Back to Basics

Dear Brother and Sister patriots,

With so many folks seeming to water down their full-bodied Conservative values into Liberal-Lite – sadly seeking to get along with Obama and win over his low-info-voters, I feel a little like Gary Cooper in the movie western, “High Noon.”

As sheriff, Cooper unsuccessfully sought help to tackle bad guys scheduled to arrive on the noon train. While cowardly town folks peaked from behind drawn curtains, Cooper stood and confronted evil alone.

Cooper had no one. Thank God, I have you guys…We The People.

As Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee, I am proud to announce the release of our first national TV ad pushing back against Obama’s socialist agenda and imperialistic modus operandi. http://bit.ly/127147U

Please watch our ad, share it and make it go viral! http://bit.ly/127147U You can also help us get it seen on TV sets across America by making a donation to our TV ad campaign.

© Lloyd Marcus

Fred Barnes wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Obama’s inauguration speech proves that he is an “ideologically committed liberal” and not a “pragmatist and a centrist.” Professor Paul Kengor is far more accurate when he describes Obama as a “hardcore leftist,” a polite way of saying “Marxist.” Kengor fully understands the nature of Obama’s Marxism because he wrote a book about Obama’s mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, which the major media did their best to ignore during the 2012 campaign.

It is to Obama’s benefit to be thought of merely as a “liberal,” even though the more popular term these days is “progressive.” But it is not “liberalism” that we are seeing out of Obama and his White House.

A brave soul, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, raised the specter of fascism when he was talking about the requirements of the top-down federal Obamacare system. The term made Carol Costello of CNN go into orbit on a recent program but Mackey got the better of the exchange because the facts were on his side and Costello came across as an ignoramus trying to make cheap political points.

Mackey said the term “fascism” was a poor choice of words but it is technically true. As he noted, “traditionally ‘socialism’ means that the means of production are run by the government and in ‘fascism’ the means of production are still owned by private individuals but they’re controlled by the government. And what’s happening is our health care plan is moving—our health care system is moving away from free enterprise capitalism towards greater governmental control.”

In the case of socialized medicine, it is a matter of the degree of control exercised by the federal government. Government direction can lead to outright ownership, which is probably where Obamacare is heading. All of these objectionable ideologies are on the left side of the political spectrum. Freedom and free enterprise are on the right side.

National Socialism, or fascism, was the ideology of Hitler’s Nazi Party, a fact that scares most “progressives” and even socialists away from the use of the term. “You realize when you say ‘fascism’ it brings up Nazi Germany and all sorts of things,” Costello said, as if she had a Ph.D in history and political science and was capable of lecturing the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

That led to this humorous exchange:

Costello: And we really want that kind of language out of the public forum at the moment, don’t we?

Mackey: Apparently you can’t use that word in America any longer, it’s taboo.

Costello: That’s right because some of your customers…

Mackey: So be careful, you just used it.”

Mackey, co-author of the new book, Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business, understands the game the media are playing. The media want desperately to avoid any hint that what Obama is trying to do is totalitarian in any way. He turned the tables on Costello, in order to make the point that she wanted to close down the debate.

Reflecting the modern “liberal” mindset, Costello also said to Mackey, “Why inject yourself into the debate over Obamacare in the first place?”

Think about the implications of this question. Here is a businessman, an American citizen, who provides good and services to the American people and is responsible as well for taking care of his own employees.

Socialism is about the welfare of the collective, over the welfare of the individual. Except when President Obama is trying to implement unconstitutional gun laws by executive order.

 In Obama’s own words …

“While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil,” Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, “if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try it.”

Starting from a truism that you cannot detect and deter crazies and criminals, Obama falls back on the faulty reasoning implicit in “if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try it.”

Point One: You do not disarm or disadvantage a majority of the law-abiding population by removing their means for constitutionally-guaranteed self-protection to save even one life.

Point Two: It is the height of disingenuous democrat socialist hypocrisy to even suggest that one individual’s life matters. Otherwise, the democrats would not be pushing socialism and its stated goal of population control by any means necessary, including abortion – the taking of a human life.

Bottom line …

An individual’s right of self-protection is God-given – and only affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not confer this right on individuals, but merely affirms it. As for the Second Amendment, it protects against governmental tyranny and those who would take our freedoms from us. Guns, violence, crime and crazies have always existed, but no politician in his right mind would dare to suggest that you enlarge the pool of victims by disarming a great portion of the country.

One need only look at the strict gun control measures which have been implemented in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Oakland and elsewhere. What are the co-morbidities that exist in those situations? One, democrat control of the political entity. And two, large minority populations with a preponderance of single-parent families with no positive male role models. Add the overlay of addictive first-person shooter games, social isolation of an increasing number of children, and ultra-violent movies and you have a recipe for disaster.

Since much of the crime in these gun-controlled areas is perpetrated by minorities – mostly against other minorities – why wouldn’t President Obama (alleged to be the smartest President ever) deploy additional resources against those who are involved in gangs and drugs – the proximate cause of most inner city crime? Can it because this would alienate the minorities that serve as the democrat’s political base? Because dealing with the social aspects of fatherless homes would point to the hypocrisy of prominent religious community leaders who have fathered children out of wedlock and are more about social shakedowns than bringing religion and comfort to their parishioners?

There are solutions that will reduce gun violence, but they are unacceptable to those who stress the “control” in gun control. Corrupt politicians who want larger government, greater centralized control over the population, more taxes — and if this requires disarming those who might violently object, so be it.

In his Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that America was “conceived in Liberty.” Lincoln could never imagine voters supporting a president aborting Liberty to rebirth America conceived in Government. Obamacare is the equivalent of America born-again conceived in government.

In the classic movie, “Planet of the Apes,” Charleston Heston crash landed his spacecraft on a strange planet where apes were superior to humans. Shocked to realize that the strange planet was really earth several years into the future, Heston cried out in devastation, pain and anger at man, “Damn you! Damn you all to hell! You blew it up!”

I believe President Lincoln would have a similar reaction, returning to America today. Devastated and disbelieving, Lincoln would ask, how did this happen?

The Left began copulating the minds of voters many years ago to impregnate voters with their seed of Socialism to birth a new America conceived in Government. Democrat President Roosevelt was a Founding Seducer in the Left’s scheme to have voters seek security in Government. http://www.ebireflections.com/1/11/02_politics.xhtml

Decades ago, the Left successfully banned prayer in public schools which taught children that God and traditional morality were no longer welcome. Seizing the moment, like locust, socialist/progressives swarmed into schools indoctrinating our kids with their “new morality” — anti-Christian, anti-parent, anti-American and pro-homosexuality. These Leftist’s agenda included branding Christianity fanatical while teaching respect and sympathy for Islam. Patriotism was redefined as rude to foreigners — Capitalism is immoral and selfish — opposing gay marriage is prejudice, equal to the black civil rights movement.

While sipping our coffees at Starbucks (President Lincoln unbelieving the price of our Javas), I continue explaining to the stunned former U.S. president how we got to where we are in America today.

Mr President, you won’t believe this, but individual liberty and achievement are attacked at every turn on TV, in movies and the media. It is a box on the wall projecting images — never mind, I’ll explain later.

The Oprah Winfrey TV show along with a media dominated by liberals and the Democratic Party contributed to creating the mindset in voters that everyone is a victim of someone or something. Their usual imaginary villains are rich racist male Caucasians.

The Left has created a touchy-feely culture, in which self-esteem and hurt feelings now trump common sense and individual responsibility.

Thanks to your efforts, Mr Lincoln, America elected its first black president. The bad news is he trashes the Constitution, whenever, which is often, it interferes with implementing his Socialistic agenda.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dKsj6dGShI

Sadly, dumb-down public-school-educated feelings-trump-law voters see no problem with government usurping un-Constitutional power.

Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

No Sir, Mr. Lincoln, voters did not learn of Franklin’s quote in school. Public schools ceased teaching true U.S. History many years ago. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/update-see-shocking-excerpts-from-tucsons-mexican-american-studies-curriculum/

Because feelings now trump law, in the name of safety and compassion, government control/regulations have been allowed to become tyrannical. Federal regulations have quadrupled under Obama, stifling business. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/17/debate-analysis-did-regulation-quadruple-under-obama-the-numbers-say-yes/ A tsunami of new Obama regulations are on the horizon. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/22/obama-releases-first-part-new-regulatory-agenda-drawing-criticism-from/ Meanwhile, idiot Obama voters believe the lack of jobs is President Bush’s fault. I guess you’re right sir (President Lincoln), calling voters idiots is probably not the best thing. But, the catastrophic consequences of their stupidity is breathtaking.

In October last year I included a book by B.K. Eakman in my monthly report, Bookviews.com, and recommended it, having perused it sufficiently to know it was quite extraordinary. “Agenda Games: How Today’s High-Stakes Political Combat Works” ($17.95, Midnight Whistler Publishers, softcover). As someone who has been a reviewer for over fifty years, I receive fifty or more books every month and I often have to return to a book to read it completely.

B.K. Eakman’s columns and speeches have appeared in The Washington Times, National Review, the Washington Post, Insight Magazine, Crisis Magazine, Vital Speeches, and many comparable publications. She has authored a number of books that include two award-winners, “Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education” and “Educating for the New World Order”, and an aptly named “Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks.”

An educator, researcher, and a Voice of America and Justice Department writer, she has a professional background that has culminated in an insightful and frightening analyses of the nation’s educational system that has produced several recent generations of Americans who are ill-equipped to understand what is happening to the nation—the steady infiltration of the system designed to create the kind of voters who elected and have reelected the nation’s first Marxist President.

In “Agenda Games”, she says that “today’s political contests bear no resemblance to the post World Wars I and II eras. Rather, there exists a calculated effort, by all sorts of demagogues, to sow dissention—to alienate, demoralize and, if possible, neutralize entire pools of voters, with all the negative energy such a scheme entails: coercion, ostracism, intimidation, loss of status or job, and outright censorship. In this scenario, the agenda becomes all-important; the individual recedes into expendability.”

The agenda “is nothing less than a replacement of the Founder’s vision of an independent, self-sufficient nation, based in individual resolve and grit, and minimal interference from government, with a super-State based in Old World notions of dependency, maximum government intrusion, crushing regulation and regimentation.”

If this sounds like America today, you’re right. This agenda has been advanced, knowingly and unknowingly, by the presidents of the past century, starting with the “progressive” Theodore Roosevelt with brief interludes of men like Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan who knew socialism when they saw it. The result has been government “entitlement” programs like Social Security and Medicare, the complete takeover of the nation’s educational system, and most recently the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system with Obamacare.

There was so much opposition to Obamacare it was only passed with a straight Democratic Party vote in Congress late night on Christmas Eve 2009. Senators were bribed and coerced into voting for it. Obama’s first term included a failed “stimulus” bill that wasted billions, oddball programs like “Cash for Clunkers”, and programs that wasted more billions on “renewable energy” companies—all heavy donors to Obama—most of which were bankrupt within a short time.

“Another red flag,” wrote Eakman, “is a president or high-level member of Congress who says something, with great conviction, to one audience, then turns around and declares the opposite to an interviewer weeks or months later (“political posturing”).

Mass murder via abortion and lone-wolf mass killings with guns are both products of liberal-progressive hedonism.

Bill Ayers wrote in A Strategy To Win, appearing in New Left Notes of September 12, 1969:  …we’re also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced that’s a good thing, and that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a gun, should have a gun in his house.

Self-centered mass slaughter of students in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as in movie theaters, shopping malls, and the work place, is a phenomenon unknown before the advent of student radicalism in the 1960s and 1970s.  It is an outgrowth of the moral corruption inherent in liberal-progressivism and its vision of social justice.

The overriding characteristic of liberal-progressivism’s conception of social justice is that individuals should not be required to take responsibility for their actions; the socialized political state exists to tell citizens, in every detail, how they should live their lives.  Comrades in such a society as it unfolds are not held responsible for anti-social or self-destructive actions.  Indeed, in order to destroy Judeo-Christian morality and clear the way for implementation of full socialism, people are encouraged by government, Hollywood, TV, and the mainstream media to reject as oppressive earlier standards of morality and to indulge in unlimited degrees of hedonism.

Before the ascendancy of social justice, school text books extolled the ideals of courage, wisdom, honesty, loyalty, patriotism, hard work, and temperance.  Students learned the primacy of self-denial and willingness to place the welfare of one’s family and political community above satisfaction of his own immediate pleasure.  They learned the importance of working hard and saving for the future betterment of their families.  Students expected to be judged by the quality of their individual work, which depended upon personal study, not upon membership in a protected social class.

Schools taught something called citizenship.  Pupils were expected to attend classes regularly, to arrive on time, to be polite to teachers and to each other.  They were expected to keep text books in good condition, to keep their desks and the school clean, without defacing either.  They learned that failing to do these things was a crime against all those who would follow them in the school system.  They learned that the future of America depended upon their willingness to think as much about the rights of others as about their own desires.  They were taught to revere the United States, its flag, and the principles of individual liberty for which they stood.

Social justice, in contrast, is a remarkably undemanding religion.  It requires nothing of the individual other than lip-service to currently-fashionable causes proclaimed by air-head Hollywood stars and rapsters.  Baby-Boomers and their progeny aren’t required to study or to understand any of this.  The media tell them what to believe.  The collectivized state will provide their needs.  Their only concern is to keep sex and drugs readily available.

Irresponsibility encouraged by the socialistic welfare-state is the precondition to horrors such as the Newtown massacre and to the murder of millions of babies every year in abortion labs.

The next year  sweeps around the earth like the hand of a clock, from Australia to Europe and across the great stretch of the Atlantic it rides the darkness to America. And then around and around again, each passing day marking another sweep of the hours.

In Times Square crowds of tourists gather in clumps behind police barricades, clutching corporate swag beneath video billboards shifting and humming in the cool air. And the same scene repeats in other squares and other places even if it doesn’t feel like there is a great deal to celebrate.

While the year makes its first pass around the world, let us leave it behind, open a door in time and step back to another year, a century past.

December 31, 1912. The crowds are just as large, though the men wear hats. People use the word gay with no touch of irony. Liquor is harder to come by because the end of the year, one hundred years ago, has fallen on a Sunday.  There are more dances and fewer corporate brands. Horns are blown, and the occasional revolver fired into the air, a sight unimaginable in the controlled celebrations of today’s urban metropolis.

The Hotel Workers Union strike fizzled out on Broadway though a volley of bricks was hurled at the Hotel Astor during the celebrations. New York’s finest spent the evening outside the Rockefeller mansion waiting to subpoena the tycoon in the money trust investigation. And the Postmaster General inaugurated the new parcel service by shipping a silver loving cup from Washington to New York.

On Ellis Island, Castro, a bitter enemy of the United States, and the former president of Venezuela, had been arrested for trying to sneak into the country while the customs officers had their guard down. Gazing at the Statue of Liberty, Castro denied that he was a revolutionary and bitterly urged the American masses to rise up and tear down the statue in the name of freedom.

Times Square has far fewer billboards and no videos, but it does have the giant Horn and Hardart Automat which opened just that year, where food comes from banks of vending machines giving celebrating crowds a view of the amazing world of tomorrow for the world of 1912 is after all like our own. We can open a door into the past, but we cannot escape the present.

The Presidential election of 1912, like that of 2012, ended in disaster. Both Taft and Roosevelt lost and Woodrow Wilson won. In the White House, President Taft met with cabinet members and diplomats for a final reception.

Woodrow Wilson, who would lead America into a bloody and senseless war, subvert its Constitution, and begin the process of making global government and statism into the national religion of his party, was optimistic about the new year. “Thirteen is my lucky number,” he said. “It is curious how the number 13 has figured in my life and never with bad fortune.”

Americans of 2013 face the lightbulb ban. Americans of 1913 were confronted with the matchstick ban as the Esch bill in Congress outlawed phosphorus “strike ‘em on your pants” matches by imposing a $1,000 tax on them. This was deemed to be Constitutional.

From 1977 to 1980, BBC One ran “Citizen Smith”, a TV comedy about an aspiring young revolutionary who wore a beret and a Che T-Shirt and did his best to create a Communist Britain while heading up the Tooting Popular Front, consisting of six members, by virtue of shouting “Power to the People” and making up lists of the people he would put up against the wall on the day of the glorious revolution.

This is finally Citizen Smith’s time where the lazy and cowardly aspiring revolutionary can create his own Tooting Popular Front, camp out in a public park for a few months, and earn generous media coverage. And for those too lazy to camp out in the spring and summer, there’s always hacktivism, the truly lazy man’s revolution, download a denial of service program, aim it at a site and watch it go down for a minute, an hour, or perhaps even a day or two.

Social media is full of Citizen Smiths, dressing up in Che avatars and shouting their “Power to the People” slogans in 140 characters or less. And these Citizen Smiths are taken seriously by their older peers in the media who have had their own days of pretending to be Che and now just pretend to be journalists. While the Citizen Smiths create their fake revolution, the grown-up Citizen Smiths show up to cover it, in the great battle for a Communist Britain, America, Australia and also all the rest.

There is a great deal of hard work ahead, such as deciding who to put up against the wall first. Everyone has agreed on the rich, the dreaded 1 percent, except presumably for those 1 percenters funding the revolution and paying the Citizen Smiths who work for NGOs and come up with new social media engagement strategies to tackle economic disparities and that sort of thing.

The Citizen Smiths who speak on behalf of the 99 percent of Tooting have won their great victory in the last election through the wallets of such champions of the working class as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros and several thousand other billionaires and millionaires, quite a few of whom also fancy being Wolfie Smith more than they want to play the top hat guy from Monopoly. They have struck a blow against the influence of money on politics from some billionaires on behalf of the influence of money on politics from other billionaires.

And with the 1 percent safely disposed of, at least aside from the 1 percent that is running the show and turning the Citizen Smiths from clowns smoking on their girlfriend’s couch while drawing up plans for revolution, into men and women sitting in posh offices in corporate towers delegating the drawing up of those plans to subordinates who can actually draw, the revolution marches on.

In Austria, an Australian Professor teaching Musicology, put up his own list of who to bop bop bop when the day of the glorious revolution comes.

“Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it,” Professor Parncutt wrote, “If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration.