The Reasons We Fight The New World Order

by Brandon Smith

“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.” — H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)

Throughout our lives and throughout our culture, we are conditioned to rally around concepts of false division. We are led to believe that Democrats and Republicans are separate and opposing parties, yet they are actually two branches of the same political-control mechanism. We are led to believe that two nations such as the United States and Russia are geopolitical enemies, when, in fact, they are two puppet governments under the dominance of the same international financiers. Finally, we are told that the international bankers themselves are somehow separated by borders and philosophies, when the reality is all central banks answer to a singular authority: the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS).

We are regaled with stories of constant conflict and division. Yet the truth is there is only one battle that matters, only one battle that has ever mattered: the battle between those people who seek to control others and those people who simply wish to be left alone.

The “New World Order” is a concept created not in the minds of “conspiracy theorists” but in the minds of those who seek to control others. These are the self-appointed elite who fancy themselves grandly qualified to determine the destiny of every man, woman and child at the expense of individual freedom and self-determination. In this article, I would like to examine the nature of our war with the elite and why their theories on social engineering are illogical, inadequate and, in many cases, malicious and destructive.

The ‘Greater Good’

I have always found it fascinating that while elitists and NWO champions constantly proclaim that morality is relative and that conscience is not inherent, somehow they are the ones who possess the proper definition of the “greater good.” If “good” is in all cases relative, then wouldn’t the “greater good” also be entirely relative? This inconsistency in their reasoning does not seem to stop them from forcing the masses through propaganda or violence to accept their version of better judgment.

As many psychologists and anthropologists (including Carl Jung and Steven Pinker) have proven over decades of study, moral compass and conscience are not mere products of environment; they are inborn ideals outside of the realm of environmental influences. The greater good is inherently and intuitively felt by most people. Whether one listens to this voice of conscience is up to the individual.

It is no accident that NWO elites end up contradicting themselves by claiming morality to be meaningless while pronouncing their personal morality to be pure. In order to obtain power over others, they must first convince member of the public that they are empty vessels without meaning or direction. They must convince the masses to ignore their inner voice of conscience. Only then will the public sacrifice freedoms to purchase answers they don’t really need from elites who don’t really have them.

Collectivism

I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society, and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either. Whenever anyone takes a stage to announce that only he has the answers to the world’s problems, I cannot help but be suspicious of his motives. Rarely, if ever, do I hear these people suggest that more liberty and more individualism will make a better future. Instead, their solution always entails less freedom, more control and more force in order to mold society towards their vision.

The utopia offered by the power elite invariably demands a collectivist mindset that the individual must give up his self-determination and independence so the group can survive and thrive. The problem is no society, culture or collective can exist without the efforts and contributions of individuals. Therefore, the liberty and prosperity of the individual is far more important than the safety or even existence of the group.

The elites understand this fact, which is why they do reserve some individuality (for their own tiny circle).

No matter the guise presented — whether it be socialism, communism, fascism or some amalgamation of each — the goal is always the same: collectivism and slavery for the masses and unrestrained gluttony for the oligarchs.

The Philosophy Of Force

If your idea of a better society is a good and rational one, you should not need to use force in order to get people to accept it. Only intrinsically destructive ideas require the use of force to frighten the public into compliance. The NWO is an idea that relies entirely on force.

Globalization has been consistently sold to us as part of the natural progression of mankind, yet this “natural progression” is always advanced through the use of lies, manipulation, fear and violence. The NWO concept is one of complete centralization, a centralization that cannot be achieved without the use of terror, for who would support the creation of a malicious global power authority unless he was terrorized into doing so?

The only morally acceptable use of force is the use of force to defend against attack. As the NWO relentlessly presses forward its attack on our freedoms, we, the defenders, are labeled “violent extremists” if we refuse to go along quietly. The NWO’s dependency on force to promote its values makes it an inherently flawed methodology derived from ignorance and psychopathy, rather than wisdom and truth.

Dishonesty As Policy

As with the use of violence, the use of lies to achieve success automatically poisons whatever good may have been had through one’s efforts. The elites commonly shrug off this logic by convincing each other that there is such a thing as a “noble lie” (both Saul Alinsky and Leo Strauss, the gatekeepers of the false left/right paradigm, promoted the use of “noble lies”) and that the masses need to be misled so that they can be fooled into doing what is best for themselves and the world. This is, of course, a sociopathic game of self-aggrandizement.

Lies are rarely, if ever, exploited by people who want to make the lives of other men better; lies are used by people who want to make their own lives better at the expense of others. Add to this the egomaniacal assertion that the elites are lying for “our own good” when they are actually only out to elevate their power, and what you get is a stereotypical abusive relationship on a global scale.

Methodologies that have legitimate benefits to mankind deliberately seek truth and do not need to hide behind a veil of misinformation and misdirection. If a methodology requires secrecy, occultism and deceit in order to establish itself in a culture, then it is most likely a negative influence on that culture, not a positive one.

The Hands Of The Few

Why does humanity need a select elite at all? What purpose does this oligarchy really serve? Is centralized power really as efficient and practical as it is painted to be? Or is it actually a hindrance to mankind and an obstacle in our quest to better ourselves? Champions of the NOW argue that global governance is inevitable and that sovereignty in any form is the cause of all our ills. However, I find when I look back at the finer points of history (the points they don’t teach you in college textbooks), the true cause of most of the world’s ills is obviously the existence of elitist groups.

The “efficiency” of centralization is useful only to those at the top of the pyramid, because it generally stands on a vast maze of impassable bureaucracy. It has to. No hyper-condensed authority structure can survive if the citizenry is not made dependent on it. Centralization makes life harder for everyone by removing our ability to provide our own essentials and make our own choices. That is to say, centralization removes all alternative options from the system, until the only easy path left is to bow down to the establishment.

I have never seen a solid example of centralization of power resulting in a better society or happier people. I have also never come across a select group of leaders intelligent enough and compassionate enough to oversee and micromanage the intricate workings of the whole of the Earth. There is no use for the elite, so one must ask why we keep them around.

The Opposite View

Arguing over what should be done about the state of the world is a fruitless endeavor until one considers what should be done about the state of his own life. As long as men are stricken by bias, selfish desire and lack of awareness, they will never be able to determine what is best for other people. The opposing philosophy to the NWO, the philosophy of the Liberty Movement, holds that no one has the right to impose his particular version of a perfect society on anyone else. As soon as someone does, he has committed a grievous attack against individual liberty — an attack that must be answered.

Our answer is simply that the people who want to control others be removed from positions of control and that the people who want to be left alone just be left alone. Association and participation should always be voluntary; otherwise, society loses value. This is not anarchy in the sense that consequence is removed. Rather, the rights of the individual become paramount; and the liberties of the one take precedence over the ever vaporous demands of some abstract group.

The only reason for any government to exist is to safeguard individual freedom. Period. The original intent of America’s Founding Fathers was to establish a Nation that fostered this ideal. When government or oligarchy steps outside the bounds of this mandate, it is no longer providing the service it was originally designed for; and it must be dismantled. Unfortunately, it is a universal rule that uncompromising tyranny must often be met with uncompromising revolution.

When a new system arises that cannibalizes the old, enslaves our future, uses aggression against us and mutilates our founding principles in the name of arbitrary progress, that new system must be defied and ultimately destroyed. The NWO ideology represents one of the most egregious crimes against humanity of all time, posing in drag as our greatest hope. It is based, fundamentally, on everything that makes life terrible for the common man and everything our inherent conscience fights against.

We would be far better served as a species if we were to turn our back on the NWO altogether and move swiftly in the opposite direction. Imagine what tomorrow would be like if there were no controllers, no statists, no despots and no philosopher kings. Imagine a tomorrow where people respect the natural-born rights of others. Imagine a tomorrow where people’s irrational fears are not allowed to inhibit other people’s freedoms. Imagine a tomorrow where interactions between citizens and government are rare or nonexistent. Imagine if we could live our days in peace, independently building our own destinies, in which our successes and failures are our own, rather than the property of the collective. It may not be a perfect world, or a utopia, but I suspect it would be a much better place than we live in today.

The Collapse of America - A Plan Decades in the Making

David Risselada

While many people are awakening to the Obama administration and their attempts to undermine our national sovereignty, it must be stated that this has been an ongoing effort for many, many decades. Barrack Obama is merely a tool selected to get an already conditioned population to accept the final stages of a plan that will see the United States surrender its sovereignty and merge into a global governing structure where she will no longer be respected as a world super power, but viewed merely as another third world nation that is morally equivalent to all others. There are three main pillars of our society and culture that need to be changed from the inside in order for this transformation to take place; immigration, education and the military. It is hard to argue, even for those who adamantly oppose any idea of conspiracy theories, that these three elements of our society have not been radically affected in recent years. This article will offer a brief analysis into the events taking place and the historical roots behind them. This is indeed a planned collapse, and to be calling it out for what it is now is indeed too little too late.

As the crisis along our border escalates, we are hearing more and more on the whole situation being a planned event to precipitate the total collapse of our nation. Even congressmen are coming out and calling this a deliberate application of the Cloward & Piven strategy. For those who may not know, the Cloward & Piven strategy was the work of two Sociology Professors at Columbia University, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, designed to organize the nation's poor and minorities into a power base from which the country, through the democratic process, could be converted into a socialist state. One of the key components of this strategy was the idea of overwhelming the nation's welfare system to the point where it collapses, and the government would then be forced to adapt socialism.

It's obvious beyond any doubt that Barrack Hussein Obama is implementing this strategy; after all he did attend Columbia University and was likely educated by Frances Fox Piven. In my article, "President Obama, Frances Fox Piven, and voter registration schemes" I discussed Piven and her efforts to organize a voter registration drive aimed at minorities by teaching them they were oppressed. I also mentioned one of my own professors, an admitted socialist mind you, who was likely educated by Piven as he had attended The Columbia University School of Social Work. In short, people who are calling the border crisis a deliberate attempt to undermine America and collapse her financial system are correct; however, from the perspective of a writer who has been trying to bring many things to people's attention, they are a day late and a dollar short as this is only one small aspect of many moving parts put in motion a long time ago.

In my article "Amnesty and the Immigration Act of 1965," I discussed the origins of the immigration crisis we are now facing and how it was nothing but a plot to secure more voters for the Democrat Party. This was based on the ideas of Marxism and the teachings of Antonio Gramsci, who taught that America's culture would have to be changed incrementally from within. The immigration act of 1965 was signed into law by Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. This is the same president who promised Americas black communities free welfare for their votes. Lyndon B. Johnson is remembered in history as saying "I'll have those ni**ers voting democratic for the next two hundred years." He believed that if he could convince America's black population centers that the government would take care of them, and they were deserving of this because of their "victimhood" status, he could secure their vote for generations to come. This was a surprisingly effective technique as black Americans continue to vote democrat even though they remain impoverished in districts controlled by Democrats for decades.

While Lyndon B. Johnson signed the civil rights act into law in an effort to secure the black vote, the truth is, he opposed it as senate majority leader when introduced by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. He did this specifically for the purpose of giving the illusion that it was the Democrat Party that supported civil rights, even though the majority of Democrats under the Johnson administration still opposed the bill. If it would not have had the Republican support it did, it would have never passed into law.

What does this have to do with immigration? At the time America's immigration laws were based on a quota system, meaning that immigrants from any part of the world were allowed in based on the number of existing immigrants already in country from that part of the world. This was done in an effort to maintain national identity and ensure that people with useful skills and a desire to assimilate into our culture would be the ones to immigrate here. This meant that most of the people who were immigrating here were of European ancestry and just as is the case today, people referred to this as a racist system.

People began to argue that immigration to the United States was a human right and that because we as a nation have stolen most of our resources and land people were entitled to immigrate here. There were many fallacies in this narrative because the U.S. had allowed many thousands of Asians into the country to escape communist oppression during the Vietnam War, and we have allowed many refugees from all over the world to relocate to the United States in an effort to escape tyranny. With all of this being said, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the quota system and replaced it with one where immigration has been open to all corners of the world. In fact, the bill allows for the exponential growth of immigration from the third world and likely led to the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, in which Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to nearly four million illegal immigrants. There was little doubt with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 that it would forever change the demographics of The United States.

While it is obvious that the immigration crisis is contributing to a "planned collapse" or our country, it is not the only event put in motion to accomplish this goal. As the nation awakens to the danger that "Common Core" education represents, they would do themselves well by realizing that this is the final push of an education curriculum a century in the making. Again, it all goes back to the ideas of Marx and the teachings of Gramsci. Antonio Gramsci taught that America would only accept socialism incrementally, and in order to implement incremental change, the institutions must be infiltrated by "Change agents." Leftists have had control of our education system for decades, and as I wrote in my article "A truth we have to accept," the push to turn America into a socialist nation started decades ago.

Unfortunately, in this case the truth is definitely something most people would not want to accept; however, it is proof positive that both political parties in this nation are guilty of undermining its constitution and national sovereignty. The communists believed that world peace can only be achieved when the world accepted communism as the ultimate social structure. Lenin often spoke of a communist world government.

What many don't realize is our government's role in allowing the communists to infiltrate our nation, and it all started with something called "The Reese Committee." The Reese Committee was the investigation of U.S. taxpayer money being used to fund organizations and societies that were pushing for the merging of the Soviet Union and the United States to form a global government. At the same time, agreements were being signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to break down the barriers between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in an effort to get the U.S. to accept communism (so to say) as a moral equivalent of the west's way of life. Because the Soviet Union and the U.S. were considered allies in the efforts to defeat Adolph Hitler, great lengths were undertaken to hide the truth about communism and America's role in covering up these truths. That's a whole other story. However, a better understanding of the communist mindset can be developed by reading "The Communist Peace Offensive."

According to Charlotte Iserbyt, whistle blower and author of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America," Ronald Reagan also signed such agreements with the Soviet Union where they would have influence over our education system. This was done for the purpose of achieving world peace. While many would refuse to believe this because Ronald Reagan is known as being one of the most conservative presidents we have had, how else would you explain a modern generation that for all practical purposes appears to be begging for communism? Just as thousands of immigrants did not make it across thousands of miles of treacherous terrain without some kind of assistance, neither did the communists successfully infiltrate our education system without being welcomed.

So far we discussed immigration and education as being the pillars of America's destruction. There is, however, one more institution that needs to be thoroughly destroyed before America is ripe for total transformation. This is one institution that Barrack Obama has been very successful in dismantling almost single-handedly. However, once again, the precedence for this was established long ago and Obama is merely implementing the strategy. This institution is the U.S. military, and over the past couple of years we have watched Barrack Obama relieve hundreds of high ranking commanders from their duties as they represent a threat to his agenda. Understand that this is not his agenda; he is merely carrying it out. It was put in place decades ago by the same communist forces infiltrating every other aspect of our society.

To truly come to terms with this you must understand that America, and her Judeo-Christian heritage is the last remaining power able to keep the communists from establishing total control over the world. This is why her education system was infiltrated, this is why we are flooded with third immigrants accustomed to collectivism and this is why our military needs to be disarmed.

In the Communist Peace Offensive, it is evident that the Soviets intended to give the illusion that an America willing to disarm itself was an America that showed a superior, moral strength, and that this was the only way world peace could be achieved. They have gone to great efforts to portray the American military as imperialistic and oppressive, and they have been very successful in these efforts as many Americans despise the military. In order to understand this better you should read public law 87-297 "The Arms Control and Disarmament Act" State Department publication 7277. This was signed into law in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy and carried out by every president since. This law calls for the gradual elimination of Americas Armed Forces to the point where we no longer have a national Army, Navy or Air Force. According to Bernadine Smith, this cannot be fully accomplished until they have completely disarmed the citizenry because they know full well we will never accept the dismantling of our military as it is the only thing that protects our national sovereignty. When they finally outlaw civilian weapons, we will know we are in the final stages of their plan to completely disarm our military and merge us with a one world communist order.

Prepare For What’s Coming: “The Largest Financial Collapse This Planet Has Ever Seen”

Mac Slavo

 

Over the course of the last six weeks, since the disastrous launch of health care exchanges mandated under the new Patient Affordable Care Act, we have been made privy to something most Americans didn’t believe was possible: that the government of the United States of America is being represented by thieves, liars and sycophants.

Every promise made by the President and Congressional democrats who supported Obamacare legislation has turned out to be a complete falsehood.

But what’s critical to our future well-being is that we understand that the machinations and conjecture are not restricted solely to the health care debacle. They pervade every aspect of government on the federal, state and local level alike.

We have been lied to on every front, as evidenced by revelations just yesterday that the Bureau of Labor and Statistics completely fabricated unemployment numbers in an effort to sway the 2012 election results. This is supposed to be an impartial, non-partisan agency whose sole purpose is to calculate numbers, and even that has been hijacked by agenda-driven politicians and special interests.

Whether we’re talking about health care, the economy, personal privacy, or national security, we must assume, unless proven otherwise, that we are being lied to.

Charlie McGrath of Wide Awake News explains the motivations behind this narrative that the majority of Americans simply don’t understand, or worse, avoid at all costs because it would destroy the very foundations of the fantasy land in which they live.

The lies continue, non-stop. Govern by crisis, offer a lie for a solution, and continue to indebt this country.

Why? Because it isn’t about serving We the People. It is about serving financial special interests, plain and simple.

You’d better realize that and you better prepare for what’s coming, because inevitably, when this Ponzi scheme of stealing from our future in order to pay for fraudulence now comes to an end it is going to lead to the largest financial collapse this planet has ever seen… and most people are going to be absolutely blindsided by it.

As Charlie notes, no matter how deep one attempts to bury their head in the sand, you’d better prepare for what’s coming because the collapse of our entire way of life is, at this point, inevitable.

Or, you can go on pretending it’s not happening, that government officials care about you, that you’re going to have platinum health care coverage next year, and that tens of millions of people in America are not actually living in a modern day depression.

The Nature of Things & Utopian Dreams

Dr. Robert Owens

When my grandmother was born a horse was the normal means of transport.  When my granddaughter was born the International Space Station was the brightest light in the night's sky. In other words, things change.   When I sat on the couch and watched the first man walk on the moon with my grandmother she didn't believe it was real.  When I tell my low information neighbors that the International Space Striation is the brightest light in the night's sky they don't believe it is true.  In other words, human nature doesn't change.

To allow our leaders, our fellow citizens, our own kith and kin the charitable label of misguided dreamers is the closest I can come to innocently explaining their roles as either accomplices or instigators of our national decline.  I try to tell myself they are as Lenin and Stalin are reputed to have called them, "Useful Idiots:" well-meaning people who genuinely believe central planning will help the needy.  I try not to let myself think the Progressives and their supporters are actually extremely corrupt and evil people who are actively attempting to transform our beloved experiment in freedom into another forced labor camp striving to achieve Utopia.

The problem with utopian dreams is that they always end in dystopian realities.  Lenin's dream of a worker's paradise transformed itself into Stalin's nightmare of the gulags, starvation, and the eventual destruction of their nation.  Mussolini's dream of a return to the glories of Rome led directly to the loss of the empire they had and the destruction of their nation.  Hitler's dream of a Thousand Year Reich led directly to the Gestapo, the holocaust, the worst war in History, and the destruction of their nation.

How can we believe we can follow a dream of utopia to any other end than the one everyone else has arrived at: the dust bin of History?

Some may say, "But we are Americans, and we have always done the things others could not do."  You will find no more ardent believer in American Exceptionalism than I.   I truly believe, not that diversity is our strength but instead that the blending of all into a uniquely American hybrid has created the most talented, most dynamic, and most successful nation the world has ever known.  It is not the will or the talents of our homegrown American collectivists that I question; it is the very nature of collectivism that I maintain makes the accomplishment of their utopian dream impossible.

People can have the best of intentions; however, if they believe they can take from Peter to pay Paul without making Peter resent the fact that he has less than he had before they don't know Peter very well.  And if they think they can set Paul up as a perpetual recipient of the swag taken from Peter without creating a pool of Paul's who constantly want more and who resent those who do the distributing they have never worked in a soup kitchen, a food bank, or a giveaway store for more than a day.

The vast majority of people are not by nature altruistic milk cows, and they resent it when that is how they are viewed by the nameless faceless bureaucracy necessary to make the machinery of utopia crank out the shabby imitation they deliver.  Conversely the vast majority of people are not by nature perpetual mooches content to stand with their hands out waiting for the nameless faceless bureaucracy to deliver the bare minimum needed to survive which is always the bounty that actually drops from the utopian extruder.

I contend that a collectivist redistribution Utopia whether it is called Progressive, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, or merely the right thing to do is contrary to the nature of humanity.

People by nature want to be self-reliant.  They want to make things better for themselves and their children.  People want to strive for something noble, and they want to feel as if their lives matter.  Yet in an industrial world divided into haves and have nots it is easy to understand how the frustration of being a have not can convince someone that there needs to be a more equitable division of the material goods which modern civilization abundantly provides.

Having come from a blue collar family and having spent the majority of my life as a self-employed boom or bust house painter I can well relate to not having health insurance because you can't afford it, I couldn't.  I can relate to having mornings where you don't know what you will feed your family that night because I have had those days.  I know what it is like to be a high school dropout who can't get anything except a menial low paying job, because I have been that person.  Yes, I can relate to the situations which might make a person believe we need to spread the wealth around.

I also know what it feels like to have to get food stamps and other things from public and private assistance just to make it through the day because I have done so.  I know how the welfare people make you feel, the way they treat you as if you are trying to take their personal money or the condescension of pity.

What I can't relate to is either thinking it is a good thing to consign our fellow citizens to such a life or to being satisfied with such a life.

Not only does a welfare state corrupt both the dispensers and the recipients it carries the seeds of its own destruction. Eventually the recipients will want more than the dispensers are willing to give, and revolution or collapse will be the end result.

In addition, since redistribution as a state policy always means stealing from Peter to pay Paul, ultimately the thief will need a gun.  Though Peter may be a nice person and at first say, "Sure I can contribute something to help poor old Paul," if poor old Paul never gets back on his feet sooner or later Peter will wonder why Paul doesn't start providing for himself.  At that point the contributions are no longer voluntary and they must be taken one way or another.  There is also the question of how many Pauls can Peter carry without either shrugging like Atlas or becoming a Paul himself in self-defense. As Margret Thatcher taught us, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Plunder empires always collapse.  Utopias always end up eating the goose that laid the golden egg.  Central planning and collectivism: the Progressive dream for a Great Society has never, can never, and will never succeed. It just isn't natural.

Rigging of National Elections – The Rise of Electronic Voting (Part 2)

Ed Wood

If this expose` of voter fraud was presented as a stage play, it would be characterized as a Greek Tragedy; "a drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances." Such is where we find ourselves. The main character(s) would be all those who fought and died to provide for us a form of government whose very foundation is the right to free and unencumbered elections.

There are so many acts in this play that it is difficult to know which to present next. If, after reading Act I, you still doubt that our elections are rigged, you can view the video below and hear first-hand the sworn testimony of a Mr. Clinton Eugene Curtiss before a select United States Senate Committee, admitting that he was retained by former Florida Congressman Tom Feeney, then Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, to develop a program for the specific purpose of determining the outcome of electronically tabulated elections.

This, and other election-throwing computer programs, became vital to the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas all reported that a vote for Romney resulted in either a direct or a default vote for Obama. The Market Daily News reported that in 100 Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Ohio precincts, Obama got 99% of the votes and Romney 0. In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less. In Philadelphia, 59 precincts recorded not one single vote for Romney. And the list goes on. How is this possible? I will attempt to answer this question as you again remember the Joseph Stalin quotation, "It's not the people who vote that counts. It's the people who count the votes."

How could so many similar events be occurring simultaneously in so many different locations? Simple. All were the accomplishments of one big, happy family. So begins Act II of this drama.

In 2002, the use of "Direct Recording Electronic" (DRE) voting machines and the elimination of all paper trails of balloting was imposed upon the states through the enactment of the "Help Americans Vote Act." Since the conduct of elections is constitutionally delegated to the sovereign states, the feds came up with a $3.9 BILLION inducement for them to adopt electronic voting. Obviously, there was a lot of money and a lot of political influence involved in concentrating the tabulation of balloting into the hands of a select few. A few with connections in high places.

Enter now from left stage, the Urosevich brothers, Bob and Ted. They respectively controlled Ohio-based Diebolt and its theatrical stand-in, Nebraska-based "Election Systems and Software" (ES&S). Diebolt eventually sold out to ES&S, thus ending the competition charade. There then emerged another major performer in this off-Broadway production --- Sequoia. Its machines serviced nearly 9 million voters in the 2012 election.

The Diebolt-ES&S collaboration was temporarily disrupted by a Justice Department ant-trust indictment, forcing ES&S to sell its Diebolt interest to the Dominion Corporation --- the fourth largest name in voter technology. But a month later, the DOJ turned a blind eye as Dominion purchased Sequoia. So now, the cast of players was complete. Only two domestic voting machine manufacturers remained on stage -- ES&S and Dominion.

About that time, things got a little dicey in the head offices. Many of the key staffers were accused or convicted of a dizzying array of white-collar crimes, including conspiracy, bribery, bid rigging, computer fraud, tax fraud, stock fraud, mail fraud, extortion, and drug trafficking.

While their interests were directed elsewhere, newer technologies, including Web-based voting, emerged on the scene in the form of the Spanish-owned firm, Scytl. And to keep things nice and cozy, Scytl named our old friend Bob Urosevich, of Diebolt fame, as managing director of its Americas division.

Scytl became the subject of much speculation that the tabulation of domestic balloting had been outsourced by the Obama administration to this Spanish firm, owned by international financier, George Soros. True, Scytl had been contracted to handle some overseas military ballots, but there is apparently no basis to the Obama outsourcing story, or ownership by George Soros. However, Scytl is believed to have provided the Web-based technology to Allpoint Voter Services, used by the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Obama campaign's GottaRegister.com website to enroll at least 11,000 persons via the internet, in violation of North Carolina state law.

So, as the curtain falls on Act II of what has now become an American Tragedy, the very foundation of our Representative Republic, the right to free and open elections, is now concentrated in the hands of a few politically connected entities; entities that are neither free nor open.

Are Our National Elections Rigged? Part 1

Ed Wood

Well of course they are. That's a foregone conclusion; not even a fit subject for intelligent debate any more. Oh, it's a little more sophisticated now than in the days of the old Tennessee custom of a Mason jar of moonshine, or the Chicago precinct captain's distribution of "walking around money." But the practice is alive and well, and more pervasive than ever. The evidence is everywhere if we choose to look.

Why do you think there is such a push to eliminate citizenship ID as a requirement to vote? Why do you think there is such a push to grant voting rights to illegal aliens? Why do you think voting machines that leave a paper trail have been eliminated in favor of electronic tabulation, far away from where the votes are actually cast? Why do you think that in the 2012 Presidential Election there were many reports of voter fraud, or intimidation, but no reports of conviction? Remember the 158.85% voter turnout in St. Lucie County Florida, the highest voter turnout in the Country? Of course it contributed heavily to the defeat of Republican Congressional incumbent, Colonel Alan West. And yes Colonel West did ask for a recount, but it was not granted.

Remember the uniformed members of the New Black Panthers, wielding billyclubs and blocking entry to the Philadelphia polling places? Charges were made but subsequently dropped by the Obama Justice Department. And I won't even get into the unchallenged Acorn voter registration frauds.

Of course, there is a pattern here that favors one political party over the other, but these are rather insignificant isolated instances compared to the big picture that is beginning to emerge. I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said, "It's not the people who vote that counts. It's the people who count the votes." That advice has been taken to heart by our current crop of politicians.

Is political tampering new? Of course not. In 1915 mass indictments for voter fraud were handed down in Terre Haute, IN, in which the incumbent sheriff, and the local judge, and the Terre Haute mayor were all sentenced to the pokey. By 1932 Louisiana senator Huey "Kingfish" Long had polished the process to the point that he won unanimously in sixteen New Orleans precincts and tallied identical votes in 28 others. New York's Tammany Hall political machine bought off judges, politicians, ward captains, and controlled Democrat Party nominations for more than a century. What is new is the size and scope of election tampering now made possible with current electronic monitoring and tabulation.

Mass corruption began in earnest in 2002 with the passage of another of those laws with the cutsie little name of the "Help Americans Vote Act," which gave states $3.9 BILLION if they would to do away with balloting that left a paper trail, and substituted what was termed "Direct Recording Electronic" (DRE) voting machines. This took vote counting away from local communities and transferred it to centralized voting centers with political interests in the outcome. (Please remember the aforementioned Joseph Stalin quotation.)

A number of hardware manufacturers got into the act with no electronic experience, but lots of political connections. None worse than Diebolt, a producer of wall safes. Their voting machine subsidiary was so dysfunctional that its collection of ballots was easily hacked, remotely or on-site, using any off-the-shelf version of the Microsoft "Access" program. The US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory issued a report that the outcome of an entire election could be arranged by anyone with $26 in parts and an 8th grade science education. Diebolt's reputation was so bad that they eventually changed their name to "Premier Election Solutions." But by then the damage was done, so Diebolt got out of the election business altogether, selling out to "Election Systems and Software" (ES&S).

This story has so many ins-and-outs, and involves too many interconnecting politicians and entities, I will follow only one. The aforementioned Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

The date: 1996. The location: Nebraska. The event: A senate race. From out of nowhere, a virtually unknown millionaire named Chuck Hagel staged an amazing upset victory over the popular Democrat Governor Ben Nelson, who had been elected in a landslide only two years previously. It was little known at the time, but two weeks before announcing his candidacy, Chuck Hagel had stepped down as CEO of ES&S, the firm that would soon count his own senate votes. He won, of course.

In 2002 Hagel was challenged by Democrat Charlie Natulka. The votes were again electronically tabulated by ES&S, and this time Hagel won 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory ever recorded in Nebraska history!

Matulka's request for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee was denied. Would not have mattered though since Nebraska law states that recounts must be conducted using the same "vote-counting device" used in the actual election, which, of course, would be the same ES&S machine.

There are many, many, other facets to this voter corruption scandal. I have only scratched the surface with this one, and I am already running out of space, but let me conclude this one part by asking that you please keep in mind that this is the same Chuck Hagel, who after serving two terms in the United States Senate, is now the Obama administration's recently appointed Secretary of Defense.

Who says that crime doesn't pay? Depends on the game, I guess.

Is Obama Building A Federal Police Force?

Is Obama Building A Federal Police Force?

By Tara Servatius

Less than two weeks ago, Sen. Rand Paul’s demanded to know whether the president believed he had a right to kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone, finally getting an answer that had to be dragged out Attorney General Eric Holder. An equally important, but still unasked question is whether the president intends to build a federal, drone-based “public safety” force to police local communities.

Somebody had better ask the president about this quickly, because it appears that his administration intends to use drones to actively usurp what were once local police and sheriff’s department functions.

Put it all together, and it sure looks like Obama is building the backbone for that national police force he wanted the first time he ran for office.

Worse yet, both Democrats and Republicans are now openly discussing a plan to put all the drones flown in America’s skies, including those owned and operated by local police departments, under the ultimate supervision of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, consolidating the country’s surveillance and law enforcement powers under one powerful federal police jurisdiction.

According to Wired.com, DHS is now experimenting with how its drones can be used in “first responder, law enforcement and border security scenarios.”

The DHS’s drones could also be used, Nextgov.com reported, “to support emergency and non-emergency incidents nationwide” and to give the department “situational awareness” in public safety matters or disasters, including forest fires. The department also plans to use its drones, and their attached cameras to surveil and police sporting events, political events and large public gatherings.

The problem with DHS’s plans is that many of the above functions used to be handled by local law enforcement without any help from the federal government.

DHS appears to be planning a vast surveillance network, and it is rapidly developing the technology to create it. Wired.com reports this about drone technology:

The Department of Homeland Security is interested in a camera package that can peek in on almost four square miles of (constitutionally protected) American territory for long, long stretches of time.

Homeland Security doesn’t have a particular system in mind. Right now, it’s just soliciting “industry feedback” on what a formal call for such a “Wide Area Surveillance System” might look like. But it’s the latest indication of how powerful military surveillance technology, developed to find foreign insurgents and terrorists, is migrating to the home front.

The Department of Homeland Security says it’s interested in a system that can see between five to 10 square kilometers - that’s between two and four square miles, roughly the size of Brooklyn, New York’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood - in its “persistent mode.” By “persistent,” it means the cameras should stare at the area in question for an unspecified number of hours to collect what the military likes to call “pattern of life” data - that is, what “normal” activity looks like for a given area.

In America, community policing has always been done at the local level. If a police force engaged in corruption, abused people, or got out of control, local voters could and likely would rapidly vote out the mayor or council that controlled it. You could get a badge number. You could file a report. You could call your local newspaper. This has always kept police departments responsive to the will and the needs of local communities - and firmly under their control.

But drone technology is now allowing Washington’s multitude of law enforcement agencies to begin to compete for police powers and police duties that have always fallen to local police departments.

Even more alarming, a subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security is currently studying a plan to put all the drones flown in America’s airways under direct supervision of DHS and the Department of Justice.

After a 2011 plot to use a drone to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol was thwarted by the FBI, Congress began exploring the idea of putting all drones - including those flown by local law enforcement agencies - under federal control to protect citizens against rogue drone operators with bad intentions.

The House Homeland Security committee, which oversees these matters, also became concerned last year that other federal government agencies were “borrowing DHS drones or procuring their own for scouting populated areas - without the department’s supervision,” Nextgov.com reported.

To deal with all of this, Committee on Homeland Security subcommittee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, says the committee will mandate that DHS, the Justice Department and the FAA coordinate to oversee all drones that fly within the country, but has said he prefers that the Obama administration do so without a requirement from Congress.

While the intentions here might not be totalitarian, the ultimate outcome could be, especially as more federal and local law enforcement agencies come to rely on drone technology and the federal government begins to police the interior in ways that were unthinkable just 15 years ago, before the Department of Homeland Security - and the use of drone technology — even existed.

On Washington’s present track with this, in a decade it could be hard to tell where your local police department ends and the federal government begins.

Karl Marx and the American Dream

March 15, 2013

By Jeremy Meister

You cannot use Karl Marx's ideas to help the middle class.

You can't do it.

Anyone who claims otherwise is stupid, ignorant, crazy, a liar, or some combination of the above. Even the laziest student can open a copy of the Communist Manifesto and read the first page, where Marx launches in to an attack on the middle class (the "bourgeoisie," as he calls them) -- an attack that continues to the end of his article. At no point does Marx say anything good about the middle class. Never does Marx propose a way to help the middle class. The whole Manifesto is a recipe for destroying the bourgeoisie and the economic system that creates and supports them (capitalism).

Basically, Marx advocated a return to the medieval lifestyle: a time when the barons and princes looked out for and took care of the happy serfs, who spent their days dancing around the maypole and praising their lords. Marx saw it as a time when everyone shared, everyone took pride in what he did, and everyone looked out for his neighbor.

But there was a problem in this paradise. It was the evil middle class who, unhappy and ungrateful in their place, rose up and destroyed the perfect social order.

The only problem with trying to return to the middle-age way of doing things is that Marx and his friends might not be at the top of the pecking order. Thankfully, Marx had a solution for this, too: "the people" would get together and, after voting, put Marx (and his friends) in charge. After all, someone has to lead these unwashed idiots. There would be only one vote: the one where Marx is elected king. After that, everything would be said to be the "will of the people."

This is why you'll never run into a follower of Marx. Communism/Socialism are completely followerless movements. If you ever talk to a Communist or a Marxist, you'll get the same story -- when the revolution comes, my friends and I will be in charge. You'll never hear a Marxist smile and say, "When the revolution comes I'm going to polish the leader's boots".

Marx wanted his system immediately -- preferably consisting of a violent destruction of the middle class, with blood running like rivers in the streets. But being a pragmatic man, he was willing to wait.





The true genius of the modern Marxists is that they have managed to convince a majority of middle-classers that Marx's ideas really can help the bourgeoisie. And it's hard to distinguish between those who actually believe that Socialism is a viable system and those opportunists who are simply planning to use such a system to their own ends.





How many of these modern Marxists are really this ignorant of their document? How often do we hear that "[this Marxist idea] needs to be done to help working families" or "[that Marxist idea] needs to be implemented to help the middle class"?

The Marxists espouse this nonsense because people believe it. Middle-classers have now become the ones voting for and supporting these ideas. Arrest records from the Marxist celebration of Occupy Wall Street show that most of those involved in that movement are from comfortable (dare we call them "bourgeoisie"?) backgrounds. But it goes deeper than that. In any given poll, middle-class people overwhelmingly like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government subsidies of education and housing -- the list is endless, and the demands are never-ending.

But none of these programs is designed to help the middle class -- not any more than a drug dealer despite giving out medicines is interested in the health and well-being of his clientele. A little bit always leads to a demand for more. And after decades of calls for more, more, more, we get what we're looking at in 2013: the imminent total collapse of capitalist system.

When was the last time you heard some politician calling for any of the following?

1) A heavily progressive income tax. The more you make, the more they'll take. The rich are to pay their "fair share." We just had one of the biggest tax increases in American history starting January 1, but this hasn't stopped liberal politicians from demanding more hikes.

2) Seizing of inheritances. One of the most insidious taxes around is the death tax. Grieving families are forced to give half or more of their loved ones' property to the government. Interestingly enough, this idea is now working its way into gun control legislation. There are calls for "assault weapons" being forfeited at their owners' death.

3) Government takeover of the credit system. Already the government owns loans on a lot of houses. ObamaCare mandates that only the government can now give student loans. Meanwhile, the government is its own biggest debtor, swelling the amount we owe to levels never before seen in world history.

4) A takeover of the media. From "non Citizen" legislation, which would stop groups and businesses from speaking during elections to media "bailouts," which would come with government strings, or just outright nationalizations of media outlets, the government has big ideas for a "transformation" of the meaning of "free speech."

5) Overhaul of transportation. How often do we hear the phrase "shovel-ready jobs" or "roads and bridges"? They are pushing a train from Las Vegas to LA and another train that will run down the California coast. Transportation projects are a popular subject, even as the government coffers shrink and the costs of such projects explode.

6) Regulations of industry, especially in an environmental sense. Obama has one of the most active and overbearing EPAs since that agency was founded.

7) Expansion of education. Everyone shall go to school -- kindergarten through college -- and it will all be paid for by the government.

8) Government ownership of business. We've already watched the government gobble up the banks and auto-makers. Now we're watching them take over the medical system. Gun companies are probably on the horizon as well.

How many of these ideas sound familiar? Every single one of them is laid out in the Communist Manifesto as a way to destroy the middle class. Every single one. Forget good-sounding talk about "fair shares" and making the evil rich pay. They're coming after you, Mr. and Mrs. American.

Marx gave those ideas above their own bullet points in the Manifesto, but he had other ideas. Would you like to hear some of those?

1) Abolition of borders. The lower class (the "proletariat," as Marx called them) need to be free to move to other nations -- the better to corrupt the vote in those places.

2) A takeover of education. Not just through government ownership, but through like-minded Communists and Socialists populating the educators and lecturing students about the goodness of Marxism. The results have made a profound difference in our culture.

Every single time these ideas are implemented, the middle class takes more damage, which in turn leads to the bourgeoisie Marxists calling for more Marxism -- and the little merry-go-round keeps spinning in the halls of our government.

All of this is culminating exactly as Marx envisioned: a healthy, prosperous ruling elite lording it over a rapidly growing population of serfs. This hasn't been lost on the people paying attention: California is becoming a feudal society. There are stories leaking out that the same thing is happening in other liberal Marxist enclaves like New York and Washington, D.C.

This is a huge problem for our government, our system, our culture, and our society -- namely because the United States is a middle-class dream. The Founding Fathers were all from the "bourgeoisie" who rebelled because the government in England didn't feel that it had to respond to the concerns of peasants and underlings.

The idea that someone can start with nothing and, using hard work, creativity, and ingenuity, raise himself to a higher level is the American Dream. To own one's own house, own one's own car, to start a business, to work where one chooses, to take risks and reap the rewards of those risks -- that's the American Dream. It's why immigrants used to sacrifice everything to come here: the idea that one's birth wouldn't dictate his entire life and how far he could go. People are still willing to risk their lives for this. People are not locked into a caste system in America.

And all of that is anathema to the Marxist vision. Even Marx himself admits this:

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. (The Communist Manifesto)

There is a small bright spot, however. Right now, we're still mostly a middle-class society. In a system where the vote is everything, there is still a chance to stop all of this destruction. But the first thing we as a society have to do is start being honest with ourselves. We cannot use Marx's ideas to obtain the American Dream.

The first step to fixing a problem is to admit that you have one.

With Venezuelan Food Shortages, Some Blame Price Controls

If you want to see a modern day example of why Obama’s policies and us against them politics won’t work, please read this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/world/americas/venezuela-faces-shortages-in-grocery-staples.html

What has happened to the “Grand Experiment”?

"Our nation was founded as an experiment in human liberty. Its institutions reflect the belief of our founders that men had their origin and destiny in God"

- John Foster Dulles

The United States of America has traditionally been called "The Grand Experiment". It is the first country that was formed "by the people, for the people". Its foundation is one of a democratic republic and of liberty.

The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, gave the people power as the rulers of the government, instead of as is traditional, where governments rule the people. The founding fathers warned over and over that this form of government would always be under attack, that it would be subject to change if the people were not vigilant. The more people rely on the government the more they flirt with the loss of this grand experiment.

Unfortunately, the last hundred years or so have been a slow, deliberate march towards the very powerful, very centralized government our founders feared the most. A march that has led us away from their dreams, beliefs, and convictions, to the over regulated, controlled society we now live in. We have gone from the marvel of the world to just another big government democracy. We no longer even truly function as a republic. To get here we have had to ignore and override much of what our Constitution and Bill of Rights stands for.

The Federal Government and its bureaucracy now has its fingers in every aspect of our lives. There is nothing we can do in this country, nowhere we can go, that our lives are not regulated by the government. From the water we drink, to what we wear, what we drive, what we eat, what type of light bulbs we can use, what we can and can't do with the land we own, on and on. Even our thoughts are beginning to be regulated through hate crime laws and such. The Federal Government has its fingers everywhere.

The question I have is where do we go from here? Do we give up? Just accept what now seems inevitable? Or do we begin to fight back? Do we use the same, thought out, purposeful strategy that has been used against us? Is it even possible to slowly but surely return the United States to its roots? Or have we truly already lost? I believe we can still take this country back, but it is going to take a lot more than winning one election. It is going to take educated, informed decisions, a purposeful strategy, people who understand the stakes and are willing to act. It is also going to take time.

To start, we need a President, Senate and House who are willing to discuss and tackle the challenges facing our country. Leaders, who will stop playing politics, catering to special interest groups, and putting their own power and careers ahead of the country, who understand their Constitutional roles and responsibilities. Senators and Congressmen in our country were intended to be citizen legislators. They were supposed to go home and spend a good part of the year with their constituents so that they were in touch with what is going on in the various areas of the country. What they have become, in effect, is a ruling class, sitting above the lives of the "common folk". Content to make rules, laws, and regulations that both keep them in power and subjugate those whose rights and liberties they are supposed to protect.

These same lawmakers have also created huge government bureaucracies, bureaucracies that have broad powers to regulate and control our society. These bureaucracies have a life of their own; they expand and intrude on our lives without legislation or citizen oversight. Much of this is done under the guise of "protecting us", but what they in fact do is rob us of our liberties and make us slaves of the government.

In addition, we need to begin addressing our judicial system and in particular the Supreme Court. It is critical that Supreme Court Justices be appointed who will put aside the "legal precedents" and judicial activism that has occurred over the past one hundred years or more. They need to begin returning our country to our real constitutional roots. We need justices who will give back to individuals and to the States the power invested in them by our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and by our founders.

On top of all this, and integrally related to it, is our national debt. America's debt is greater than that of the entire Eurozone's (and U.K.'s) combined. In just the last 39 months, under Barack Obama, the federal government's debt has increased by over five trillion dollars! It is a disaster looming on the horizon that will cripple our nation if we do not make significant changes now. Yet for the most part, our career politicians in Washington are playing political games with it, they are refusing to even begin dealing with the issue. When some legislators are willing to sound the alarm, are willing to step forward and say this has to change, they are lied about, ridiculed, called uncaring, radical, and rigid. We need to get this government under control. We need to stop playing political games and one-upmanship. We need leaders who are willing to get our finances in order.

So where do we really begin? Because I am not interested in another pretty face or witty line, I am not interested in politicians who show up on late night TV shows as if they were Hollywood celebrities, I am not interested in special interests and pet projects, I am not interested in political games or "Super Pack" advertising, I am not interested in lies, exaggerations and caricatures, I am not interested in us against them, poor against rich, black against white, young against old. We are Americans and we are in very serious times. We need serious leaders. We need people, citizens, who understand America, citizens who are willing to lead, who will stand up and tell us the truth and then be willing to act.

All of this sounds over whelming, almost undoable, but there is one glimmer of hope; the American people. With all the changes that have taken place in our great nation there is one thing that has not changed; the power we have as citizens to change our government. If the people who are in power now cannot, or will not, change the direction of our government, than we the people of the United States need to change them.

Leveling the Playing Field

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

The danger of an ever more powerful centralized government, “leveling the playing field” and looking out for the “needs” of it citizens is that in the end while we are all “equal” we are also all slaves to that government.

The Fate of the Nation

“The fate of the nation in many respects is being argued in the Supreme Court this week during the Obamacare hearings. The Administration wants to fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the federal government by forcing a person to pay into a healthcare plan that they may not want. The individual will no longer have the power to make voluntary, free thinking decisions.”


Mark Levin - March 26th 2012


Most people do not understand just how much is at stake in these proceedings. This is not just about health care; it is about every American’s individual freedoms and ability to make choices for themselves.

Unnecessary Government Growth

“If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”

From Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address

The Fall of Democracy

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville

One Nation Under Socialism

From: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/

America on the slide part 1

It has been quite a while since I posted anything, but, for what it is worth, here are my thoughts - not that my voice will have any effect on what is happening in our country.
First let me say that I am not some conspiracy guy; however, when I look at what has happened to our country, I can fully understand why some people are. We are literally losing our country. America is at (or perhaps past) the tipping point and so few people seem to see it or understand the seriousness of it. If we continue down the road we are on now, the America that we have known - the America that our forefathers fought for - will be gone. This is not something that has suddenly come upon us, although it has accelerated at a breathtaking pace these last few years. It has been a very slow, very deliberate process and instead of standing up and saying no, we conservatives have continually compromised; we continually allow the left to not only define the game, but we also allow them to define who we are.
Why is it so hard for conservatives to communicate what we really believe? I am not talking about people like Rush or Hannity, who do speak up (although, unfortunately, all too often their message is lost because of their continual chest thumping), but about our supposedly conservative politicians. Why are they continually compromising? Continually giving up ground? We never get it back. Even if our compromise is only slight, it is movement in the wrong directions that we never get back. It all ends up part of a slow slide towards the destruction of our republic. The left is very deliberate and very patient. We thought we won the healthcare battle in the nineties, guess what? WE LOST THE WAR. It came back, and do you honestly think it will ever be fully repealed? By who, Obama? Romney? The house or senate? I don't think so. I am not saying they won't make adjustments, try to "make it better" but it is not going away - not without a true knock-down-drag-out fight, and I am not sure that republicans have the stomach for it. This is only the tip of the ice berg; republicans do this all the time - give, give, give.
More to come.