Sunday, September 13, 2009

The Red Trojan Horse

The only difference between communism and socialism is its method of imposition. Communism is forced upon the people against their will. The majority of voters on the other hand enter into socialism voluntarily. Even though the goals are the same, socialism is much more dangerous because it gradually enslaves the people without the use of visible force, while artfully disguising its evil motives with a variety of so-called noble causes. (Garry McLeod,

Think of it this way, communism rapes a country where as socialism seduces it. The end result is the same in both cases, which is the complete loss of virtue or freedom for that country.

"This is the most important lesson for all of us to learn, namely, that the communists use the socialists to pave the way for them wherever possible. This is why communists and socialists are often found supporting each other, collaborating together and fighting for the same goals. The paramount issue today is freedom against creeping socialism. The well-known British writer, John Strachey, who for many years was an openly avowed communist and who served as Minister of War in the Socialist government in 1950 made this very plain in his book, “ The theory and Practice of Socialism.” Said he: “It is impossible to establish communism as the immediate successor to capitalism. It is accordingly proposed to establish socialism as something, which we can put in place over our present decaying capitalism. Hence, communists work for the establishment of socialism as a necessary transition stage on the road to communism.” Now obviously, the worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have himself openly identified with the work of the communist who are generally feared and despised. The socialists know they cannot seize property and power by “due process of law” unless they are politically popular; therefore, they try desperately to avoid the taint of the communists and present their program so that it appears “moral,” “democratic,” “peaceful,” and so gradual that the people will not resist it. (Ezra T. Benson, The Red Carpet, Socialism, The Royal Road to Communism, pp. 69-70)

"More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life..." Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

"...I would like to be clearly understood...we, the Soviet people, are for socialism.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy." Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened". Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." Quote from (Nikita Khrushchev)

During the first half of the 20th century we have traveled far into the soul-destroying land of Socialism. (David O. McKay)

Stay tuned for the next post analyzing the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto....

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Get a Chuckle from our Government Debunkle

Watch this Funny Song Parody

Debunkle: A situation where a meeting occurs between two or more people, leaving one party embarrassed and one party victorious. "Since our last little debunkle" Source: Urban Dictionary

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Top 11 Reasons to Enforce the Constitution!

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America ’s largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon that will never happen in America .”

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in two of the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, ”C’mon that will never happen in America .”

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency – with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion – triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America .”

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That some of our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
Would you have said, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America ’s past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela ’s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.

Would you have said, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine.” That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that does not require the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, ”Cmon that will never happen in America .”

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.

Would you say, ”C’mon, that will never happen in America .”

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran . (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know – I know what you will say. That will never happen in America . Hopefully you realize the significance of taking the census away from the Commerce Department and placing it under the White House, where Acorn has been given broad authority to manage it.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Habeas Corpus Hocus Pocus!

Definition of Terms:

the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment.

It should be noted that the privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest. If you believe the arrest is without legal merit, and subsequently, refuse to come quietly, you are still guilty of resisting arrest, which is a crime in and of itself, even if the initial arrest itself was illegal.

Habeas Corpus Hocus Pocus watch the video!

Innocent until proven guilt in a court of law, not anymore! Locked away based upon your potential to commit a crime, now that's criminal. That makes everyone guilty since we all have the potential to commit crimes. Under Obama's proposed plan if the government deems you a threat regardless of whether you committed an actual crime or not, your guilty! Didn't Obama swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution? That's right, he screwed that up too!

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Property and Liberty

Property and Liberty are Two Sides of the Same Coin!

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it – without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud – to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed! "How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply, see if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…" (Frederic Bastiat, THE LAW, p. 21, 26)

"The difficulty with all governments, and one to which our own has fallen heir, is that the majority, by virtue of its right to place limitations on man's free agency, has undertaken to infringe upon the rights reserved to the individual, for the direct and immediate benefit of law and order. For example: the Constitution expressly prohibits taking of personal property for public purposes without just compensation. Under the guise of taxation, the Constitution is violated and property is taken from one and given to another." (Henry D. Moyle, an LDS Apostle, Relief Society Magazine, 1957.)

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Thursday, August 6, 2009

What is an Inalienable Right?

What is an Inalienable Right as stated in the Declaration of Independence?

Before we go any further lets start with a definition of terms. According to the dictionary inalienable means "....not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.. .Some synonyms are: inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

Inalienable rights are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called
civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is: That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The following are some extracts taken from an artictle called the "Proper role of Government" by Ezra T. Benson. He served as Secretary of Agriculture under Dwight D. Eisenhower for 8 years and later became the President of the LDS church. I would highly recommend reading the whole thing it is excellent. The below defines exactly what an Inalienable right is and how socialism violates those rights.

"Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?" (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, p.6)

"If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -–its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law, p. 6)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it. If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago: “For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator. (The Proper Role of Government by Ezra T. Benson)

Ending Comments: Any civil right or law, which encroaches or limits natural God given rights is suppression and tyranny. History teaches us that a nation of laws isn't necessarily a nation of justice and liberty. Everyone regardless of where they live has inalienable rights even though they are not recognized by their respective governments, but what was so revolutionary about the American system was the framers actually acknowledged these God given rights when creating their government.