage of the American dream. They worked hard, they studied, they pushed through and ultimately they triumphed. Honestly, I would have thought black children everywhere would look at these people as an inspiration, as would any children. Why? Because they are proof that this America is no longer than America of our grandfathers. This America is the one where every man and woman, regardless of their race or religion, can persevere and achieve anything they put their mind to.
Personally, if I were running for President, I would look to these individuals and say something along the lines of; "... and to all of you, I say, thank you, for showing us all that there is a better way, and with work, we can achieve our dreams."
However, if you are Barack Obama running for President, you say "F*** you" you those people.
(Hey, be happy, I actually censored my own typing there... I considered "screw you" in place of "f*** you" but it just didn't have the same emotion behind it.) Moving on.
When Barack Obama's campaign, and supporters, and people like Oprah Winfrey, went on national television after his victory, they literally said "f*** you" to every black man and woman who has grasped the American dream. They stood there and said that Mr. Obama's election is "finally" an affirmative sign that black people in this nation "really do have a chance now" and that they "finally" can become something better.
Wow... how offended I would be if I were a black person. Every single word they used was just another slap in the face to the forward movement of people like Martin Luther King, Jr.Black people have been on the same playing field as white people for decades now. My God, the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff was General Colin Powell, a black man... I studied about him in my elementary school. I remember being in elementary school and my teacher saying "This goes to show us that today, thanks to people who sacrificed, anyone, regardless of their skin color, can be anything they want."
I was taught this was a problem almost 20 years ago, yet on November 4, 2008 I found out we are just now starting to move forward.
Folks... friends... family... this entire mess sickens me... literally... it makes me sick at my stomach... perhaps that's just the bacon pizza settling... I digress...
The point here is what? The point is that President elect Obama and the far left want you to believe this is a nation of poverty and bigotry. They want you to believe that on November 3, 2008 this nation was full of millions of white oppressive racist and millions of oppressed black people, but on November 4, 2008, that day, my friends, is when the Savior changed the nation... he brought forth his promised change... he delivered the promise land.Side note: I was listening to KRMG around 5:13am election day when they interviewed a black man in Chicago near the election party area where Mr. Obama was to speak. He said and I qoute "I know I won't get close to him, but if I can just touch the grass, just touch the grass, that's all I need to know, is that I was here and touched the grass." Folks... remember people saying "...yet if I only touch his cloak I know my daughter will be healed." President elect Obama is the Messiah to these grossly undereducated people.
Mr. Obama wants us all to believe that he is bringing out of the darkness and into a Utopian dream, where people are dancing in circles, everyone is holding hands and all the little boys and girls of the world are using the same baby powder on their bottoms.
It's a myth people... we don't live in a world like this. We live in a world of unfairness. However, we, as Americans, already live in what others in 3rd world countries consider Utopia. We already live in the land where every boy and girl, regardless of race can be whatever they want.
Somehow, I don't know how, but somehow, Mr. Obama caused everyone to forget that.
Let's move on to this other little myth. I am getting sick and tired of hearing everyone say "We finally elected a black President." ... NO WE DID NOT!!! You can't hear me, but if you could, I would be yelling that very loudly I assure you.
NEWSFLASH... OBAMA IS NOT BLACK! He's white!
What's that? You want proof... I'll give you proof... but first... let's play by the myth. The myth is that Obama is half black and half white. Right? Right. So... if this is true, exactly what makes him black? Why can't he be white? He was white before. President elect Obama used to go by a different name than Barack, he was once known as Barry. Barry, was the name he used while growing up, going to college and used shortly after college. Barry clung to his white heritage and completely dismissed his black and other heritage (we'll get to the other later.) He didn't want in any way to have an association to that heritage. He did everything he could to avoid it. Why? Who knows and who cares. The fact is, he did. However, there came a day that Barry decided he wanted to get into politics. All of a sudden he was no longer Barry, but now, he was Barack, the black, minority, just trying to stand up against his white oppressors and make a better future for black people and minorities like him around the world.
Now... here's the truth. Mr. Obama's mother was 100% white, which would make him 50% white. His father was (roughly) 75% black and 25% aramaic, which would make Mr. Obama (roughly) 35% black and 15% aramaic. Wait a minute? Does that mean? YES! It does! Here everyone is shouting victory for electing the first black President when in reality... you just elected another white guy. One that I am sure will forget the minorities now just as quickly as he did before he started this campaign.
My final thought is that or ironic nature. Oprah, the Reverend Jackson, and the largest majority of big Obama supporters came out and told the world that this election was proof that a black man in this nation could do anything. Their logic, a black man finally can run for President in this country and win. WOW... this one is so easy to take apart I didn't even have to try.
This may come as a surprise to you, but since the early 20th century, there has been a black man run for President in every single election. I'm serious... look it up. In fact, on average, there are 20-30 people running for President in every election. As time progresses those with the largest amounts of money make it to the final 4-6 and those with even more money make it to the final 2, then, the 1 that is the member of the party that the nation currently dislikes the least wins the election. Black people have ran for President for decades folks. What made Obama different? Money... good old fashioned green paper.
Up until President elect Obama announced he was running for President he was a no-name to everyone outside of Illinois. In fact, even after he announced it, he was still a no-name. The media noticed him about just as much as anyone else who wasn't already a big national name. So what changed? Mr. Obama went out and spent millions and millions of dollars getting his name out there so he would have to be a well known name across the country, thus, the media had to pick it up, because people we're then getting interested. Everyone says Obama won because he was black... no he didn't... he's not black. Others say he won for his policies... no he didn't... his voters didn't know what his policies were.
Howard Stern had a feature just the other day where voters were asked who they supported. Those that said Obama were then presented with McCain's policies and asked since those are Obama's policies do they still support him, and they all said yes.
He won the election why? Because he had a whole lot more money than McCain to spend on the election. So... considering that's what really happened. What message is really being sent to the black children in this country? Is it: you can be anything you want to be no matter what? Or is it: You can be anything you want, so long as you have a whole, whole lot more money than whitey does, otherwise... you're screwed.
I bid you good-day and good-night.
Why I Carry a Gun
Why I Carry a Gun?
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid about the government, I carry a gun because my government is paranoid about me.
I don't carry a gun because I know people will listen to me, I carry a gun because when I cry for help, I know in this world those walking by will not listen.
I don't carry a gun because I think the police can't do their jobs, I carry a gun because when precious seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I don't carry a gun because I can't wait for the moment to shoot someone, I carry a gun because criminals can't wait for the moment to shoot us.
I don't carry a gun because I want to be a road side hero, I carry a gun so if I come by a criminal overpowering one of our brave police officers, I can quickly save their life.
I don't carry a gun because I don't care about my families safety with a gun in the home, I carry a gun because I do care about my families safety in the home.
I would like you all to know that the "I don't carry a gun ... " idea was not mine. I read it and I decided rather than copy someone else's work, I would base it on my own beliefs and spin them onto the "I don't carry a gun because ..." methodology.
So why do I carry a gun? The true answer is, I am protecting individuality. I am protecting the very existence of the individual itself.
When someone is taking away your gun, when they are saying you can't have one, they are not protecting others from you, they are protecting themselves from you because they know they have a reason to fear you.
If any of you have children and they are receiving their government brain washing at one of our fine government indoctrination centers (aka public schools), the I am going to ask you to do two things.
1) Pull your head out of your donkey and get your children out of those schools!
2) Call your child's principal and ask them, "If my child is being physically bullied, and they stand up for themselves and physically defend themselves, what will happen to them?"
I'm going to tell you what will happen because I already know, I've seen it, read about it and heard about it thousands of times.
Your little boy or girl is going to be punished. It doesn't matter that your child did not start the fight, because your child took part in a fight, and fighting is wrong, they are going to be punished.
Side note... the school is right. Fighting is wrong. Kicking someones butt in defense of your own is not. Murder is wrong. Shooting a punk, thug criminal in the head before they get a chance to kill you or an innocent person around you is not wrong.
So why are the government schools now punishing kids for defending themselves? For the same reason they are trying to, and in some instances have, unconstitutionally taken away our guns.
When you deny someone the right to defend themselves you deny them their freedom. When you deny that most basic of our founding, God given tenants, to defend ones own self against the onslaught of another, you deny their individuality.
Why would someone want to deny, or, eradicate, the individual? Very simple.
It is impossible to have a government which rules over the people with unquestioned supremacy if the people are individuals. Being an individual means having the right to own land, having the right to start a business, having the right to invest in capital interests and have a capital return. It means having the right to choose what faith to believe, to choose how to educate your children, to have the freedom to say "yes" or "no." It means being 100% free to decide how to live your life. It means you answer to no one but your God, yourself and the court. Being an individual means having the ability to be owned by no one, to be guided in life, within the letter of moral law, by your own hearts desires. And, it means, if a force comes against you, and your neighbors, you know you have the right to kick the crap out of the person doing it to protect your freedom, your, individuality.
The men who formed our country were not fools. They understood this very well. Because we have not grown up with an (openly) tyrannical government, most of us do not understand the preciousness of individuality. We take for granted these things held so dear to the founding fathers hearts, that they were willing to be hanged to defend them.
Those men knew what it was to have your freedoms taken away, to have your individuality threateneded. The King saw the freedom in the colonies, the growing commerce through capitalism, the growing power of the colonies because of it; and he didn't like it. The King wanted to control it, he wanted to own it. He tried things like imposing more and more laws against the people's rights in the name of protecting the general public. He imposed tighter regulations on free trade; capitalism. He imposed taxation without representation (this means, the people were not represented in government, had no one speaking for their interests or to say what could and could not be done with their collected taxes) and he raised the taxes higher and higher. There was no way to stop him.
He placed standing armies among the people during this time to control anyone who might cause dissensionon within the colonies against the King. He recognized early on, as anyone of that time did, that he can control the masses and capitalize off of them basically through enslavement through legislation, but only if he could do away with those pesky rebels, those horrible, traitorous, unholy radicals, who believed in freedom of the individual, and a God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For they knew in order to have these things, the government can never be more powerful than the people. The acts of the people had to benefit the people first and if the people so desired, the government second. They knew this was the only way to protect themselves from having their monies wrongly taken away, from having one human force which all men must answer too without question, and from religious persecutionon, particularly, the movement of the Catholic church to do away with Protestant faiths through forced government religion) ...
(I know, I know, I know... every single one of my Catholic friends and family are going to want to react to that... I can't blame you, I just said something about your faith. Please keep in mind, I am not speaking of you, or the Catholic church today. I am speaking of a particular time within the churches history in which it shouldn't be real proud of. And, because people like me let no one forget things like this, the church honorably dedicated itself to removing those within its ranks that desired to oppress people unto one forced religion. ALL... note again... ALL religions, cultures, etc, have moments in time which they are not proud of. Don't take it personally, take it as it is, historical knowledge. If, by some chance, you weren't aware of this, simply google "protestant oppression; 18th century" and make sure you have time to read. Again... those who know not history are damned to repeat it.) Moving on...
Our founding fathers were individuals. They were every single definition of the word individual and they believed in individuality with resolve unseen in most of today's world. So what did they believe the individual had to do when they saw a tyrannical government coming at them, when they saw their very freedom, and potentially their existence, for believing in this freedom being threatened? Let's go to the Declarationon of Independence for that answer... (I've copied and pasted the second paragraph, except the last sentence which basically says "here's why.")
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. (pay attention here!!!) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States....
There it is from the horses mouth. You will note I placed in "red", those areas which you really needed to pay attention too, and, those in blue were showing how often "rights" comes up as a word with these men who believed in freedom, in, individualism.
One of the first actions of the King, as all my fellow historians will know, was to disarm the colonies. Why? If the people don't have weapons equal to or superior to the government's, the people can not defend themselves. His next decree was that all the rebels be rounded up, charged as traitors and executed as such. Why? Inflict fear on enough people and remove those who know how to rally the people and sure enough, you'll find yourself to be a King.
Personally, the only King I will bow my knee to is the one who's temple was torn down and rebuilt in three days... Can I get an amen?
Why I carry a gun... the title of this column. I carry a gun because I recognize that there is evil in this world. I carry a gun because I know there are people in power who want to have absolute control over our lives. I carry a gun because I know that my carrying a gun scares these people. Because they know their history, and they know that people with a gun also have the ability to, and most certainly will, defend themselves against tyranny.
I don't carry a gun because I hope to use it, I don't carry a gun because I want to battle my government. In no way, shape, form or manner is that why I carry a gun.
I carry a gun to remind those in power who have become power hungry, that I, and people like me, have those guns. And I pray, that so long as we keep reminding them we have the power to defend ourselves, that we will ultimately never have to.
I hope my gun, your gun, and all the guns in the country, will be just like you and I, peaceful to the day we are laid in our graves... hopefully, at a ripe old age.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid about the government, I carry a gun because my government is paranoid about me.
I don't carry a gun because I know people will listen to me, I carry a gun because when I cry for help, I know in this world those walking by will not listen.
I don't carry a gun because I think the police can't do their jobs, I carry a gun because when precious seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I don't carry a gun because I can't wait for the moment to shoot someone, I carry a gun because criminals can't wait for the moment to shoot us.
I don't carry a gun because I want to be a road side hero, I carry a gun so if I come by a criminal overpowering one of our brave police officers, I can quickly save their life.
I don't carry a gun because I don't care about my families safety with a gun in the home, I carry a gun because I do care about my families safety in the home.
I would like you all to know that the "I don't carry a gun ... " idea was not mine. I read it and I decided rather than copy someone else's work, I would base it on my own beliefs and spin them onto the "I don't carry a gun because ..." methodology.
So why do I carry a gun? The true answer is, I am protecting individuality. I am protecting the very existence of the individual itself.
When someone is taking away your gun, when they are saying you can't have one, they are not protecting others from you, they are protecting themselves from you because they know they have a reason to fear you.
If any of you have children and they are receiving their government brain washing at one of our fine government indoctrination centers (aka public schools), the I am going to ask you to do two things.
1) Pull your head out of your donkey and get your children out of those schools!
2) Call your child's principal and ask them, "If my child is being physically bullied, and they stand up for themselves and physically defend themselves, what will happen to them?"
I'm going to tell you what will happen because I already know, I've seen it, read about it and heard about it thousands of times.
Your little boy or girl is going to be punished. It doesn't matter that your child did not start the fight, because your child took part in a fight, and fighting is wrong, they are going to be punished.
Side note... the school is right. Fighting is wrong. Kicking someones butt in defense of your own is not. Murder is wrong. Shooting a punk, thug criminal in the head before they get a chance to kill you or an innocent person around you is not wrong.
So why are the government schools now punishing kids for defending themselves? For the same reason they are trying to, and in some instances have, unconstitutionally taken away our guns.
When you deny someone the right to defend themselves you deny them their freedom. When you deny that most basic of our founding, God given tenants, to defend ones own self against the onslaught of another, you deny their individuality.
Why would someone want to deny, or, eradicate, the individual? Very simple.
It is impossible to have a government which rules over the people with unquestioned supremacy if the people are individuals. Being an individual means having the right to own land, having the right to start a business, having the right to invest in capital interests and have a capital return. It means having the right to choose what faith to believe, to choose how to educate your children, to have the freedom to say "yes" or "no." It means being 100% free to decide how to live your life. It means you answer to no one but your God, yourself and the court. Being an individual means having the ability to be owned by no one, to be guided in life, within the letter of moral law, by your own hearts desires. And, it means, if a force comes against you, and your neighbors, you know you have the right to kick the crap out of the person doing it to protect your freedom, your, individuality.
The men who formed our country were not fools. They understood this very well. Because we have not grown up with an (openly) tyrannical government, most of us do not understand the preciousness of individuality. We take for granted these things held so dear to the founding fathers hearts, that they were willing to be hanged to defend them.
Those men knew what it was to have your freedoms taken away, to have your individuality threateneded. The King saw the freedom in the colonies, the growing commerce through capitalism, the growing power of the colonies because of it; and he didn't like it. The King wanted to control it, he wanted to own it. He tried things like imposing more and more laws against the people's rights in the name of protecting the general public. He imposed tighter regulations on free trade; capitalism. He imposed taxation without representation (this means, the people were not represented in government, had no one speaking for their interests or to say what could and could not be done with their collected taxes) and he raised the taxes higher and higher. There was no way to stop him.
He placed standing armies among the people during this time to control anyone who might cause dissensionon within the colonies against the King. He recognized early on, as anyone of that time did, that he can control the masses and capitalize off of them basically through enslavement through legislation, but only if he could do away with those pesky rebels, those horrible, traitorous, unholy radicals, who believed in freedom of the individual, and a God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For they knew in order to have these things, the government can never be more powerful than the people. The acts of the people had to benefit the people first and if the people so desired, the government second. They knew this was the only way to protect themselves from having their monies wrongly taken away, from having one human force which all men must answer too without question, and from religious persecutionon, particularly, the movement of the Catholic church to do away with Protestant faiths through forced government religion) ...
(I know, I know, I know... every single one of my Catholic friends and family are going to want to react to that... I can't blame you, I just said something about your faith. Please keep in mind, I am not speaking of you, or the Catholic church today. I am speaking of a particular time within the churches history in which it shouldn't be real proud of. And, because people like me let no one forget things like this, the church honorably dedicated itself to removing those within its ranks that desired to oppress people unto one forced religion. ALL... note again... ALL religions, cultures, etc, have moments in time which they are not proud of. Don't take it personally, take it as it is, historical knowledge. If, by some chance, you weren't aware of this, simply google "protestant oppression; 18th century" and make sure you have time to read. Again... those who know not history are damned to repeat it.) Moving on...
Our founding fathers were individuals. They were every single definition of the word individual and they believed in individuality with resolve unseen in most of today's world. So what did they believe the individual had to do when they saw a tyrannical government coming at them, when they saw their very freedom, and potentially their existence, for believing in this freedom being threatened? Let's go to the Declarationon of Independence for that answer... (I've copied and pasted the second paragraph, except the last sentence which basically says "here's why.")
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. (pay attention here!!!) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States....
There it is from the horses mouth. You will note I placed in "red", those areas which you really needed to pay attention too, and, those in blue were showing how often "rights" comes up as a word with these men who believed in freedom, in, individualism.
One of the first actions of the King, as all my fellow historians will know, was to disarm the colonies. Why? If the people don't have weapons equal to or superior to the government's, the people can not defend themselves. His next decree was that all the rebels be rounded up, charged as traitors and executed as such. Why? Inflict fear on enough people and remove those who know how to rally the people and sure enough, you'll find yourself to be a King.
Personally, the only King I will bow my knee to is the one who's temple was torn down and rebuilt in three days... Can I get an amen?
Why I carry a gun... the title of this column. I carry a gun because I recognize that there is evil in this world. I carry a gun because I know there are people in power who want to have absolute control over our lives. I carry a gun because I know that my carrying a gun scares these people. Because they know their history, and they know that people with a gun also have the ability to, and most certainly will, defend themselves against tyranny.
I don't carry a gun because I hope to use it, I don't carry a gun because I want to battle my government. In no way, shape, form or manner is that why I carry a gun.
I carry a gun to remind those in power who have become power hungry, that I, and people like me, have those guns. And I pray, that so long as we keep reminding them we have the power to defend ourselves, that we will ultimately never have to.
I hope my gun, your gun, and all the guns in the country, will be just like you and I, peaceful to the day we are laid in our graves... hopefully, at a ripe old age.
The Communist Manifesto: A Close Examination
The Communist Manifesto: A Close Examination
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
For simplification, the manifesto is in "black" text, and my writings are in "blue." Please keep in mind, the paragraphs contained herein from the manifesto are merely bits and pieces. The entire manifesto, if printed, I would guess to be about 60 pages. I recommend you read the entire work. But, these are the highlights to get you motivated and I hope, educated about what has been and is going on.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Let's first understand some words here... That's always a good beginning. The "proletariat" are the lower class of society. But actual, true definition, these are those in society which are very poorly educated, do not possess advanced labor skills and have achieved no gain in life. "Bourgeois" but actual, true definition, are the middle and upper class of society. They are moderately to highly educated individuals who, through the obtaining of property and employment of the unemployed, have fruitfully gained wealth and power." These are the translations of those words that the communist manifesto is using. They are indeed, factual translations.
So what is this paragraph saying? Communism wants the lower class, the poor and uneducated, the people who have shown they can achieve nothing in life by their own hands, who have shown zero responsibility with their own lives, to overthrow those who have shown to be productive, well meaning and providing members of society. Let us not forget, without the evil bourgeois, the entire world would still be in the stone ages. Marx could have never distributed the manifesto as widely as he did, without the years and research by the bourgeois, thus providing the world new technology.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
Communism is, by admission, social equality and unity by destroying the right to private property. Marx is saying private property, in the hands of the achieving members of society, is what causing the various classes of society to be at arms. He notes the exploitation of the many by the few. Honestly, I don't see any other way for the world to work. Rome was not built in a day and it was the many who built it under the direction of the few. King Solomons temple had only a few Master Masons in charge. Under those Master Masons were thousands of fellowcrafts and apprentices. Do we look back at history and say King Solomon exploited the masses?
Marx's intention is that this creates an evil in the world. He contends that development of industry, (whereby few employ many and those at the top have more than those at the bottom) is what causes the world to be at odds with its neighbors. He believes it causes unfair political power to be thrown to the few. There is no doubt, that statement is true, well, except for the "unfair" part. Those at the top, who came from the same place those at the bottom did, have shown to society they are trustworthy of power.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Does this statement scare the hell out of you too? There is so much more being said here than you can even imagine. To really understand what "abolition of private property" means, you really need to have a good understanding of history, economics, etc. You need to have a strong knowledge going back thousands of years. However, since I know many of you (no offense) where educated in government indoctrination centers, I will sum it up for you. (Again, no offense. I dropped out of government schools and educated myself, thus, my FAR superior intellect.)
Abolition of private property has nothing to do with property. Not a thing. Abolition of private property has about as much to do with property as telemarketers have to being the first thing you want to hear in the morning.
While private property rights are abolished, it's more than just property. When you eliminate the right of the individual to own property, you eliminate the individual. You tell the individual that they are no longer an individual, they are merely a member of the collection of the masses. They are not to be free thinkers, they are not to try to achieve more than their neighbor, they are not to gain wealth, power, status and they are not to defend. Why are they not to defend? If you have nothing, what's worth fighting for? (That's a very good question that we will get to in a later paragraph on the manifesto.)
Abolishment of private property is abolishment of the individual. Abolishment of the individual is the abolishment of freedom. How so? If an individual can not attain property, that individual is not free. If you can't own property, you ARE property. The contention of confederacy in the history of the United States was that black people were not individuals. Their idealogy was that the white race was superior to the black race (See confederacy vice presidential speech for more.) They believed the blacks were made to be nothing be property, thus, they were not bestowed with individual rights, such as the freedom to choose where they live, to purchase property or to even choose what clothes to wear. Thus, they were bought and sold the same as a piece of farming equipment.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
Yes we are... How could we not be? Understanding what that means, who wouldn't be horrified. Incidentally, in Communism, there is one powerful dictator at the top, who, GASP, profits all his power by the income generated by the government owned businesses which run by the labors of the people. Perhaps Marx didn't really mind the masses created power for the few, so long as he was the only one doing it.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
This relates completely to everything we've seen in America over the past decades. Revolutionary, freedom minded individuals, such as myself, have warned that democrats are communist who just don't quite have the standing yet to come out and say it. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. This is the tenant of democrat beliefs. Take from the rich, give to the poor. That way, the poor are as equal in standing as the rich. That way, no one is unfairly at the top benefiting from the labors of those at the bottom. This democrats tell you this creates fairness and equality among the masses. They even go as far to quote Marx and say the few can't just exploit the masses at the bottom, we have to put an end to it. Marx believed that ability of individualism, the ability to purchase property, create jobs, gain income, create investments, in order for one person to rise to power above everyone (because that is communist government) then these things had to be done away with.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
This is very misleading to anyone with a poor education, i.e., lower class. By "appropriate the products of society" he does not mean gain wealth, buy a house, buy a car, etc. This means he has no problem with the masses ability to go the the market and obtain needed items from the government stores, such as food and water.
He goes on to admit that communism abolishes freedom. "..deprive him of the power...", when you deny a man the power to employee others to create investment and capital gain (which is what subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations means), you literally deny his freedom.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
The accusation, which Marx did not include in his manifesto, is that when government owns all property, ALL property, this includes homes as well as businesses, and all people live in them for free, provided by the government, because everything is provided for free (I'll explain momentarily), that the people would become lazy. The people would no longer get out and work because really, honestly, why should they? If you came to me and said "Matt, I just built a mansion for you and all you have to do is move into it. Whenever you get hungry, go to the store and get food, it's free." I would be all over it. Actually, since there's always a catch, and I know the catch, I probably wouldn't. Anyway... moving on.
You might not completely understand how communism works. Everything is free. There is no money, except at the very top. For communism to work, it can only be in a few places, it can't be everywhere. In communism, money is obtained at the top by the sell of goods to capitalist areas. Ideally, a communist society is the perfect enterprise, there is no overhead whatsoever. You would outsell the competition every day of the week. The government owns everything... everything. The people all work for free. Their homes are provided, their food is provided (google stories about russian markets and see how well that works out for you) and the one person at the top (Mark wanted it to be him) would profit every single penny. And THAT is what Communism is about. It isn't about equality, it isn't about fairness, it is about fooling the people long enough to take complete control and right to everything in the nation, including the people, and then gaining as much power in the world as you can.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
You don't know this yet, but if I wrote here, later in this column, I would become redundant, so I'll move on. But keep in mind, this is a topic worth covering.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
To answer Marx, YES, education in the home was based on society in the moment. Children were educated with every single skill and bit of knowledge they would need to survive in the world. They were taught how to "plant seeds" and be fruitful in their labors.
Marx is completely misleading, again, the uneducated masses. People called his idea of making government schools (public schools) socialist. What he has done here is take the word "social" and play off of it. In all reality, home education was completely based of the social needs at the time. However, that is NOT what is intended by socialist education (public schools.)
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
Oh how evil we are. Modern industry, you know, that little thing that brought about cures to diseases, the ability to travel thousands of miles in hours instead of years, the ability to read and write, etc, how dare they... I said it louder... HOW DARE THEY choose to educate their children based on the current ability of society. I suppose when the wheel was invented it was wrong of people to choose to teach their children to make a wheel. Perhaps when hand washing was discovered as a means to prevent the spread of disease by Nostradamus during the black plaque, those evil parents shouldn't have taught that either. Or perhaps, when society was really starting to push forward, and discover the ability to chemically test the body, to research it, to find cures for diseases, or when we learned maybe we could send a man into space, perhaps those evil parents should have taken a second thought.
How dare they choose to educate their children in the current industry. Do they not see what they did? By educating their child in the do's and dont's of the current industry which drove the world, they gave their children the ability to provide a good life for themselves and potential families. They gave them the ability, if they so choose, to invest wisely, become comfortable, to eat and not struggle wondering where food would come from. They gave them the ability to never have to rely on anyone for anything except for themselves. They gave them the ability to become the future leaders of the free world. MY GOD! These parents were blasphemers! They should have been hanged!
I hope you could read that and feel the same sarcasm I was trying to put into it. Moving on.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to
another will come to an end.
Well this is obviously the only true statement Marx made. When all of the masses are equal, when no one person can rise above what they are, peace and harmony will overtake the face of the earth. Kind of like the Hatfields and the McCoys, remember how harmonious they were? Or maybe like the current lower class of society, we all know how harmonious and peaceful they are. They certainly don't fight among themselves, have driveby shootings on each other, rape each other, battle for gang territory... that kind of stuff NEVER happens once people are all equally at the same level. Oh wait... CRAP... Marx was wrong again. Moving on...
Wait... I've decided I'm not done yet. Do you know WHY lower class kids join gangs, shoot each other, kill each other over gang territory, do you know why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING! They don't own property, they don't have adequate income because either they or their parents are too poorly educated. Everything they do have is provided to them by the government. Their housing is free, their food is free, their clothes are free. At the end of the day nothing they have is really theirs. They have the same desire within them that every corporate VP has. They desire to be something more than they are, have something more than what is offered in front of them, and to become respected.
They key to creating peace in society does not start with communism, it does not start with everyone being equal because the government provides everything. We can go to the lower income region of any city and see that. The answer IS capitalism. When people have nothing of their own, they will, be natural instinct, find a way to have more. Sadly, children, and some adults, turn to gang life. Perhaps we should all take a long read through google about the gangs created in the former soviet union. You think America has gangs... these gangs would tuck tail and run in they were confronted with what used to exist in Russia. Capitalism is the only answer. It provides EVERYONE the ability to become something more than they are, have something more than they have, and gain the respect of those in the community.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Very short response... I find it hilarious that Marx's answer to people questioning him is the same answer the democrats give when we question them today. It was the democrats who said "The working man doesn't need to sit around all the time worrying about what's going on in government."
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
It amazes me how absolutely blunt Marx was. He is speaking of course of the King of England and the American Revolution. (18th century, remember, the century is always ahead of the calendar number, i.e., 20th century during 1900's. This is because the 1st century on calender started with year 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. The 2nd century started with year 100.)
Marx calls the American Revolution a death battle. And what did it get us? Religious freedom and the ability of individuals to obtain the ability to compete by obtaining knowledge. He actually says it. Today's democrats are a LOT more concealing than Marx. At least he told it like it was I guess.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
Simply put, Communism intends to do away with all freedom. You are not to think, you are not to discuss, you are not to debate, you are to live subordinate among each other in peace and harmony. If there is no religion, if there is no philosophy, if there is no freedom among these tenants of life, there can be no ideas which might offend anyone and agitate the various states of society.
Wait just a minute... haven't the democrats been trying gain control over via use of the FCC over anything that might offend anyone? They've spent 30 years pushing new laws that prevent people from offending each other, by reducing your ability to speak freely. If you offend someone with your beliefs, they can Sui you and win, simple as that. In many cases, you could even go to jail.
I wonder, are democrats just trying to create peace among the masses, or are they all hoping to be the next leader of the communist world?
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
What Marx just said is the government must, to create communism, gain government possession over corporations. He always says its the people at the bottom gaining power politically, it's not, that's just to keep the people thinking they are involved somehow where they are just pawns. What he means in the people, in democracy, must vote into power the ones who will do this. Those people must then find ways to do it.
Over the past 40 years the democrats have literally, step by step, destroyed this nations economy. The idea of unions creating fairness and equality in the workplace is the very reason the big 3 are in Washington begging for money.
The democrats are just about there folks, they have almost got everything in place. They have already started purchasing the companies. Hell, when the government instituted "imminent domain" (which is the right of the government to seize your property if they believe it profitable for a business that wants to move in, or even if they just want to put up a power station) they started to do this. The democrats are buying businesses up left and right. It's happening folks, right in front of our faces, and we can't do a damn thing about it.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
And now we arrive at what I always use as key examples to the democrats really being closet communist. You look at the democrats plans for the nation, you look at everything they have done, and now you read the 10 step process to becoming a communist nation. Let's not forget, these have already been applied and worked before.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Government possession of all private property. The government will assign housing to the people and provide businesses with property it sees fit. The democrats already do this in America. Welfare housing, imminent domain.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The democrats and their crazy taxes. They have historically raised taxes to the highest levels in history every time they have majority control.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Wait a minute? Would that be anything like the death tax the democrats passed which requires the government to seize 50% of all inheritance? Bet you didn't know that did you?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Let's face it, you can't have a communist society if those pesky little rebels have property to use against you. I wonder if that happens to apply to outlawing guns so people who believe in freedom won't use them against the government?
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
WALL STREET BAIL OUT! I wish I had a microphone to record and scream that so you could hear how loud it is in my head. The democrats already did this too.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
The government controls what goes where and when it goes there. They don't quite have this in place, but they're getting there. Simple things you would never think about like a bill of lading, all the regulations over truckers delivering goods around the country, these are all little steps.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This seems okay, you know, cleaning up the place a little bit, if it weren't for the fact that the State is making sure it owns everything, thus, communism. You have to pay attention... this is how Communism works folks, this is how they gain their power.
Kind of like the democrats have been doing for decades now. They talk about improving the quality of this and that, and cleaning up this and that, and they get you to take more of your money to do it, to create bigger more powerful government. Imagine how many jobs would be created if free market was doing these things and the government didn't have ownership into the programs.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Obviously this isn't talking about an army as you might be thinking, it's just talking about a huge mass of people being forced to work... oh wait... there's another word for that... it's coming to me... right on the tip of my tongue... Oh that's it... SLAVERY.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Here it is folks, YOU ARE PROPERTY! The government will decide where you go, when you go there, what do you and how you do it. If one areas is too dense the government will shift some people around.
This is why I have been telling you that the abolition of private property rights if the abolishment of freedom.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
I'm not oppossed to kids working in factories, I just have to be honest. Think back to videos you see from the early industrial times in America. What did those kids do in factories? Were they operating the dangerous machinary? No. Where they running the company? No. They were sweeping the floor. As they swept the floor they watched the workers, they learned trades, skills, etc. The children were still educated at home. When they were done for the day it was off to work. Children were taught from an early age to be responsible, to apply themselves, to put in a hard day's work and get your hands dirty.
But, they also saw what that earned them. We can go back in history and find young boys pushing brooms in factories and later becoming the President of the company.
Have you ever noticed the elders of our generation, those who are wealthy who we come along in public and while talking to them they say "Yep, retired as senior vice president of the company, course, I was there 45 years, started our pushing a broom when I was just a pup." There is a reason those people got where they did in life.
I take the example of my Dad and his twin brother. They both own their own companies, they aren't filthy rich, but they are comfortable. They both had very old style upbringings. I know they didn't push a broom in a factory but they pushed one at home (so to speak.) They were taught to work hard at a young age, they were taught to push forward, they were taught to thrive, to be something more than what they are. Niether may Dad or Uncle have college educations yet they are two of the most successful people I know. Honestly, I wish I was more like them than I am. (You're not going to get me to admit that ever again Dad so I recommend you print this column.)
Marx knew to take over a country the government must control the people's education, simple as that. If the people are allowed, as stated above referring to the American Revolution, to have free power to obtain knowledge, communism will never work. But if the government controls knowledge, if it decides what you will and will not know, then that government owns you.
The democrats are the ones who created public schools, (in reality, government indoctrination centers.)
Now... knowing everything you know, and believe me, this was a very brief summary, if you keep voting democrat, and keep believing their lives, and never seek out an education greater than the one they gave you, how long do you think it will be before you are their property?
I bid you good day.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
For simplification, the manifesto is in "black" text, and my writings are in "blue." Please keep in mind, the paragraphs contained herein from the manifesto are merely bits and pieces. The entire manifesto, if printed, I would guess to be about 60 pages. I recommend you read the entire work. But, these are the highlights to get you motivated and I hope, educated about what has been and is going on.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Let's first understand some words here... That's always a good beginning. The "proletariat" are the lower class of society. But actual, true definition, these are those in society which are very poorly educated, do not possess advanced labor skills and have achieved no gain in life. "Bourgeois" but actual, true definition, are the middle and upper class of society. They are moderately to highly educated individuals who, through the obtaining of property and employment of the unemployed, have fruitfully gained wealth and power." These are the translations of those words that the communist manifesto is using. They are indeed, factual translations.
So what is this paragraph saying? Communism wants the lower class, the poor and uneducated, the people who have shown they can achieve nothing in life by their own hands, who have shown zero responsibility with their own lives, to overthrow those who have shown to be productive, well meaning and providing members of society. Let us not forget, without the evil bourgeois, the entire world would still be in the stone ages. Marx could have never distributed the manifesto as widely as he did, without the years and research by the bourgeois, thus providing the world new technology.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
Communism is, by admission, social equality and unity by destroying the right to private property. Marx is saying private property, in the hands of the achieving members of society, is what causing the various classes of society to be at arms. He notes the exploitation of the many by the few. Honestly, I don't see any other way for the world to work. Rome was not built in a day and it was the many who built it under the direction of the few. King Solomons temple had only a few Master Masons in charge. Under those Master Masons were thousands of fellowcrafts and apprentices. Do we look back at history and say King Solomon exploited the masses?
Marx's intention is that this creates an evil in the world. He contends that development of industry, (whereby few employ many and those at the top have more than those at the bottom) is what causes the world to be at odds with its neighbors. He believes it causes unfair political power to be thrown to the few. There is no doubt, that statement is true, well, except for the "unfair" part. Those at the top, who came from the same place those at the bottom did, have shown to society they are trustworthy of power.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Does this statement scare the hell out of you too? There is so much more being said here than you can even imagine. To really understand what "abolition of private property" means, you really need to have a good understanding of history, economics, etc. You need to have a strong knowledge going back thousands of years. However, since I know many of you (no offense) where educated in government indoctrination centers, I will sum it up for you. (Again, no offense. I dropped out of government schools and educated myself, thus, my FAR superior intellect.)
Abolition of private property has nothing to do with property. Not a thing. Abolition of private property has about as much to do with property as telemarketers have to being the first thing you want to hear in the morning.
While private property rights are abolished, it's more than just property. When you eliminate the right of the individual to own property, you eliminate the individual. You tell the individual that they are no longer an individual, they are merely a member of the collection of the masses. They are not to be free thinkers, they are not to try to achieve more than their neighbor, they are not to gain wealth, power, status and they are not to defend. Why are they not to defend? If you have nothing, what's worth fighting for? (That's a very good question that we will get to in a later paragraph on the manifesto.)
Abolishment of private property is abolishment of the individual. Abolishment of the individual is the abolishment of freedom. How so? If an individual can not attain property, that individual is not free. If you can't own property, you ARE property. The contention of confederacy in the history of the United States was that black people were not individuals. Their idealogy was that the white race was superior to the black race (See confederacy vice presidential speech for more.) They believed the blacks were made to be nothing be property, thus, they were not bestowed with individual rights, such as the freedom to choose where they live, to purchase property or to even choose what clothes to wear. Thus, they were bought and sold the same as a piece of farming equipment.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
Yes we are... How could we not be? Understanding what that means, who wouldn't be horrified. Incidentally, in Communism, there is one powerful dictator at the top, who, GASP, profits all his power by the income generated by the government owned businesses which run by the labors of the people. Perhaps Marx didn't really mind the masses created power for the few, so long as he was the only one doing it.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
This relates completely to everything we've seen in America over the past decades. Revolutionary, freedom minded individuals, such as myself, have warned that democrats are communist who just don't quite have the standing yet to come out and say it. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. This is the tenant of democrat beliefs. Take from the rich, give to the poor. That way, the poor are as equal in standing as the rich. That way, no one is unfairly at the top benefiting from the labors of those at the bottom. This democrats tell you this creates fairness and equality among the masses. They even go as far to quote Marx and say the few can't just exploit the masses at the bottom, we have to put an end to it. Marx believed that ability of individualism, the ability to purchase property, create jobs, gain income, create investments, in order for one person to rise to power above everyone (because that is communist government) then these things had to be done away with.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
This is very misleading to anyone with a poor education, i.e., lower class. By "appropriate the products of society" he does not mean gain wealth, buy a house, buy a car, etc. This means he has no problem with the masses ability to go the the market and obtain needed items from the government stores, such as food and water.
He goes on to admit that communism abolishes freedom. "..deprive him of the power...", when you deny a man the power to employee others to create investment and capital gain (which is what subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations means), you literally deny his freedom.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
The accusation, which Marx did not include in his manifesto, is that when government owns all property, ALL property, this includes homes as well as businesses, and all people live in them for free, provided by the government, because everything is provided for free (I'll explain momentarily), that the people would become lazy. The people would no longer get out and work because really, honestly, why should they? If you came to me and said "Matt, I just built a mansion for you and all you have to do is move into it. Whenever you get hungry, go to the store and get food, it's free." I would be all over it. Actually, since there's always a catch, and I know the catch, I probably wouldn't. Anyway... moving on.
You might not completely understand how communism works. Everything is free. There is no money, except at the very top. For communism to work, it can only be in a few places, it can't be everywhere. In communism, money is obtained at the top by the sell of goods to capitalist areas. Ideally, a communist society is the perfect enterprise, there is no overhead whatsoever. You would outsell the competition every day of the week. The government owns everything... everything. The people all work for free. Their homes are provided, their food is provided (google stories about russian markets and see how well that works out for you) and the one person at the top (Mark wanted it to be him) would profit every single penny. And THAT is what Communism is about. It isn't about equality, it isn't about fairness, it is about fooling the people long enough to take complete control and right to everything in the nation, including the people, and then gaining as much power in the world as you can.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
You don't know this yet, but if I wrote here, later in this column, I would become redundant, so I'll move on. But keep in mind, this is a topic worth covering.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
To answer Marx, YES, education in the home was based on society in the moment. Children were educated with every single skill and bit of knowledge they would need to survive in the world. They were taught how to "plant seeds" and be fruitful in their labors.
Marx is completely misleading, again, the uneducated masses. People called his idea of making government schools (public schools) socialist. What he has done here is take the word "social" and play off of it. In all reality, home education was completely based of the social needs at the time. However, that is NOT what is intended by socialist education (public schools.)
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
Oh how evil we are. Modern industry, you know, that little thing that brought about cures to diseases, the ability to travel thousands of miles in hours instead of years, the ability to read and write, etc, how dare they... I said it louder... HOW DARE THEY choose to educate their children based on the current ability of society. I suppose when the wheel was invented it was wrong of people to choose to teach their children to make a wheel. Perhaps when hand washing was discovered as a means to prevent the spread of disease by Nostradamus during the black plaque, those evil parents shouldn't have taught that either. Or perhaps, when society was really starting to push forward, and discover the ability to chemically test the body, to research it, to find cures for diseases, or when we learned maybe we could send a man into space, perhaps those evil parents should have taken a second thought.
How dare they choose to educate their children in the current industry. Do they not see what they did? By educating their child in the do's and dont's of the current industry which drove the world, they gave their children the ability to provide a good life for themselves and potential families. They gave them the ability, if they so choose, to invest wisely, become comfortable, to eat and not struggle wondering where food would come from. They gave them the ability to never have to rely on anyone for anything except for themselves. They gave them the ability to become the future leaders of the free world. MY GOD! These parents were blasphemers! They should have been hanged!
I hope you could read that and feel the same sarcasm I was trying to put into it. Moving on.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to
another will come to an end.
Well this is obviously the only true statement Marx made. When all of the masses are equal, when no one person can rise above what they are, peace and harmony will overtake the face of the earth. Kind of like the Hatfields and the McCoys, remember how harmonious they were? Or maybe like the current lower class of society, we all know how harmonious and peaceful they are. They certainly don't fight among themselves, have driveby shootings on each other, rape each other, battle for gang territory... that kind of stuff NEVER happens once people are all equally at the same level. Oh wait... CRAP... Marx was wrong again. Moving on...
Wait... I've decided I'm not done yet. Do you know WHY lower class kids join gangs, shoot each other, kill each other over gang territory, do you know why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING! They don't own property, they don't have adequate income because either they or their parents are too poorly educated. Everything they do have is provided to them by the government. Their housing is free, their food is free, their clothes are free. At the end of the day nothing they have is really theirs. They have the same desire within them that every corporate VP has. They desire to be something more than they are, have something more than what is offered in front of them, and to become respected.
They key to creating peace in society does not start with communism, it does not start with everyone being equal because the government provides everything. We can go to the lower income region of any city and see that. The answer IS capitalism. When people have nothing of their own, they will, be natural instinct, find a way to have more. Sadly, children, and some adults, turn to gang life. Perhaps we should all take a long read through google about the gangs created in the former soviet union. You think America has gangs... these gangs would tuck tail and run in they were confronted with what used to exist in Russia. Capitalism is the only answer. It provides EVERYONE the ability to become something more than they are, have something more than they have, and gain the respect of those in the community.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Very short response... I find it hilarious that Marx's answer to people questioning him is the same answer the democrats give when we question them today. It was the democrats who said "The working man doesn't need to sit around all the time worrying about what's going on in government."
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
It amazes me how absolutely blunt Marx was. He is speaking of course of the King of England and the American Revolution. (18th century, remember, the century is always ahead of the calendar number, i.e., 20th century during 1900's. This is because the 1st century on calender started with year 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. The 2nd century started with year 100.)
Marx calls the American Revolution a death battle. And what did it get us? Religious freedom and the ability of individuals to obtain the ability to compete by obtaining knowledge. He actually says it. Today's democrats are a LOT more concealing than Marx. At least he told it like it was I guess.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
Simply put, Communism intends to do away with all freedom. You are not to think, you are not to discuss, you are not to debate, you are to live subordinate among each other in peace and harmony. If there is no religion, if there is no philosophy, if there is no freedom among these tenants of life, there can be no ideas which might offend anyone and agitate the various states of society.
Wait just a minute... haven't the democrats been trying gain control over via use of the FCC over anything that might offend anyone? They've spent 30 years pushing new laws that prevent people from offending each other, by reducing your ability to speak freely. If you offend someone with your beliefs, they can Sui you and win, simple as that. In many cases, you could even go to jail.
I wonder, are democrats just trying to create peace among the masses, or are they all hoping to be the next leader of the communist world?
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
What Marx just said is the government must, to create communism, gain government possession over corporations. He always says its the people at the bottom gaining power politically, it's not, that's just to keep the people thinking they are involved somehow where they are just pawns. What he means in the people, in democracy, must vote into power the ones who will do this. Those people must then find ways to do it.
Over the past 40 years the democrats have literally, step by step, destroyed this nations economy. The idea of unions creating fairness and equality in the workplace is the very reason the big 3 are in Washington begging for money.
The democrats are just about there folks, they have almost got everything in place. They have already started purchasing the companies. Hell, when the government instituted "imminent domain" (which is the right of the government to seize your property if they believe it profitable for a business that wants to move in, or even if they just want to put up a power station) they started to do this. The democrats are buying businesses up left and right. It's happening folks, right in front of our faces, and we can't do a damn thing about it.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
And now we arrive at what I always use as key examples to the democrats really being closet communist. You look at the democrats plans for the nation, you look at everything they have done, and now you read the 10 step process to becoming a communist nation. Let's not forget, these have already been applied and worked before.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Government possession of all private property. The government will assign housing to the people and provide businesses with property it sees fit. The democrats already do this in America. Welfare housing, imminent domain.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The democrats and their crazy taxes. They have historically raised taxes to the highest levels in history every time they have majority control.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Wait a minute? Would that be anything like the death tax the democrats passed which requires the government to seize 50% of all inheritance? Bet you didn't know that did you?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Let's face it, you can't have a communist society if those pesky little rebels have property to use against you. I wonder if that happens to apply to outlawing guns so people who believe in freedom won't use them against the government?
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
WALL STREET BAIL OUT! I wish I had a microphone to record and scream that so you could hear how loud it is in my head. The democrats already did this too.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
The government controls what goes where and when it goes there. They don't quite have this in place, but they're getting there. Simple things you would never think about like a bill of lading, all the regulations over truckers delivering goods around the country, these are all little steps.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This seems okay, you know, cleaning up the place a little bit, if it weren't for the fact that the State is making sure it owns everything, thus, communism. You have to pay attention... this is how Communism works folks, this is how they gain their power.
Kind of like the democrats have been doing for decades now. They talk about improving the quality of this and that, and cleaning up this and that, and they get you to take more of your money to do it, to create bigger more powerful government. Imagine how many jobs would be created if free market was doing these things and the government didn't have ownership into the programs.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Obviously this isn't talking about an army as you might be thinking, it's just talking about a huge mass of people being forced to work... oh wait... there's another word for that... it's coming to me... right on the tip of my tongue... Oh that's it... SLAVERY.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Here it is folks, YOU ARE PROPERTY! The government will decide where you go, when you go there, what do you and how you do it. If one areas is too dense the government will shift some people around.
This is why I have been telling you that the abolition of private property rights if the abolishment of freedom.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
I'm not oppossed to kids working in factories, I just have to be honest. Think back to videos you see from the early industrial times in America. What did those kids do in factories? Were they operating the dangerous machinary? No. Where they running the company? No. They were sweeping the floor. As they swept the floor they watched the workers, they learned trades, skills, etc. The children were still educated at home. When they were done for the day it was off to work. Children were taught from an early age to be responsible, to apply themselves, to put in a hard day's work and get your hands dirty.
But, they also saw what that earned them. We can go back in history and find young boys pushing brooms in factories and later becoming the President of the company.
Have you ever noticed the elders of our generation, those who are wealthy who we come along in public and while talking to them they say "Yep, retired as senior vice president of the company, course, I was there 45 years, started our pushing a broom when I was just a pup." There is a reason those people got where they did in life.
I take the example of my Dad and his twin brother. They both own their own companies, they aren't filthy rich, but they are comfortable. They both had very old style upbringings. I know they didn't push a broom in a factory but they pushed one at home (so to speak.) They were taught to work hard at a young age, they were taught to push forward, they were taught to thrive, to be something more than what they are. Niether may Dad or Uncle have college educations yet they are two of the most successful people I know. Honestly, I wish I was more like them than I am. (You're not going to get me to admit that ever again Dad so I recommend you print this column.)
Marx knew to take over a country the government must control the people's education, simple as that. If the people are allowed, as stated above referring to the American Revolution, to have free power to obtain knowledge, communism will never work. But if the government controls knowledge, if it decides what you will and will not know, then that government owns you.
The democrats are the ones who created public schools, (in reality, government indoctrination centers.)
Now... knowing everything you know, and believe me, this was a very brief summary, if you keep voting democrat, and keep believing their lives, and never seek out an education greater than the one they gave you, how long do you think it will be before you are their property?
I bid you good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
