The Day I Was Called a Marxist

Today I was called a Marxist.

Apparently, I'm for big government.

Because I think that the government shouldn't be able to take freedom away from a group of people for tribalistic reasons.

Needless to say, this was news to me.

The gentleman who formed this opinion about me in just a few minutes of debating with me and looking at my profile picture, later amended his opinion to state that I was a cultural Marxist.

Because I have the audacity to believe all people should live together in peace.

The horror.

A Cow-Based Economics Lesson

SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows.

No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you

want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

No-one believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

You have two cows.

The one on the left looks very attractive.

Chinese Flag in DC

A flurry of blogs have reported about how the Chinese will be flying their flag at the White House on September 20th.

China Daily reported it so, but according to Fox News, the White House has since said that the ceremony will occur, not at the House itself, but across the street.

Of course, this is not without precedent- flags of foreign nations are flown from the White House occasionally to signify state visits (which this visit, according to the White House, is not); in fact, the last time the Chinese flag was hoisted over the White House was during President Bush's term, to welcome Chinese President Hu Jintao to the country. Flags have been flown from across the street plenty of times, often for ceremonies such as this.

The ceremony in question would involve celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC). (Something I've come to realize- the reason people don't want to recognize the US as a Republic is because all the Communist countries claim to be 'republics'. Kind of sad.)

The idea of our celebrating such a thing at all is rather strange; the fact that China is a Communist country, repressive and totalitarian, doesn't seem to faze anyone. Of course, China also owns us, which may be a large part of it. I don't understand why foreign countries have to come to our country to celebrate their stuff, just seems sort of strange.

But since there is precedent for this, I don't suppose there's much more to be said about it.

Embrace our enemies...

They'll think you're a great person! At least, that's what six congressional members of the Black Caucus think. They went to Cuba this past week, and met with (both) Castros!!

In fact, these lawmakers didn't just meet with the Castros- according to Fidel himself, one of them even said America should 'apologize'. Of course, the delegates denied this.

Castro also (and this they did report) said- "looked directly into our eyes, quite aware of what was happening. He said to us, 'how can we help President Obama?'"

OK, that's really reassuring. I've always wanted an oppresive Communist regime leader helping my President. I'm sure that's what all my fellow Americans want, too!

Another...gem...from the page: "So I know foolhardy approaches and asinine labels when I see them, " said Rush (one of the delegates). "American people need to be told the truth and they have been lied to for too long about the threat from Cuba."

Huh. A Communist country that hates our guts isn't a threat? Since when?

Another quote, once again from the page: "The CBC members conceded there were limited discussions about human rights abuses in Cuba. "We didn't talk about it much," said Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio. "You don't go into someone's house and insult them."

Uh-huh, OK. That makes...sense. Sort of. In a crazy, upside down, enemy-free world.

Yet another wonderful little jewel on the neck of this article: "The Air Force then gave each lawmaker a pin featuring adjoining American and Cuban flags to help identify them as members of the delegation."

Alrighty then. I guess that pretty much ends this post. After all, once we're willing to consort with our enemies, there isn't anywhere we're going to stop.

Tea Party Rally

Yesterday my mom, my sisters and I traveled to the Oklahoma City tea party rally. Unfortunately, we only came in during the last maybe 15 minutes of it (bringing a little baby can put you behind schedule), but it was still great to see so many people out there!

In a nutshell, the tea party is about protesting the government's extravagance with our money- specifically the stimulus package. Begun by Rick Santelli, several smaller rallies all over the country are being held- including one in DC at the White House!- are being held before a large rally in Chicago this summer.

I think they should hold it in DC, on the Capitol steps. That would really send a message. Maybe. I do think that even this is probably useless. President Obama isn't going to listen to any voice of reason, because he's trying to further his goals of socialism. He's an insane Communist, hot on the trail of bringing America, the 'Land of the Free and Home of the Brave' to her knees with globalization.

And we're letting it happen. So, even though these 'tea parties' probably won't do anything really, I still feel better participating- I feel like I'm doing something.

Critique of a Socialist Article

I found an article against Ron Paul's policies today. I decided to critique it because, well, I enjoy doing such things. So, to begin, here is a link to the entire article. Please stay tuned...er...let's get started.

As you can see, this gentleman (who is well spoken, but typically spouting Communist propaganda), starts off with an impressive first paragraph. Yes, he's very impressive. But even in his first paragraph several problems instantly present themselves with his logic- and history.

"Empires have consistently failed due to one group of people, the wealthy, oppressing and exploiting another, the poor."

Woah, woah, wait. Let's count down the empires that have fallen.

• Greece. Greece fell after Sparta took Athens in the Peloponnesian War and began being very, very picky about how their people lived. Point 1 to free society.
• Rome. Rome fell several emperors after Catholicism began, and after their theocracy began messing around in how their subjects should live. In fact, the only high point of this period was Emperor Julian- the only non-Christian emperor after Constantine I. Point 2 to free society.
• Britain. Britain hasn't completely fell apart- but she made a pretty good start with America. The US declared her independence after Britain began foisting unfair taxes, trying to tell us what to do- we fought for what we believed in.
• USSR. The USSR fell because she was Communist, pure and simple. The government got overwhelmed. And people got tired of being bossed around constantly.

So, my point in that is this- history shows that only when a regime becomes excessively repressive does a civilization begin to fall apart. More government involvement is not going to help us, it will hurt us. Badly.

" The alternative to this all-too-familiar scenario is mandatory redistribution of wealth within a nation or empire"

Read my lips. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Oh yeah, it's the answer for the leaders, who 'redistribute' the wealth...right into their pockets. It's what happened in China after Mao took over. Yeah, the communists 'redistributed' wealth alright- they redistributed it right into the government's coffers!

"Democratic governments take power away from the wealthy and reinvest this power in the poor. This reinvestment in the poor is also known as socialism."

I could go on about this for more space than I have here. Socialism does not work. Period. No where has it worked, despite the politicians' almost psychotic worship of the ideology. Socialism always end up with the power being vested- not in the poor- but in the leaders who make themselves rich off of redistribution.

"And so a combination of socialism and free trade is needed for the survival of any civilization."

Wha...? No. An adamant no. All a mixture of socialism and free trade gives us is a wonderful mess, like oh, banks failing and mortgages falling into the commode. Doesn't work. Never has, never will.

"Without government intervention in the U.S. economy, child labor could easily make a comeback. This might sound outlandish, until we stop to consider that child labor was common practice in the United States until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and remains a common practice today in impoverished countries all over the world."

Ahem...this is America in the 21rst Century. People couldn't hire children if they wanted to, because- most- parents wouldn't let their kids work when they were little! Now, I'm going to get all homeschooler on you for a moment.

On the website/blog The Rebelution, the authors present an interesting theory about the rise of the 'Kidult'. In short, the government made laws about things like child labor. At the time, these were good laws, needed laws. Now...not so much. The Harris's propose that such laws abolished the free, entrepreneurial, working society we once had. Kids were no longer allowed to work, so they failed to create character and learn how to work. So, they didn't work.

I said all that to say this- is 'child' labor really a bad thing? Should we have to wait until we're 17 to work? Would help our generation- and subsequent generations- rise up above this kidult fad we've fallen into. Anyway, on to the next fun quote!

"Left to itself, a free' market will naturally create a more and more pronounced divide between rich and poor, until there are only two classes: the extremely rich and the extremely poor."

Quick economic lesson: Communist China. Communism is supposed to be so great, right? Wrong. In China, there are only two classes- extremely rich and extremely poor. There was no middle class until about 15 years ago, when Deng Xiaoping began his reforms- and Americans began going over there to start up businesses.

The capitalists are reforming China's economy, and the Chinese are better off for it! (That could be debated by some, but I think it's true. :P )

"In order for people with less power to feel as if they have some control over their own lives, they need assistance from their government. "

This one is...well, pretty outrageous. If people need assistance from the government to 'feel' in control, then they have no control. None, zilch, nada.

"People with fewer resources and opportunities than the super-rich need a chance to get a good education, to have access to nutritious food and proper healthcare, and to move up the economic ladder, away from poverty and powerlessness."

1. People can get education. You know all that time before public, standardized schooling? People were much smarter than they are now. Literacy in the US was over %90 for white males. It is now barely %80. For blacks, during World War I, it was over %80. It is now %68.
2. Everyone had nutritious food once upon a time. Back before private enterprise was basically outlawed, everybody grew their own food, then sold the extras. Now, you can't do that because there are so many government regulations.
3. My argument above applies to 'proper healthcare'. Back before home healthcare was outlawed, before midwives were vilified, every woman knew how to take care of her family's health. She knew how to sew up a cut, how to make a bandage, what herbs to treat with. Now it's a rare woman that knows how to dose Tylenol, much less what lavender can be used for.
4. Poverty? Give me a break. Know what the poverty level in America is? $9,979 annually. The Iraq poverty line, which is the next lowest, is $8,900. Lowest poverty rate in the world? $600, in Somalia. All Americans have food regularly. If they didn't, how come we have the largest obese population in the world?

We have come to the end of this exercise in socialist learning. Please distribute a donation of no less than $10.00 in the box on your way out. Guards are watching the box. Thank you.

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: http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

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.