While most Blogs are nothing but a vent for the frustration of right thinking Amiricans, this is not my cause. I am building a link to help gather resources and take a proactive stance against the tide of socialism. My posts are meant to inform you and, when possible, help you better explain and defend our principles. We are all leaders, we are all FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Our goal is to help coordinate as many local political groups as possible in order to create a strong and organized local movement. We would suggest that you either start a meetup group or join one that's already in place. For help go to http://www.meetup.com/ or 912 Project USA.com / For The Sake of Liberty! . With your effort and support we can become a strong force against the socialization of our great nation. If you have a suggestion or want information, please e-mail me at flounders70@aol.com .

Saturday, October 31, 2009

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part III

Trading Freedom for Security

For those who volunterily enter into socialism it seems like a Utopian idea. The simplified thought is that everyone will work for the good of the whole rather than for their own "greed". They honestly believe that if you take away the potential for profit then everyone will just live life free of stress and they will all feel patriotic as they carry their assigned grain of sand.

At the same time they believe that it is the promise of profit, presented by capitalism, that causes the worlds evil. In other words, they think that rich people deserve to be robbed and that an attractive woman is at fault if she is raped because she "invited" the evil behavior, as if to say that the rapist was not in control of his own actions.

The reality of socialism is that it is a system for relieving people of personal responsibility and projecting it on to the elected government. It is the surrender of personal freedom in the name of security. This freedom includes the right to property, prosperity and the right to express opinions.

Starting with property, in a socialist system all property is owned by all people but is "fairly" controlled by the government. If you posess property that the government deems necessary for public use then you will be forced to surrender it. If you live in a home that the government considers unsafe then you will be forced to leave it and live in provided dormatories, like it or not.

Going further, if you have developed a product or proposed an idea, it will become public property and any expense you've incurred will be your own responsibility. All of these things are happening here in America (on some level) today, thanks to social programs. We have given our government the power to decide which companies fail and which companies should be controlled by "the people". I could prove this to you but I think you are all honest enough to admit that I'm right.

Prosperity is tied to personal property, after all, one cannot sell what one does not own. Our banks, power and automotive industries are a great example of this. When the TARP bill was passed many of us expressed serious concern that acceptance of the funds would be equal to a government takeover. To that we were told that "it is only a loan, the government would play NO active roll". Now our great wise trustworthy government is dictating the salaries of those companies which accepted the money. That seems like a pretty active roll to me... liars.

The right to an opinion... That's a fun one. It's a universal fact that those in power wish to remain in power. When the republicans were in power (in the past) they were well known for stifling free expression in the name of "forced morality". That was as wrong then as it would be now. These days, the left owns the monopoly on stifling free expression. These controls are in place to show favor to the majority in order to keep votes coming in and thus retain power.

We are now afraid of losing our jobs, homes and personal property if we utter anything that could be defined (by the left) as offensive. We are not allowed to smoke on private property, we are not allowed to speak about the Bible in public places and if the left gets their way, there will be no more Tv or radio shows that do not fit the government provided mold of "fair". These are not the rules of society but of the government.

Seriously? How can the government punish people for being biggots? What the Hell kind of freedom is that. You see, the basic design of capitalism is that if one is offensive towards people then those people could choose not to support his product and thus he would be forced to either fail, change or find a market (however small) among people who agree with him. This prevents people who disagree with him from preventing him from having an opinion. In a socialist society the majority can create laws that allow the government to punish him for his thought. This happens today in the form of "Hate Crimes". We are no longer punishing people for their actions, we are punishing them for what they were thinking during that action.

Adversly, we are punishing people for success as well. If the majority of people lack the courage to cross the river then the few that do will gain nothing for doing so. If the other bank has an abundance of food and shelter but many of those who attempt to cross the river drown then those who are afraid will make it illegal to attempt. They are using the fear of the majority to impose restrictions on the minority... in the name of "safety". It was the courage and willingness to cross that river that made America what it is today (or what it could have been without the wimps on the left). To "change" in the name of safety would be about as un-American as it gets.

It is not the place of government to dictate morals, punish thoughts or choose who is "too big to fail". That is, unless you live in a socialist society. In a socialist society you have the right to believe whatever the majority says you can believe, sell whatever the majority says you can sell and own whatever the majority says you can own... that is, until they want it back.

Be sure to go back and read Moral capital vs moral authority ( http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/08/moral-capital-vs-moral-authority.html )

Friday, October 30, 2009

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part II


As I've pointed out in the past, socialism around the world is totally dependent on our free market. Those who are dis-allowed to partake in our system (like Cuba) suffer greatly in terms of quality of life. The only reason Cubans survive at all is because they are helped by other nations who do take part in our economy.

According to the Canadian governments trade statistics, roughly 80% of Canada's economy revolves around the export of goods to the United States and of all of the countries which they import from we are responsible for 75% (ish) of their imports. If you start looking around the world you will find this to be a universal constant, after all, why do you think the dollar is the single most accepted currency in the world.

We (Americans) have been providing the world with the technology as well as an open market to keep their economies going for over 150 years, what happens when we stop being us and start being them?

Back in the turn of the century (around 1900) we saw a huge influx of immigrants from almost every nation in the world. It was almost as if everyone in the world wanted to live in our free market in stead of their closed market for some strange reason.

The pain of that growth was evident through our political strife. Suddenly the majority of Americans had no education and little or no knowledge of what being American was all about. They brought in their own ideas of how government should be run and were dead set on rebuilding that with which they were familiar. This is what gave us the "Progressive Republicans", "socialists" and "Democratic" parties of that era.

With more democratic power than brains they started several social programs... some of which are stuck with us today. Things like the minimum wage, social security and labor unions were the foundation for unregulated regulation. Even the Supreme Court was filled with idiots that applied their ideals to their interpretation of our Constitution. (Does any of this sound familiar)

Once these leftists gained power (through the promise of Robin Hood economics) they made quick work of overturning certain parts of the bill of rights with new amendments. Now the government would have a little wiggle room to start taxing in ways that would have made our founders take up arms. That was where our economy became forever tied to our politics, that was the socialist cancer on the hide of an otherwise healthy steed.

We have learned that the free market is much stronger than socialism because we have survived, but are severely wounded by, the Cancer on our hide. It seems that, with the turn of the new century, our cancer has begun to spread again. This is due to the same lack of understanding and knowledge that led to the birth of said cancer so many years ago. Hopefully we can force this cancer back into remission and regain our place as the greatest Nation in the world.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

What's Wrong With Socialism: Part one

Before I get to the meat of the topic, let's clear some things up. There is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a socio-economic system in which all participants share ownership of all things. That is, it can be very democratic because the majority can establish the rules regardless of its impact on the minority. This is where the evil lies. If the "popular movement" is towards laziness then the minority can be forced to carry the load.

Imagine a business, lets say a pet shop, where there is no boss. All employees have an equal stake in the company and thus equal power. The only way to set any agenda is for all parties to vote on it. Obviously everyone would vote for high wages but would want to do minimum work. The result would be that the majority would "pick" a small group to carry the load in order to pay the payroll and the bills.

Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired of doing IN-equal work for an equal share of the profit and would either try to quit or be forced to carry that load under threat of violence. This is why communist countries do not allow their citizenry to leave the country, nobody would be left to carry the load.

In a socialist system, there is a single party leadership which is "chosen" to divide the task of maintaining profitability throughout the citizenry. This means that everyone in the pet shop would be held accountable for their part. The problem is that it will be the boss (the ruling party) that chooses who does what.

So if the boss favors one person then that person will be placed in charge of collecting the money for the pets (the easy job with much opportunity for corruption) while those whom he perceives as his enemies or a threat to his leadership would be responsible for cleaning the cages. It should be rather obvious where this can end.

Both systems carry a certain degree of "sacrifice" on the part of the individual in order to "provide for the greater good" of the nation. This is admitted in the constitutions of nearly every self proclaimed socialist and communist nation in the world. Some even admit that these "sacrifices" are in the form of potential for prosperity and personal liberty. These are the sacrificial lambs of every system of government ever implemented, including socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy and a host of variables therein... that is, except for the little experiment known as the U.S.A.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

My Brothers Keeper

You may have noticed that I have moved away from hard facts and figures that support my philosophy and focused on the philosophy itself. Don't worry, the facts will return... I am in the throws of some tremendous research and I refuse to enter the details of that research until the logical (objective) conclusion has been established.

The reason that I have been pushing philosophy over substance is related to some conversations that I've engaged in recently. Primarily, but not exclusively, the debates with my brother. He is an intelligent man but perhaps too educated, regardless, he is a good measure of what the bulk of self proclaimed "independents" are thinking.

You see, he is in the video production industry and has spent countless years in school followed by a long term career surrounded by leftists. He has resisted the worst part of the natural indoctrination but has fallen prey to just enough of it to cloud his judgement.

Several years ago my father and I were debating with my brother, about what I really don't remember, and my father brought up that we must always be prepared to fight off a potential communist/socialist takeover. I remember the laugh to this day, it was that condescending, arrogant, sarcastic laugh, as he claimed that we "were living in the 1950s". We could not convince him that our country could ever be turned socialist, he simply wrote that suggestion off as absurd.

So fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. In a similar debate, my father and I against my self proclaimed independent brother, We were able to convince him that the current political climate is in favor of socialism. It was not easy, but through facts and audio/video evidence we laid out an iron clad case for our claims.

Once convinced that the previously inconceivable march towards socialism was becoming a dark reality, he said something that shook me to the core. He said "good, it's better than capitalist greed". It was at that moment that I realized that my argument would have to take a dramatic change. Instead of trying to prove that Obama and company were socialists, I'd now be forced to defend capitalism over socialism. Something that I can't believe I could have to do.

So in my recent posts I've been trying to help people define who they really are, to make them think through their own philosophy and to better understand that of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and me. Once people are in touch with their own beliefs I intend to provide information that will, like polarized sunglasses, help them look past the reflections of blue Sky and puffy clouds on the surface of the water, and into the depths where the sharks circle in anticipation of an effortless meal.

We are the generation that will either go down as the one that voted away our own freedom or the one that stood fast against the socialist tsunami that has building beneath the surface for a hundred years and is finally reaching the shore. You, the single person, have infinite power to protect that which is being attacked. You need only to acquire and spread knowledge, it is knowledge that will keep us free and the children of those who oppose you the most, will someday thank you.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Progressives Against Progress

Something is seriously missing from the health care debate. While the left is trying to pretend that they do NOT intend to use this as a gateway to socialized medicine and the right is trying to pretend that they are not using words like "death panel" to dissuade people from supporting it, I am looking at the lost dog in this fight.

The left likes to tell us how great the government health care is in socialist countries. They claim that they have access to all of the same technology as we do in our private system and that the only thing that will change is who is paying for it.

I know from experience that all of that is nonsense but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the left is mostly right. The one other thing that will change is who gets paid.. and how much. So far the left should be with me, after all, even they admit that the government must be in charge of wages in order to control costs.

So now that the government has capped income potential and has forced an increase in the number of general practice physicians while raising their work load, the research end will suffer greatly. This is an effect that has been realized in every socialist country in the world... to some degree. So how is it that the small number of medical breakthroughs that originate from socialist countries are able to reach fruition despite their limited resources?

The answer brings us to the real trouble with the new American movement towards socialism. You see, medical breakthroughs (not unlike all other advancements) around the world are financed by the Private industry here in the good ol' USA.

Try to process this. If a Chinese company has an idea for research they must go to their government for the money. That government would be forced to deny that grant because the funds just do not exist to pay money, which is needed for basic health care, into research based on an idea. Enter the United States. The Chinese government will see the vast profit potential in developing a needed advancement and selling it in our free market which, in turn, will allow them to provide it to their own citizenry.

The proof is in the pudding, rather, history books. Prior to the creation of the free market capitalist system which is historically unique to our nation, technological advancements were moving at a snails pace. The risk/reward ratio exists, universally, within every decision we make. In the past (as well as in socialist societies today) there was very little opportunity for reward. Any popular development would just be absorbed by the monarch or spread back into the system leaving its inventor responsible for reproducing this product with little more than a thank you. In effect, one who advances society is only making more work for himself.

Our system put a stop to this idiocy. We were offered the promise of infinite rewards that only grew with risk. Even other countries have prospered through our freedom. They have produced things that could not have existed if not for our prosperity. This is why, as I've pointed out in the past, we moved from the 15,000 year reliance on the horse to today's incredible machinery within 3 generations of American free market prosperity.

So what if that promise of reward is taken away? What will happen to the world medical industry when there are no free markets to lean on for research money? What the left is proposing is putting a cap on the potential reward for those who would have been willing to take the necessary risks. By doing so, they will be putting a cap on the risk that people would be willing to take in pushing the envelope of advancement. The net result will be the same lack of progress that brought us from the bloodlettings of ancient Egypt, over 10,000 years ago, to the bloodlettings of the 18 century.

This is the unintended effect of progressivism. This is the house with no doors that they intend to build for us in order to protect us from what might be outside. This is today's Democratic monarchy, voted in by those who have no ambition in order to impede those who have it.

This principle applies to a lot more than health care. Please, think this through.

Spoiled Rotten Brats

No matter what your political inclination is one thing always rings true... nobody likes a spoiled rotten brat. You know the one, mommy and daddy always threatened to punish him but never did. They told him he couldn't have it but he took it anyway. When he got himself in trouble he could be sure that his parents would bail him out so he made no effort to avoid that trouble.

Once he grew up his daddy got him a cushy job at the office where he had few responsibilities and did even less work while you had to pick up the slack. You couldn't do anything about it either, if you reported his lack of production you became the bad guy and would suffer for it.

Today that guy is all around us. The number of spoiled brats has increased and those who have to pick up their slack are suffering more than ever. Even if you are a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal you must admit that you have no love for these jackasses, that is.. unless you are one of them.

So if these guys, who have never been required to earn anything and have been rewarded greatly for doing nothing, are such a thorn to everybody else then why is the left trying to turn us all into those people?

Think about it... They want to lower the wages of the most productive people on earth while raising the wages for those who simply show up. They want to tax those who have earned money in order to pay for those who earn nothing. They want to bail out everyone who bought more than they could pay for while offering nothing to those who showed discipline. They want to offer property, transportation and a health care package to the least productive guy in the office, because he's the guy that voted for them, while taking those things away from those who have been forced to shoulder an increasing amount of the load. Then, after all of that, they call those overburdened hard workers who start to complain all kinds of names like heartless death eaters and suggest that they, because of their opposition, are being paid by "big insurance" and are merely greedy.

Frankly, I don't know how these tyrants can sleep at night. I guess they are so wrapped up in the idea of being "liberal" or "progressive" that they refuse to look at the reality of their actions. They have been taught by Hollywood as well as our socialist education system that becoming rich makes you greedy and therefore EVIL! What was once the very American dream, that propelled global society light years beyond any previous civilization, is now taboo. You must assimilate or become assimilated, I feel like I fell into one of those windows from the old TV show Sliders and landed in an alternate universe.

So, lefty, who are you? Are you the tyrannical moral authority that feels that all people should be rewarded for the work of those who choose to provide? Or, are you the proud but ignorant soldier of socialism because you actually think that it's ok to spoil your kids rotten, even if it bankrupts you?

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Good Debate, Good Beer, Good Times

First I'd like to thank my new friends from Bradenton for a great night of debate (among other things). It was a shining example of how this nation is going to progress, free and open debate in a public tavern.

Between the sips of good beer and the distraction of the countless sporting events being displayed on the array of flat screen TVs there was an inspirational conversation taking place. A friendly debate between total strangers who both wanted only one thing... A better future for their children.

The means could not have been more distantly divided but the goal was the same. The informaton was fair and honest and the passion was deep and consuming. With all of this, there was no anger, hate or even disrespect between the small group of patriots who entered the arena of ideas with the strength of their own convictions.

I was so proud, I've always been taught to avoid politics and religion in public forums but on this night we had broken through the taboo and made it work. We debated both. A hand full of guys with as many differing opinions were able to sit and discuss while remaining friendly because we all adhered to the facts and never got personal.

I bet you want to know who won the debate... The answer is.... You! That's right, we each put in our two cents and we each left with something that we hadn't come with. Now we can share our honed philosophy with the next group at the next tavern. The long term result of this pattern is a stronger citizenship full of people who have been forced, through piblic debate, to question their own facts and find better understanding of their own values in order to help others understand them.

The key to the success of this debate was the fact that none of us were bound to any party affiliation. We simply had a set of principles and ideas that lead us to our idiologies.

Now it is your turn. Go out and talk to everyone about the right answers. Don't attack what others are doing and don't defend anothers attack. Just share your own Ideas and consider the ideas of others. Be friendly and keep it impersonal. It can work but you have to keep it safe.

On that note, I am still waiting for one of you (on the left) to come and explain exactly what it is that you stand for. I do not want to pick a fight but I want a reasonable debate. I have explained most of My beliefs in "the jimmy Strawn plan" which is linked on the right side of the blog.

The Emporer's New Prize

Really? The Nobel Peace Prize?
Not much for me to say about that, that doesn't say it for itself!

Thursday, October 1, 2009

"There are no necessary evils in government"

So as I flip through the channels of my basic cable system and, for some God awful reason, I stop to hear a few minutes ofeach of the talking heads that I intend to pass something struck a chord. I realized something that I knew but was not sure if I was the only one who knew it.

This realization (far from an epiphany) drove me to look at some of my historical notes and data and you would be completely unamazed with what I found. It turns out that the left is wrong about almost everything that they believe... Or maybe just everything they say that they believe!

Here's how I got here... Going back and moving forward there has been one constant throughout time. Democrats always stand for change. On March 26, 1834 Andrew Jackson (our first Democratic president) became the first president to be censured by the Senate for "exceeding his Constitutional powers".

Yes, the nation was young and still forming but he went over the edge and changed the Presidency forever. He fought, tooth and nail, for a broad and powerful federal government which would be controlled mostly by the President himself. "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses" (Jackson to Congress, 7/10/1832). He moved abruptly to make sweeping changes in the powers of the President over the states, while making enemies of all of our previous founders.

It was his claim of a mandate (winning the election of 1828 with 647,286 votes against the 508,064 votes for J.Q. Adams) which he used as his reasoning for the rapid change. He felt that he was representing what was fair and right and that he was put there for that reason only, not to listen to the conservative minority. He would become the "Godfather" of the Democratic party.

Now, looking at the Constitution, there is another anomolie. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in late 1791. The 11th was ratified in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. This means that the first 12 amendments became law within just about thirteen years...It would be more than 60 years before anyone felt the need to change anything.

So, now that all of our "Founders" were either passed or to old to be a factor, it was time to start adding things and screwing with the original Constitution. Granted, times change and things come up but most of what was added was already pretty clear for the conservatives as an understanding of the original paperwork.

Since that time our Constitution has more than doubled and of those 14 new amendments, only 5 were ratified by Republicans. Here's the sad part, of those 5 republicans, 3 (Grant, Taft and Hoover) had already been voted out of office and had signed under serious political pressure. This leaves the only two Republican presidents to add to the Constitution as Nixon and Bush Sr. Not exactly the pride of the conservative movement.

I know that some amendments were great and others.. well, you know.. But the point is that the Dems (and generally the left) have always been in a hurry to make drastic changes in our government. From Jackson to FDR, Clinton to Obama, these guys always come in with a whirlwind of new programs and Ideas and cram them down our throats the second they have the majority with which to do so.

Hmmmm, why is it that they are always in a hurry? Well, last night I got my answer (which I had already suspected). I heard the audio clip of a Liberal saying that "we need to hurry up and pass these things while we still have the power" and then went on to say "this might be our last chance for a long time".

WOW! Can you read between the lines? What they are saying is that what they are donig is not popular but it is the right thing so we have to do it all before anyone can stop us. You see, when a conservative gets into office they don't run around trying to force new laws in before anyone can see what they are. They might have to undo some ridiculous mess made by the overzealous Dem that they proceeded but generally they are very methodical.

When is the last time a Conservative Republican took office and said that they needed to hurry a bunch of laws through "while they still have the power". They don't! It's because they have nothing to hide. We conservatives do not hide behind a new label every time the populous figures out what the old one means (Liberal..Leftist..Independent..Progressive..) we have always simply been conservative and proud of it. Even Michael Moore said in an interview that he was impressed by the rights "convictions" in that we never back down from what we believe.

The point is that the left always runs around like a chicken.. blah blah... everytime they get a little power because they know that they will be voted out and generally disgraced once the majority of people see what they've done. This is how it is now and this is how it's always been. The left is just plain wrong!
Custom Search