Thursday, January 29, 2009

None Dare Call it Conspiracy

Excerpt from Gary Allen's 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which can be read online in its entirety at:

Our Founding Fathers revolted against the near-total government of the English monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist under a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant.

Our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man's labor and give it to another who had not earned it. Our government was to be one of severely limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: "In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the 'Constitution." Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, people soon would be.It was Jefferson's view that government governs best which governs least. Our forefathers established this country with the very least possible amount of 'government. Although they lived in an age before automobiles, electric lights and television, they understood human nature and its relation to political systems far better than do most Americans today. Times change, technology changes, but principles are eternal.

Primarily, government was to provide for national defense and to establish a court system. But we have burst the chains that Jefferson spoke of and for many years now we have been moving leftward across the political spectrum toward collectivist total government. Every proposal by our political leaders (including some which are supposed to have the very opposite effect, such as Nixon's revenue sharing proposal) carries us further leftward to centralized government. This is not because socialism is inevitable. It is no more inevitable than Pharaohism. It is largely the result of clever planning and patient gradualism.

Since all Communists and their Insider bosses are waging a constant struggle for SOCIALISM, let us define that term. Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analyzed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are "people" controls. If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do-destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion.

We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it. if we had a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the man in the street that we have been interviewing, he might say: "You know, the one thing I can never figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Kennedys, the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are for socialism. Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don't they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller's and it seems funny that I'm against socialism and he's out promoting it." Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice.

The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy are for every socialist program known to man which will increase your taxes. Yet they pay little, if anything, in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in August of 1967 tells how the' Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article reveals that One of the Rockefellers paid the grand total of $685 personal income tax during a recent year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, 'planes, etc., all owned by their myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy pose as great champions of the "downtrodden." If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using socialism as a means of' achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn't these men set all example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn't they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all the taxes? Why don't Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Ford II give away all their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can't you imagine Teddy Kennedy giving up his mansion, airplane and yacht and moving into a $25,000 home' with a $20,000' mortgage like the rest of us?

We are usually told that this clique of super-rich are socialists because they have a guilt complex over wealth they inherited and did not earn. Again, they could relieve these supposed guilt complexes simply by divesting themselves of their unearned wealth. There' are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn't explain the actions of Insiders like the Rockefellers, Fords or Kennedys. All their actions betray them as power seekers.

But the Kennedys, Rockefellers and their super-rich confederates are not being hypocrites in advocating socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality it is not.Our problem is that most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is-a share-the wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works? Let us examine the only Socialist countries according to the Socialist definition of the word extant in the world today. These are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent.

Certainly even the most naive observe that Mr. Brezhnev doesn't live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian steppes. But, according to socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that!If one understands that socialism is not a share-the Wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Insiders then is to socialize the United States, not to Communize it.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Sasha & Malia Obama dolls

Yeah, this seems just a little weird to me. Ty, the makers of Beanie Babies, have just released dolls that are based on President Obama's daughters- Sasha and Malia.

A little weird much? Seriously, the kind of people who get dolls made of them are people like Miley Cyrus. NOT president's daughters. They're just President Obama's kids, not some celebrity! It's crazy how Obama and his family are being treated like celebrities though. Very strange.

Anyway...First Lady Michelle Obama was understandably rather upset about this. Ty however, insists that the dolls are not based on the Obama daughters...despite their resemblance. And the coincidental naming. Yeah. Not buying it. So anyway...I guess this qualifies as both a 'Time-out'...and one of those 'huh?!' blog posts.

Spending helps the Economy?

Does that make any sense? We have to 'shore up our faltering economy' by the government spending multiplied billions on economic stimulus plans and bailouts!

Yes, President Obama has been busy, busy! With his new economic recovery plan (to the tune of $825 billion!), they're going to somehow fix the economy, cut government spending, decrease the national debt, and not cut back on any current government programs. Except, of course, Guantanamo Bay.

Yeah, makes tons of sense. Sorry, I just don't think spending more money, and throwing more money at the problem is the answer. We've tried that, with public schools, and the economy too. (Remember the first 'economic stimulus package?)

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama retakes the Oath

Yes, our President Obama retook the oath of office. Apparently, Chief Justice John Roberts bungled the oath by switching a couple words, so everyone thought it best Obama redo the oath...just to be safe.

They did the 'ceremony' on Wednesday at 7:35 in the map room. So, everyone content yourselves...he's really the President. :)

Link to the original story

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Inauguration

Well, we're watching the last few minutes of the post-inauguration events- the Bush's and Cheney's departing, etc. I must say that I've never watched an inauguration before...or, I have, and just don't remember it. Of course, considering I was four at the last real inauguration, it's unlikely I have. was pretty interesting. It started out with Rev. Rick Warren doing the invocation. He actually prayed in Jesus' name, which surprised me some. Rarely do you find a minister who will do so that isn't Baptist. After that, there was a song by Aretha Franklin, then Biden was sworn in. Then there was some more music- mom says they had snippets of 'New Jerusalem' mixed in, and I did hear it as well.

President Obama was sworn in next. It was funny, because the guy started doing the oath- you know, say such and such after me- and Obama was tripping all over him, saying it before the guy was done. He did hesitate on the part about upholding the Constitution though, which I found interesting. Oh, and he was wearing a flag lapel pin. Thought I'd mention that, since it was such a big thing about him.

Anyways....his speech was interesting. Sort of. More of his same backtracking and saying-a-lot-whilst-saying-absolutely-nothing. His first big thing was 'challenges will be met'...included global warming, poverty, world starvation. Really, I'm wondering how we're going to take care of all those problems with the $32,000,000,000,000 debt he's going to run up by trying to fix those issues...and the economy, of course.

His next big thing was 'Everyone will have a chance to be prosper." Sorry Mr. President- everyone already has this chance, if they choose to take it. If they live in America, of course. Or are you talking about the rest of the world too? He spoke about pioneers and how they prospered- they worked. They didn't get a government handout. In fact, if you had tried to offer them charity like that, they would have laughed in your face.

His next big thing was 'remaking America'. Thanks Mr. President, but I'll pass. I don't want to be 'remade' into anything, and I don't want my America remade, either. The final thing I thought interesting was his 'new era of responsibility'- to ourselves, our nation...and the world. Why am I responsible for or to the world again? Last time I checked, we were supposed to worry about ourselves, especially since the rest of the world doesn't want us in it's business, anyway.

I really don't understand President Obama's logic in all this. We're going to decrease the national debt by running up a $32 trillion debt. We're going to help prosper like the pioneers by giving them handouts. We're going to remake America into...something. We're going to be responsible for the world.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense. Tons.

Anyway- that was my impressions of the inauguration and President Obama's speech. May God bless him, our country, and our future, because I think we're going to need it.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Pre-Inaugural Post

Well, we all know tomorrow is the big day- January 20, 2009, a day some of us have looked at with rejoicing, some with the exact opposite. (Let me tell that I'm in the latter category. Mostly.)
Tomorrow, I plan on watching the inauguration on TV- I think it will be a good thing, and I wish I could be there in person. After all, this is an historic occasion- the first black president elected, and the first communist one, too! I'll probably take notes on what then President Obama will say during his inaugural speech, then post a critique of it here. That'll be fun!

Other than that, I guess the only thing I can say is: good luck President-elect Obama, good luck America, and good luck taxpayers, cuz I have a feeling you'll need it!

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

On Gay Marriage

Okie doke, I figured it was high time I said something about this subject- I don't believe I've ever said anything about it. Now before I get started, let me make one thing clear- as a Christian, I am morally opposed to homosexuality. As a person, I'm weirded out by homosexuality. As a Libertarian, I believe in the rights and privileges of those homosexuals.

First things first- why can't we let the homosexuals get married? Oh, I know it doesn't agree with the Bible, yadayada. While I agree with that statement, in this wonderful country, the United States of America, we are not governed by the Bible. We are governed by a Constitution...which happens to be ignored largely by all parties nowadays, but its still good. So this Constitution- while it does uphold a few Biblical precepts, it also provides for the free practice of whatever we want to do. We have a few unalienable rights, like being able to practice our religion of choice, carrying a gun, the right to a jury, etc.

One of those rights is not marriage. Because marriage isn't a governmental institution. It is a...well, a human one. And sort of a religious one. The government has no business regulating who can and cannot get married- with marriage licenses, or with laws, or whatever. Oh, and on the subject of marriage licenses- those things are contracts with the government, y'know. Why? Oh, you're just getting permission from the state to get married, sort of like when you get a driver's license.

Yeah. Creepy, much? So, my thinking is- if the homosexuals want their government contract, why not let them? Its not hurting me...if they want their marriage to belong to the state, well, more power to them! To sum up- if Christians want their freedoms, they'll have to live with a little wickedness. Because, if we take away the homosexual's rights, eventually they'll come after ours. It's simple logic.

*rant over* :D