Happy New Year! I’ve been away from the daily grind of liberal bashing and, quite honestly, enjoyed the holidays lazily with my family. We spent Christmas at Lake Tahoe, skiing and snowboarding. It was wonderful and relaxing and gave me great cause for reflection. A respite from the coming turmoil that will be 2009. I wish I could see the future but would be afraid to look at it. Sometimes, though reflection on the past is more telling of the future and following is a remarkable piece of history that should and will live on as a classic.

Despite the graininess of the video and the numbers that are quoted, if you heard the following speech by Ronald Reagan today, you would swear he was speaking of current times and current issues. However, this speech was given in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater’s campaign.

Now I was but a child in 1964 and knew nothing of nor cared in the least about politics. I knew that JFK had been assassinated in 1963 and had watched the funeral procession on our very first TV but I didn’t understand it nor did I understand the socialist movement that was well underway and known to true patriots like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagen.

I have learned more about the differences between Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives and left and right as they relate to politics in the last six months than I learned in 40 years previous. I never cared. Yet, when Ronald Reagen ran for president following the debacle of Jimmy Carter, he made sense. I knew he was honorable and patriotic and cared for our freedom and the Constitution. I just didn’t know how much he loved this country and for how long. After listening to this speech, though I, once again, have renewed my deep love for this man, for the eloquence with which he can deliver the message.

We are in for some very tough times in 2009 and beyond. The issues we face cannot be resolved by a government or even more government. Less government, much less government, is what will be required to turn this country around. Less government spending and more income retained by the people. That is the stimulus package that Americans need. However, I don’t think we can get there without a revolution. It has finally come to the battle line of those individuals that have high self esteem and strong moral character. Those that love their Liberty and the Freedom afforded us by the framers of Our Constitution against those that prefer Mother government and the Nanny state. Since the liberals have gained control of Congress and now the White House, we cannot stand idle and watch our country and the freedom it represents be disassembled by the “liberal agenda”

Human action is healthy when it is effective in the pursuit of happiness, legitimate in its respect for the rule of law, free because coercion is prohibited, cooperative when consent is voluntary, and mutual in honoring the universality of rights and justly acquired property. The economic, social and political arrangements inherent in all collectivist societies invariably render individual action less effective because it is disempowered by the state, illegitimate because it is condemned by the state, unfree because it is oppressed by the state, less cooperative because it is coerced by the state, and less mutual because it is dehumanized by the state.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr. M.D., “The Liberal Mind”

The full transcript of President Reagan’s speech follows the video…

“A Time for Choosing”

Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

How topical and appropriate is this. The first video below is an old cartoon that points out why capitalism is better than socialism or fascism and uses a an auto company theme. The next two videos have Peter Schiff arguing why the taxpayers should not bailout the auto companies but rather, let them reorganize via bankruptcy law. On the other side of the argument, we have Lansing Michigan Mayor, Virg Bernero, who, as a typical politician, is only concerned about his re-election and not doing what is right for the companies, their workers or the country. No one wants to swallow the hard pill. The companies, unions and local governments think they can continue business as usual without paying the consequences. There is pain and suffering on the horizon and its not going to get better until we all suffer through the recession.

Capitalism explained…

Part 1: Peter Schiff and Virg Bernero…

Part 2: Peter Schiff and Virg Bernero…

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

And I thought my conservative perspective was harsh. I posted two additional articles today regarding the same theme, the demise of our social values and the impending subversion to communism in our formerly free United States of America.

THE COMING DICTATORSHIP

by Alan Stang
December 5, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Many commentators who are aware that Illegal-Alien Elect Hussein intends to impose an intensely repressive system on the nation – if he is not deported and actually becomes President – are trying with minimal success to figure out what it would be like. The reason for the difficulty is that, unlike almost all other peoples on the planet, Americans have been so free for so long they cannot conceive of life under dictatorship. Their only experience of such life is leftover World War II Nazi movies.

Along these lines, I constantly run into people who have fled other dictatorships and come here. At first, they are ecstatic, celebrating their escape while it was still possible, lamenting others who did not heed the warnings and now are trapped. As they settle in to their new lives in the land of the free and home of the brave, they begin to notice disquieting echoes.

In the final phase of this process, they desperately implore anyone who will stand still long enough to listen, trying to convince them that the same things they saw in their native countries – the things that led to Communist dictatorship – are now happening here. I have heard them many times. “It’s happening here! Don’t you see it?” But of course we do not. We are Americans. As the television commercials say, we deserve the best, the best house, the best car, the best doctor, the best education, etc. Besides, it can’t happen here, right?

The naturalized Paul Revere soon slinks off, frustrated, marveling at American naiveté, perhaps forgetting that when the same symptoms erupted in his native country, he did not recognize them either. Most of these new American Paul Reveres used to come from central Europe, during the “Cold War.” I remember one, a Ukrainian, who had started out as an inmate of a Nazi concentration camp and then was graduated to a Communist concentration camp. He became quite a success in the United States. The last time I saw him he was still pleading with people. “It’s happening here! Don’t you see it?”

Most of these people, at least in my experience, now come from South Africa, one of the many countries on which the United States government imposed Communism. (In fact, every Communist country on earth was created by Washington. I cannot think of an exception. Can you?) Recently, I heard of a lady from South Africa who now lives in the American Northwest and has suddenly discovered to her horror that it is happening here.

The father-in-law of one of my sons was born in Macao, a Portuguese colony on the China coast. Hollywood made a movie there. When the Communists took over, he fled. No problem; he wound up in one of Earth’s lushest garden spots, North Vietnam, where he prospered. When the Communists took over he fled. No problem; he wound up in another tropical paradise: South Vietnam, where he prospered. When the Communists took over, he fled. But, hey, Obamatrons, no problem, right? He wound up here. He is ready to tell anyone who will listen about Communism. He hasn’t said where he will flee next. I’m waiting to hear.

I believe I have found a way to impart what Hussein’s Communism will be like. It is a German movie, entitled, “Das Leben Der Anderen,” which translates to “The Lives of Others.” So much of what we know today comes from movies. This one won the Academy Award for best foreign film in 2006. Don’t worry. It has English subtitles. It is quite a movie. I don’t know how I missed it.

It is set in Communist East Germany in 1984, when the country was still divided and the Berlin Wall was still intact. It shows what life under Communism was like. One of the reasons it is so effective is not what it shows, but what it does not show. It does not show torture victims up to their necks in excrement under the jail, raw flesh hanging in strips. Yes, such outrages are the mother’s milk of Communism, but they are so outrageous, so bestial, that to the American mind they would be less believable science fiction, the more outrageous the more unreal. It would be just another movie.

Also, the victims of the system in the film are not primitive Russian peasants, not backward Chinese farm workers, not superstitious African victims of Jomo Kenyatta and his Mau Mau, not even immigrant Turks. They are white Germans, very advanced, typically efficient Germans, who look like many typical Americans, which makes the life they are leading believable. The believability of the film is enhanced by its consummate ordinariness. Again, no one is tortured.

So how does 1984 Communism in East Germany express itself? How does it rule? It rules through total surveillance. The Party knows everything about you. It rules with threats to take everything from you. The story involves a playwright, his actress mistress and their creative associates. The playwright is immensely successful and wants to get along with the system, but a minister forces himself on the lady and then has every inch of their apartment bugged. The minister hopes to catch the playwright saying something “subversive” which he can use to lock the playwright up.

A neighbor sees the eavesdropping squad entering the apartment. The head of the detachment warns her that if she tells the playwright his apartment now is bugged, her daughter will be kicked out of the university. The playwright writes an article about the suicide epidemic in East Germany. It appears anonymously in the big West German magazine Der Spiegel (The Mirror).

The Party in the East goes berserk. It must find the author. All typewriters are registered. That’s right! Should I repeat it? All typewriters are registered. They are dangerous, like your Glock. But the conspirators know this and use a typewriter smuggled in from the West. The Party calls in a typewriter expert to investigate. He discovers which make and model the author used, but none of the suspects owns one.

The greatest theatrical director in East Germany is no longer allowed to work. Somebody uses the word “censorship.” A top Party official corrects him. There is “no censorship” in the “German Democratic Republic.” There is complete freedom of expression. The director is just not allowed to work. Word arrives that the director has added to the epidemic by committing suicide. Everything is photographed gray and grim and forbidding, the way you remember it.

The Party turns people against each other. The actress is arrested and told that she will never again appear on stage unless she incriminates the playwright. Instead, says, the interrogator, we can keep you forever. Terrified, intimidated, she gives up the playwright and tells where he has hidden the contraband typewriter. The Party raids the apartment. Overcome with horror, the actress runs into the street, is hit by a van and killed.

Only material approved by the Party can be published, as in our country today. Whoa, isn’t unapproved material published here? Yes, but remember that even at the height of his power in Communist Russia, Stalin allowed the publication of some opposition material, so he could pose as a champion of freedom of the press. We have the same situation here. The “main stream media” effectively deny coverage to anyone who contradicts what they say. That is why most Americans are ignorant of the main issues that confront us. That is why most Americans don’t know that Illegal Alien-Elect Hussein is a foreigner.

So now what do you think? Could any of this happen here? You know it could because it is already happening. The approaching monster is very near. You can already smell its corpselike breath. It is called Communism or Fascism or Nazism or Socialism, whichever you prefer. Think for instance of Hussein’s “civilian national security force,” as big as, as powerful as and as well-funded as the U.S. military. Do you hear tens of thousands of tramping men singing the Horst Wessel? I do.

This issue is especially close to me. By now, I have written six novels. I am thinking about the next. The publishing history of the first one – The Highest Virtue – is a nightmare of its own. You can read it on my web site, alanstang.com, along with the first chapter. Eventually, a “kiss of death” publisher took it, despite which it won five stars – top rating – from the then West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars to only 1% of its reviews. It also won blockbuster reviews from the Los Angeles Times and the Herald Examiner. Of course it never went anywhere.

Every one of these novels would make a blockbuster movie. The least of them is to most of the garbage that is published as Everest is to a bump on the head. A literary agent tells me the publishers don’t want most books that are worth anything. He also says that the first person who reads your manuscript at the publisher is typically a literary sage in a training bra who labors in the editor’s harem. And the editor does not even need to convert to Islam.

Get Das Leben Der Anderen. I found it in the public library. Watch it and feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up. The next time a refugee from Johannesburg or somewhere else tries to tell you what is happening here, listen. And remember how to prevent the same thing from happening here:

Repatriate – Don’t Inaugurate

[Announcement: Alan Stang's new radio show, The Sting of Stang, will debut on Monday, July 14th, 7 to 8 a.m., Central, M-F, via Republic Broadcasting Network. To listen, go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Listen Live. Call in is 800 313-9443. If you can't listen at that time, do so via the archives, which are free. I'll be talking about the various manifestations of the conspiracy for world government, its tactics, such as the illegal alien invasion, its purposes and its players, from Jorge W. Boosh on down.]

© 2008 – Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.

His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.

Website: AlanStang.com

E-Mail: stangfeedback@gmail.com

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

I came across this article on News With Views after posting this video. I found it interesting and timely because the issues we’re facing as a country are deep-rooted in our parenting and public education system.

Indeed, this undermining of our social values has been deliberate by the liberal left and their socialist communist agenda.

We have now elected, by popular election, the most left-leaning socialist community organizer that has probably ever entered politics to the Presidency. This shows just how big the payoff is for demoralizing the American family and American values. We must wake up to the fact that our Constitution is not a Living Constitution. It cannot be changed at every whim of societal pressure that wants to have a different set of rules to benefit their point of view. There is hell to pay for this kind of thinking and we are paying for it now.

However, it’s not too late to wake up to that fact and take our Country back from the grasp of socialism and restore our Republic to the glory it was founded upon.

DO PEOPLE CARE IF AMERICA ENDS?

By Nancy Levant
November 27, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

It’s an interesting question and one pondered for years. I have come to the conclusion that those born after the 1960′s are not patriotic citizens by the same definition as those born prior to the 60′s. In fact, I’ve heard many 20, 30, and even 40-somethings claim that they hold no particular allegiance to this country, as they consider it to be imperialistic, dishonest, exploitative, and devious.

But we older citizens must realize that the younger generations have not had the benefit of time, wisdom, and many have not had the experience of warfare and soldiering, nor have they had the benefit of an educational system that taught “Republic” vs. “Democracy.” They believe their country to be a democracy, and at the same time, know very well that it is not. They have also been raised on a steady dose of unscrupulous and lying governance, and this they know, as well.

Younger generations are not enamored with Capitalism, politics, democracy, or faith. Today’s younger generations are largely atheistic by educational design and disgusted with leadership, religion, and their historical lies. Sometimes we tend to think they are simply disinterested and apathetic, but the fact is they are all too savvy when it comes to the sick joke of all forms of aristocratic governance.

The older generations, the ones who spearheaded the globalist movement, albeit by manipulation, and also the resulting protest movement, are also disappointed people. We were betrayed by the ones we elected – betrayed. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, because much like our younger countrymen, we did not act responsibly with our freedoms. We took them for granted, and then became enamored of televised entities, who turned out to be liars, thieves, cheaters, and conquerors. We also fully supported the fully corrupt 2-Party system.

We, the older generations, and the largest voting body in America, elected and re-elected the men and women who, year by year, Executive Order after Executive Order, Signing Statement by Signing Statement, Directive by Directive, and Act by Act, disassembled the united States of America and the American Constitution. And now, the younger generations think of us as ignorant, manipulated, and corrupted fools. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

The Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers have a heavy burden to bear, because it was under our watch that the deceivers smiled and grinned their ways into full-blown destruction mode. We elected the Socialist globalists into our nation’s most powerful positions, or to put it more honestly and plainly, we elected the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations over and over and over again (and continuing to do so), to our economic and historic demise.

Equally, and in many ways, the Greatest Gen and Boomers sold their souls for appearances, credit, luxury retirement, and in imitation of the elite. It’s a sad state of affairs, a bitter story, and a guilt that is undeniably ours to bear. But, forward we must go, and we need our youth to help us, though they have every substantial reason not to trust our naivety, our politics, or our decisions. After all, we dumped this terrible mess on their shoulders and told them they were living the good life. Now they are paying the price for our ignorance with their lives in foreign nations and strapped to insurmountable and lifelong debt. America did not start corroding 5 years ago. It’s been corroding for a century, and that places the blame and the burden on us. We were supposed to prize, cherish, and protect our freedom. We were supposed to take care of our nation. Instead, we stood 100% behind her destroyers. Many of us still do.

Many younger Americans believe America needs to change – completely and permanently. Hence, the Socialists, who were always around our corners, simply walked in and set up charismatic shop – as in the entire American public school system, the “environmental,” land-stealing, land trust movement, and the “greater good” morality to manipulate the masses straight out of their rights to FREEDOM. And many of the middle to upper-middle class Americans, particularly those who instantly fell for the “eco-friendly” and policed communities, are now so financially polluted that they can think of nothing but their dire straits, their detracting screen addictions, and their pretend country clubs and day-spas. In my book, these people are out to lunch, vacant, and unreachable. Equally, they live in America’s forthcoming wasteland (and I do mean forthcoming).

Again, I say to the Greatest Generation and the Boomers, we have an impossible task before us – the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, Agenda 21 and sustainability, the global land trust scams, corporate and financial dictatorship, all-enCOMPASSing privacy infringements, a transformed and gullible American population, and so very many global enemies – of which, now, we know why. What are the chances to regain our Republic and our Constitution, while we face “internationalized” policing forces, super viruses, and breaking news pandemics? Slim chances…but try, we must. America was slaughtered under our watch. She was.

So, the original question – do American people care if America ends? Today, I’d say the answer is 50/50 at best, but that may be another stupid assumption on this gray-haired lady’s part. God knows I’ve made more foolish political assumptions than this, but to my countrymen of all ages, let us disappoint them, for they have always counted on our ignorance, our apathy, our cultural addictions, and their masterful propaganda. We must disappoint them. We have no choice. And to our younger American generations, please accept our sincerest apologies. We were wrong – albeit manipulated – and incredibly stupid. Please, don’t follow suit.

© 2008 Nancy Levant – All Rights Reserve

Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing).

She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality. To book an engagement with Nancy Levant, send an email request to:

Not available

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

My bad. When I captured the screen shots of the communist flag being waved in the crowd on election night, I thought I was looking at video of the celebration in Grant Park. Since many people (invariably Obama supporters) don’t believe that this did, in fact happen, here is the full clip of the crowd and celebration.

I apologize if I inadvertently mislead anyone, it was not my intention.

 

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite