Martin Luther King, Jr. - Don't Shoot the Messenger

Note: When I first wrote and posted this, I, unlike a lot of Americans, continued to read and research, as of now I have concluded that Martin Luther King was what I must now call an American Communist.

Introduction

I remember back when a co-worker and eventually a very good friend of mine said to me, “Have you seen or heard Glenn Beck (Glenn)?”

I looked at him and said, “No, who is he?”

He went on to explain that he was a conservative talk show host on CNN. So like any person approaching something new, I opened my mind and tuned in. I liked what I saw and became hooked. I felt that maybe I had found someone who would entertain, yet educate and unlike most sheeple in America, I'm always willing to listen to another opinion and I'm definitely open to learning.

I followed Glenn from CNN to Fox and even though the 5:00 time slot overlapped with my work schedule, I did what anyone with a DVR would do, I recorded his show. In fact I ended up burning some of the shows to DVD for future reference.

When he started the 9-12 Project, I was lucky enough to find one of the first websites that “welcomed” me and my rants. In fact, I was privileged to have Glenn read one of my comments on air. However, I ended up leaving that site when the Site Administrator violated my trust, as I would become accustomed to with other 9-12 sites and Glenn Beck himself. I would later join another site that, though some were Glenn Beck fans, they thought for themselves.

When Glenn left Fox, I was very disappointed to say the least. I thought at least I could still listen to him on the radio. Yes, I still listen to him today. However as I've continued to listen to Glenn, I began seeing that Glenn's message began to change and he began to develop a rather selective view of history, particularly when it comes to his almost worship of Martin Luther King (MLK).

Martin Luther King Jr.: Communist, Socialist or Progressive

When Glenn began his admiration, bordering on idol worship, of MLK's non-violent approach to the race problems in the sixties, I started wondering exactly where was he heading with this admiration? Was he doing what a majority of people do who put a person on a pedestal, ignoring the real history of the person or just taking a selective view?

As Igor, my friend and editor, is fond of saying when I challenge things at work, “You're opening a can of worms.”

Yes, I may be doing just that and most likely I will unleash a Hell storm of criticism, name calling and most likely down right hate. This is NOT my intention; I will present the facts and allow you the reader to look at the facts presented and make up your own mind.

Once again, I ask, “Don't shoot the messenger.”

Let's begin by setting the rules. To begin with, as most of my readers know I will be using sources, direct quotes. The second rule is I am going to ask the devoted fans and followers of Glenn to think back and remember. BUT most importantly keep an open mind and remember when Glenn said,

“You've got to demand the truth from yourself.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Communist?

This is the not the only place where I feel Glenn is completely off base. But, for the purpose of this post it is the only one I'm going to deal with.

Do Glenn Beck fans remember him saying, and I paraphrase,

“Progressives are Communists with patience”

From this statement, one can and should conclude that Progressives are Communists and that would mean that Theodore Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919) who was one of the founders of the Progressive Party was a Communist, though at the time, just as today, the terms were interchangeable. Though Roosevelt did believe in "Social Justice". [1]

There are some who will say that the differences between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism are just a case of semantics, but there are differences and the problem or question that arises is, what are the differences?

I could spend a great deal of time and the rest of this piece going into the differences in the ideology and methods of Communism, Socialism and Progressivism but I won't; instead I will just give a brief history. Spoiler alert: Watch this space for a more in depth study in the differences.

Lets just say look at the history of Socialism.

After the Revolutions of 1848, the Socialist ideology split into three distinct factions.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works.

The “Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society should be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers.

Last comes the “Bolshevik” socialists, who believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship. It is what would eventually spur Lenin to lead the Bolshevik Revolution (Russian Revolution) of 1917 that would morph into what today people call communism. When most people speak of Communism today, they speak of a country ruled by a dictator whose power was achieved in most cases by violence and asserts complete control over production.

Now, since MLK did not believe in a violent approach to achieve social change, one can and should conclude that MLK was not a communist as defined by the Bolshevik philosophy. However he did have militant elements within his organization but as he said:

“Our militant elements were used, not as small striking detachments, but to organize.” [2]

The idea of violent tactics to achieve Marxism is not the only separator between communism and socialism, but according to the early American socialists there are other differences.

According to W. D. P. Bliss,

“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments; Socialism would very largely use them."

Or as Victor L. Berger wrote,

“The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.”[3]

While,

“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals”[4]

So using these two statements from the principle founders of the American Socialist Party in 1901, one should conclude that there is a difference between Socialism and Communism.

Did MLK believe that the government should control production, distribution and even consumption? If he didn't once again, he's not a Communist.

Socialism or Progressivism? Or are they the same thing?

Now this is where people really have to stop, think, and look at the facts and answer some very difficult questions and draw their own conclusions.

The first and most important question is:

“If there is no difference between the doctrines of the American Socialist Party and those who claim to be Progressives and the doctrines of the American Progressive Party, does that mean that they are the same only with different names?”

Next ask the question:

“If celebrated Progressives were also members of Socialist Party of America or Socialists, again does that mean that Progressives are Socialists?”

Remember when Glenn said on On May, 2014,

“Progressives have a longer time table”

Well, so do the Revisionist Socialists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. a Progressive

SOCIAL JUSTICE

According to the Center for American Progress, The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America,

“In terms of its political values, progressivism throughout the years stressed a range of ideals that remain important today:... Social justice, the proper arrangement of law, society, and the economy to ensure that all people have the formal and informal capacity to shape their own lives and realize their dreams.”

Does everyone remember when Glenn said,

“I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

Or how about when he said,

“If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.”

Now, I must ask, if Glenn believes that “Social Justice” is such a code word and his followers should run away or report the priest to the bishop, then why does Glenn embrace MLK, a minister, who said in a 1963 speech at Western Michigan University, entitled "Social Justice",

“I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn fail to mention that according to The Nation magazine, Martin Luther King, Jr was named one of “The Fifty Most Influential Progressives of the Twentieth Century” where the author says,

“...not only about civil rights but also about economic justice” (My emphases...OM)

and

“The struggle for civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for economic and social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn praise a person for his nonviolent approach to civil rights and yet fail to mention that when Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced MLK was going to be named along with three others to receive the first PPFA Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 [3] it said,

“...for his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity.” (My emphases...OM).

Population Control

Once again, flashing back to Glenn's programs on Fox, his viewers were introduced to Margaret Sanger, Eugenics (particularly against Blacks) and her founding of Planned Parenthood of America, the world's leading abortion factory, under the guise of “women's health”. Isn't abortion the ultimate violence, considering that an unborn CHILD has no way to defend his/her self?

As previously mentioned, why does Glenn neglect to mention or educate his viewers that MLK was among the first recipients of the first Planned Parenthood for America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award in 1966? Where, in his acceptance speech MLK wrote, and which his wife presented said,

“Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.” (My emphases...OM)

Or,

“There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources [Isn't this straight out of Agenda 21?...OM], is possible, practical and necessary.” (My emphases...OM)

MLK and the Communist Belief in Government Supplied Jobs

Glenn has constantly ranted and raved that WE, the People, need to demand and work for a smaller federal government, government that stays out of American's lives.

If Glenn truly believes this, then once again, one must ask why Glenn had not completely done his homework OR if he did, just why did he chose to ignore that MLK also believed in one of the ultimate government controls; that the federal government should supply jobs,

“We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all—so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened. At the present time, thousands of jobs a week are disappearing in the wake of automation and other production efficiency techniques. Black and white, we will all be harmed unless something grand and imaginative is done. The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together, they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all.”[5]

Now, is this not the same socialist belief that was outlined in the Socialist Party Platform of 1908:

“The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover[sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour work-day and at the prevailing union wages.”

Conclusion

Some who will read this, may feel that this is a hit piece on Glenn Beck and Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not my intention. But since Glenn is ever so fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson,

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

Well, I am boldly questioning and asking why Glenn is not telling the FULL story and presenting all the facts concerning MLK? I will leave it up to you to make up your own mind and answer that question.

I will also ask, “Can a person believe in just a few items from an agenda and not believe in that agenda? Or can one just pick and chose, ignoring the facts." I feel it is like being a little bit pregnant.

You decide.

A special thanks to Igor and The Riceman for their editing and advice in the preparation of this piece.

References not linked

[1] Foster, William Z., History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, New York, New York, 1952. [William Z. "Bill" Foster (February 25, 1881 – September 1, 1961) was a radical American labor organizer and Marxist politician, whose career included a lengthy stint as General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. He passed through the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, as well as leading the drive to organize the packinghouse industry during World War I and the steel strike of 1919.]

[2] King, Jr., Martin Luther, "Let Justice Roll Down", The Nation, March 15, 1965.

[3] Berger, Victor L., "American Socialism", Social Democratic Herald, No. 1, July 9, 1898, pp. 3-4. [Victor Berger (1860 - 1929) In 1901 Berger joined with Eugene Debs and Morris Hillquit to establish the American Socialist Party. The party was very strong in Milwaukee and played a major role in the city's government for the next fifty years. In 1910 Berger became the first socialist in the United States to be elected to Congress. The following year he proposed a bill to provide old age pensions. Berger was a strong opponent of America's involvement in the First World War, describing it as a "the wholesale murder in Europe". However, as Shane Hamilton has pointed out: "the main thrust of Berger's anti-war stance was socialistic, not pacifistic."
In 1918 Berger was charged under the Espionage Act and after being found guilty was sentenced to twenty years in prison. While free on appeal, Berger was elected to Congress in 1919 with an increased majority. In 1921 the Supreme Court overturned Berger's conviction.
As well as representing the people of Milwaukee in Congress, Berger edited the Milwaukee Leader (1911-1921) and served as chairman of the American Socialist Party (1927-1929). He was a strong opponent of the American Communist Party and warned against the "folly of imitating Soviet models, condemning the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat." A collection of his speeches and editorials, Voice and Pen, was published in 1929.]

[4] Ibid

[5] Alex Haley’s interview with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.in Playboy, January 1965.

American Communism by Any Other Name Still Means Destruction of America

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism [1]

"Watching Elizabeth Warren give a speech to her fold, you realize she's one of the rare Democrats who can excite her base in the same way Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders can excite their own." As Politico's Katie Glueck wrote on Friday, July 17th, 2014, liberals' minds may be with Hillary Clinton, but their hearts lie with Warren.

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008.

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?" [Glenn Beck would say "Progressives are Communists with patience."  BUT history shows and tells us that Progressives are Revisionist Socialists. Some would say its semantics BOTH means the destruction way of the American way of life and Freedom. I feel based of on research of the writings Karl Marx as well as that of Socialists and Communists from early ca. 1880's - 1890's; Progressivism is a a hybrid of both or as I have come to believe and called American Communism]

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." [Does she REALLY mean, "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank, [we are ready have one] with State capital and an exclusive monopoly" (Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, page 26) or is she implying that "The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works." (Morris Hillquit, History of Socialism in America, 1910 Pages 369-377)?...OM] 

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." [Does she REALLY mean, "...the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan." (ibid) or maybe she means "The extension of the public lands to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power." (ibid page 376) or perhaps, "The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swap lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the pubic domain."(ibid)...OM]

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." [Could she mean, "Centralization of the means COMMUNICATION and transport in the hands of the State (ibid Page 26) or maybe she meant, "The collective ownership of railroads, TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, steam lines and all other means of SOCIAL transportation and COMMUNICATION (ie. Internet...OM)" (ibid Page 376)...OM]

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."[Or in other words, "The capitalist class, in its mad race for profits, is bound to exploit the workers to the very limit of their endurance and to sacrifice their physical, moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed. Capitalism keeps the masses of workingmen in poverty, destitution, physical exhaustion and ignorance." (ibid page 370)...OM]

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." [Is this the same as "The Organization of the working class into a political party  to conquer the public powers now controlled by capitalist"? Or maybe she is hinting that "The struggle between wage workers and capitalists grows ever fiercer, and has now become the only vital issue before the American people. The wageworking class, therefore, has the most direct interest in abolishing the capitalist system."(ibid Page 371)...OM]

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." [Maybe she should have just said, "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,..."(ibid Page 26) ...OM]

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." [Maybe she should have first reminded everyone that, "In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."" Thus taking the Social Security TRUST fund and putting it in the General budget so that it could be "borrowed from". Or that the "National insurance of the working people against accidents, lack of employment, and want in old age", (ibid Page 376) or maybe she wants, "The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted for American use." Didn't FDR take these socialist/progressive ideas and put them into law ca.1935?...OM]

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." [Maybe she should tell her fearless leader, President Obama after all "Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts" Can we say "woman speak with forked tongue" or is it just hypocrisy?...OM] 

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." [Change traditions, you change the culture, change the culture you change the nation....OM]

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform." [So do the majority of the American people, except we believe that it should be done legally, not by flooding the borders an attempting to "tug on the heart strings" because they are children, thus using Cloward & Piven [3] to flood the system....OM]

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" [Warren better re-read the 14th Amendment and the definition of citizen, "a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country or a person who lives in a particular place." Thus, "While a corporation is a "person" within this Amendment, it is not a "citizen" of the United States whose "privileges or immunities" a State is forbidden to abridge. A State may therefore impose upon a corporation created by another State restrictive conditions respecting its doing business (but not interstate commerce) within the first named State. (Corporation is citizen of State creating it. Bank of United States v. Deveaux (1809), 5 Cranch. 61, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2 but is not citizen of United States, therefore liberty may be abridged by State. Western Turf Assoc.v. Greenberg (1907), 204 U. S. 359, ref Amend.,Art.14,Sect.1,Cl.2)[4] and of course there is always Citizens United.]

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own." [Actually we work for what we earn and the government has no right to redistribute our or anyone else's wealth...OM]

Sources:
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-of-progressivism/455955/
[2] Berger, Victor L., Social Democratic Herald, whole no. 1, July 9, 1898.
Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900; published in Appeal to Reason, Sept 15, 1900, page 3
[3] Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty", The Nation, May 2, 1966.
[4] *Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Application, Devin-Adair Co., 1940.

*Thomas James Norton was a Member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

In The Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Constitution and Subsidies

As I read and think about the various tweets from my great followers on twitter and believe me when I say that I value each and every one of them I have to wonder if some of my follower have, like a number of “conservative” talking heads and political candidates, have gotten so numb to various government programs that they don’t even stop and consider whether it is within the limits of the responsibilities of the federal government as outlined and SPELLED out within the Constitution.

It is not my intention to bash or degrade any particular GOP candidate or any particular follower on twitter.

I will paraphrase certain things and point out where what I consider errors in reference to Constitution. If I’m in error, I’m sure someone will correct me.

With a vast number of people watching the unfolding events in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, either which could possibly get a boost by winning the caucus.

To this end, Mr. Trump has gotten what many “talking heads” may consider a very important endorsement.

No it was not Sarah Palin, but the so called conservative governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad.

Why did Gov. Branstad endorse Mr. Trump?

Was it because he believes that Trump is the best candidate for America?

I don’t think so!

I feel that Gov. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump mainly because the governor is against Sen. Cruz’s stand on the ethanol subsidy and to some extend subsidies in general after Senator Cruz said:

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”

To which Gov. Branstad replied:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said, according to the paper. "I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." 

Now, I don’t blame Gov. Branstad for doing what he feels is best for his state, IF he didn’t, I would join Iowans in removing him from office. BUT like a number of laws and programs out of District of Corruption, they have been passed, put in place and taken for granted that they are okay. Why hasn’t anyone stopped and even considered their constitutionality?

When I posed this question on twitter, one of my followers said:

“They are acts of Congress not the Constitution. Congress makes law.”

To this I asked two simple questions, and it’s the same questions I have been asking for years on many other subjects:

“Isn’t congress supposed to make and pass laws that is within the authority of the Constitution? And just where is ANY subsidies authorized by the Constitution?”

Just where in the Constitution does it say that:

"Money paid, usually by GOVERNMENT, to keep PRICES below what they would be in a free market, or to keep alive businesses that would otherwise go bust, or to make activities happen that otherwise would not take place. Subsidies can be a form of PROTECTIONISM by making domestic goods and SERVICES artificially competitive against IMPORTS. By distorting markets, they can impose large economic costs."

This is the same question I asked Mr. Trump and Mr. Branstad on twitter? Did I get a reply, NO! In fact, I didn’t get anyone who supports Mr. Trump defending his stand on ethanol subsidies.

On the other side of the coin, I have to offer Ted Cruz, I offer this piece of advice. When talking about the corn subsidy or subsidies in general, just point out the fact that NO where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to, as Mr. Cruz said, 

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.”

In fact, if Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump would have looked at history and see what a little known member of the FIRST congress, James Madison, had to say when confronted with a vote on what would be the first subsidy:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” 

How many  “conservatives” were outraged & complained about the subsidies or bailouts to the auto industry which Mr. Trump supported in 2008? How were outraged and complainted about the subsidies to solar panel manufacturers? How about the tax money spent to study shrimp on treadmills?

ARE you one who complains about the waste of the many government handouts and programs?

Do you favor corn subsidies or any subsidies in general including government funding of schools?

If the answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second, then how can you look in the mirror and say you believe in the Constitution? Or do you, as many others do, just take it for granted that that's the government job.

Maybe it is, but not under our Constitutional Republic, but under a government where the elected officials believe in and follow an 1848 publication by Karl Marx or the 1908 American Socialist's party platform as a guide.

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate

NOTICE: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ ALL THREE PARTS OF SERIES

Many of you know that “The Hour of the Wolf” is when I do my “best” thinking and writing, others will say its when I do my best stinking thinking and writing.

I'll let you be the judge for I am about to unleash the hell that only a pissed off Marine Gunny is capable of when all else fails not only in blog posts but on twitter as well.

BUT, first things first, with this post, I will no longer spend time defining words, idea, etc. within this or any other post. I will establish a separate page that will list terms and words used in my posts with their meanings and source, and YES there will be history and original sources.

Second, I am going to do something that I have never done, I am going to beg you to OPEN your minds, do as I do as a scientist, look at the facts, evaluate and if necessary reevaluate.

FINALLY, I am going to ask that IF you do not agree, which I'll admit a number of people won't, I want you to feel free to comment, but be fore warned; be prepared to defend it with facts and legitimate sources. IF you begin your comment “talking head” said, I will eat your lunch and then I will answer, but I will push you for the original sources. This will apply to all future and past posts.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's get down and dirty.

“Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.” ... Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Re-evaluation of current situation

For many years, I have ranted and raved that America has become more and more socialistic. I have quoted and documented the actual words from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto), the Platform of the 1908, the Soros run Center for American Progress (CAP) and of course Boo Boo, our current POTUS.

In the process of doing RESEARCH for my various rants and writings I must admit that I have been forced to re-evaluate my conclusions.

America HAS NOT become a socialistic country.

Just as our Founding Fathers used various sources; the Bible, David Hume, John Locke, etc., to establish America; America has “done it its own way”. We went from a group of disorganized colonies under a monarchy to the United States of America united under the unique document called the Constitution.

Americans have always done it our own, quite unique way.

YES, were some mistakes made along the way: but being Americans, we corrected them in most cases without bloodshed. All of which were part of the learning curve.

Unfortunately over the many years, the American people and particularly politicians have forgotten that uniqueness which made America great and began to copy and adapt the movements that began taking place in Europe during the middle 1800's, BUT like everything which made America great, those wishing to bring about this change did it in the unique American way.

They took into consideration that most people would be repulsed by the idea of the use of violence to change the system. After all, the people of America were (are) basically peace loving and would use force only if all else failed, saw the violence in Europe (Revolutions of 1848 and the Commune of 1870) and memories of our own Civil War were still fresh in American's mind.

Even Marx in late 1870, warned the workers of Paris NOT to use violence to overthrow the French capitalistic government and would later say:

“One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

Eventually those in America, who were seeking power, control, as well as change took heed of these words and turned to using crisis, propaganda and most importantly the ballot to began quietly and slowly using these guises to gain power.

The politicians took office, both locally and nationally, and began to pass laws and even allowed non-elected officials to enact regulations that would end up controlling aspects of American life.

Thus the establishment of what would become more acceptable, at the time, and falsely called “Big Government” but in reality should be called American Communism.

I can hear everybody, screaming now, “We are not communistic. We're a free country under a Constitution. We elect our leaders. We did not have a violent revolution that brought in a dictator, Etc.”

Part of these people's thinking is correct.

Yes, we do elect our our “leaders”.

True, we did not have a violent revolution that brought about a dictatorship. Although, under Boo Boo and the SCOTUS it appears that way.

Instead, Americans grew envious, greedy and sadly lazy and elected those on BOTH sides of the aisle who grew the size of government and made more people dependent on the government. A QUIET REVOLUTION, but a revolution nonetheless.

Does that mean we have not become communistic?

Are the American people really free or are we subject to whims of those in Washington who pass laws, or un-elected officials who issue regulations or the courts who interpret and in some cases misinterpret them. In other words, is Government controlling our lives?

“Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas”

Socialism or Communism

“Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist (my emphasis) manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:...” (Fredrick Engels in the Preface of 1888 edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which has served as a basis for the “modern” British, American and the late U.S.S.R publications of this infamous plan.)

Now, unless you do what a friend of mine did when we were discussing a mathematical equation and I showed him the equation in a reference book, he threw the book away and said, “it's wrong”; then there is no reason for you to keep reading, your mind is made up and I shouldn't confuse you with facts.

So, for those that are still with me, when I quote Marx or Engels and they say communist or communism I will ask you to remember Engels, preface and call it socialist or socialism.

Not to know what Communism is, is today simply intellectual laziness.

(Paraphrased from Sidney Webb)

Continued in.....In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”...Samuel Adams

As I continue my reevaluation of what for years of believing America has edged closer to socialism, let us admit to one important thing; when it comes to socialism and communism, no matter what the various talking heads say, it comes down to a case of some subtle differences in the basic underlying theory between the two and in the long run; it can be a case of semantics and no matter what name you call it, they are both an attack on America and freedom.

Also, lets remember that socialism and communism ARE not about the body politics, they are about economics

Or is it a case of newspeak: where Big Government is not as bad as socialism which is preferable to communism?

Or is it that a Progressive is better then a Liberal which is better then being a Socialist which in turn is far better then being a Communist.

However, as I'm about to show this newspeak has been used and still being used to bury the truth and not scare the citizens of our once great country.

How many hard working, patriotic Americans would be repulsed by candidate on both sides that claims to be communist and wants to put in place various laws, regulations and programs to control what is produced in factories or on the farm? Or, how these products get to the store shelf or eventually to your homes? Or maybe even what you eat or use? Or, that the government will take care of you from the day you're born till the day you die?

Yet, those same Americans will cry, “Where's the federal government?” when __________ (fill in your own outrage). 

Or, will say, “Congress ought to pass a law.” when ____________ (I'm sure everyone can find SOMETHING that they feel there should be a law against).

Historical Look and Meanings

Long before Obama was elected to transform America. 

Long before some people finally woke up and realized that America was being destroyed.

Long before the “talking heads” and uninformed Americans who's idea of communism are a couple of pages in the Manifesto.

Long before those either wish to put their own unique spin on the subject or to show how “smart” they are about socialism and communism; there was a battle going on in America between those who wanted to bring about change in America.

Fredrich Engels, Karl Marx's partner in crime, wrote in 1847 before the publication of the Manifesto, explaining “What is Communism”:

“Communism [Socialism] is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”[1]

American Socialism

Although the idea of Utopian socialism was present in the U.S. even before its founding, it wasn’t until the 1890's when the idea of scientific socialism really began to take hold in America.

The decade of the 1890's was an era of panic and financial depression and just as today, there were those who wanted to change America; those who believed in “not letting a good crisis go to waste”. (Note: And most people thought this idea was an invention of the Obama administration)

It was also during this crisis that American socialists began to prey on people's fear, envy and greed. They used this crisis and began to develop a federation of unions and political organizations. Sadly, for America, these socialists began to lay the foundations for American Communism.

It was also during this period that these foundations were “invading” American colleges, particularly Harvard, where Michael Medved's hero, W. E. B. DuBois and others established the American Fabian Society based on the principles and ideas of the established of the Fabian Society in England.[2]

America was also beginning to outgrow its Nationalism or it might be said, the idea Utopian socialism.

Out of the American socialist movement a number of people came to prominence, very much like Marx and Engels became prominent as leaders of world wide socialist movement.

It is these proud and unabashed socialists and their writings that I will turn to show the differences between socialism and communism and how eventually America put its unique spin on it and as usual did it the American way, thus establishing the wayto American Communism.

One such socialist was W.D.P. Bliss, considered the pioneer historian of the world socialist movement; who wrote A Handbook of Socialism in 1895, that not only summed up what socialism is and what it is not but also showed the division between the three major ideologies of socialism. 

“Socialism is the fixed principle, capable of infinite and changing variety of form, and only gradually to be applied, according to which the community should own the land and capital collectively and operate them co-operativity [sic] for the equitable good of all.”... Bliss

Now for those who want to argue that Bliss is wrong, after all most people's idea of socialism is what they hear on radio or television, let us look at what the Century Dictionary had to say:

“Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation [sic] which would abolish, entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour [sic], and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.”

And then there was what Victor L. Berger had to say in his article, American Socialism, published in the July, 9, 1898 edition of Social Democratic Herald:

“The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” This definition is about the same in all countries.”

Now, let's turn to what Socialism is not and once again I turn to Bliss.

Socialism is not Governmentalism [sic] or Paternalism

IF anyone has REALLY read the Manifesto or closely read the definitions of socialism above, you should notice the absence of one very important word that leads to the misconception of Socialism. NO WHERE does the word government appear.

For many of us, including myself, we were taught to believe that socialism meant a “nanny state”, it is NOT.

Nor is socialism an expansion of State activity.

“The state is not abolished, it dies off. The phrase of the 'socialist state' may thus be judged for its value as a slogan in temporary propaganda of socialism, for its scientific inefficiently.”...Engels

“Socialism is not turning things over to the State, to the municipality, or to government of any kind. By the derivation of the word from the Latin socius, an associate, by its history, by its use by Socialists themselves. Socialism is essentially fraternal, the very opposite of paternalism.”...Bliss

Finally and for better or worst, Fredrich Engels explained it this way:

“The first act in which the State really appears as the representative of society as a whole, namely, the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, is at the same time its last independent act as a State. Interference of the State in social relations gradually becomes superfluous in one department after another, and finally of itself ceases (goes to sleep). The place of government over persons is taken by administration of things and the management of productive processes,...”

Socialism is not the Regimentation of Society

Socialism is not meant to control a person's life, nor does it mean that the State should develop a fixed form of society, as outlined by Plato's oligarchy as defined in his idea of Utopia.

“It seems almost impossible to bring people to understand that the abstract word Socialism denotes, like radicalism, not an elaborate plan of society, but a principle of social action."...Sidney Webb

Webb continue on to point out that Socialism inevitably suffers if identified with any particular scheme, or even with the best vision we can yet form of collectivism itself and tells us:

“People become so much concerned with details, that they miss the principle." They cannot see the forest for the trees." [Editor's note: Is this not the American sheeple today, looking to blame the condition of America today on everyone or everything, yet failing to see the REAL cause. Basically, 'Not seeing the forest for the trees'?] The moment will never come when we can say, "Now Socialism is established," for Socialism is not a status but a life. Society is not to be run into it as a mould [sic]. Socialism is evolutionary, though the evolution may be a gradual and peaceful revolution.”

“True Socialism is as flexible in its system, as it is definite in its aim. Any system that would carry out its principle is Socialistic. This means that in different countries and under different conditions, Socialism would take very various forms.”...Bliss

“Socialism, therefore, cannot be identified with any one form of Socialism.”...Bliss

Socialism is not Co-operation

Socialism is not a workers paradise of co-operation between arbitrary groups of workers that has abolished competition.

In social science co-operation means the union of any group of persons, who agree on equitable principles for the purposes of joint purchase, production, distribution or consumption, based on their mutual benefit. This does not mean using government as a weapon to achieve the goals of joint purchase, production, distribution or here comes the key to the discussion of socialism and communism consumption.

Above all, socialism can be considered a union of the WHOLE of a community or society for the purpose of common ownership and management of land and/or capital.

Or as Hillary Clinton has said:

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Socialism is not Anarchism

Just as there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, there are differences between the two schools of Anarchism.

Those who believed in individual sovereignty (Individual Anarchism) and those who believed that “all things belong to all provided that everyone contribute their fair share of labor...” or Anarchist Communism.

Both “schools” of Anarchism believe in the abolishment of the State.

The Anarchist Communist glorified the use of physical force and emphasized “the propaganda of the deed”, later to be known as the Bolsheviks, while the Individual Anarchist are not afraid to use violence, but they realize that their numbers were too small to successfully use force.

Socialism differed with both of these schools of thought. Socialists not only abhor the use of violence to achieve their goals, but believe in using the State. Socialists realized that “man is born into a society, a fact that man can not escape.” Thus they will use and work within society to gain freedom. (Remember: I am using their thoughts, their words, their philosophy.)

Socialism is not Communism

Many people will argue that difference between Socialism and Communism is a case of semantics, they mean the same and are equally bad. Yes, they are both bad for America.

Some will use the two words interchangeably.

While others will use Socialism instead of Communism in fear of not facing the truth.

Some will lump both words together as Communism or vice versa.

So, let's look at at the difference between the two. Again I will remind you that this is their philosophy and principles back before the newspeak began.

“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common.”...Bliss

Or as Berger would say a few years later in 1898:

“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals.”

Communism makes less use of existing government and in most cases overthrows existing governments as evident by attempted overthrow of the French government in 1870 and the Russian revolution of 1917, which I feel marked the beginning of what everyone now recognizes as Communism. The key point is that since 1917, Communism has not only meant violent overthrow of existing governments and morphed into central government control and a dictatorship and the lost of freedom. Again I must remind you, the readers, that Socialism and Communism are ECONOMICAL theories and principles.

Many will say that by the very definitions and philosophies of the writers above, America is more socialist then communist, but remember, America has through the years put its unique spin on these ideas and created American Communism.

“The goal of socialism is communism.”...Vladimir Lenin

Continued in....In the Hour of the Wolf – The Reevaluation - American Communism

Literature Cited and not linked

[1] Engels, Frederick, The Principles of Communism, Selected Works, Vol. 1 pages 81-97,      Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969.


[2] Dobbs, Zygmund, Keynes at Harvard - Economic Deception as a Political Credo,

     Probe Research, inc; Rev. and enl. ed edition, 1969.

People Trust Their Lying Ears More Their Brain

Pop Quiz: How much spending is actually Constitutional?

On May 8, Neil Cavuto presented a show on Fox Business that IF YOU DON'T GET IT, DEMAND IT, called America's Trust Deficit. As with many shows that Mr. Cavuto presents, it hits the target. Particularly in the first ten minutes which dealt with American's lack of trust in the government. A lack of trust that the government has earned by wasting TRILLIONS of American taxpayer's dollars on various programs which are not truly authorized within the Constitution, but have been passed and signed into law. These laws were never challenged, they were just accepted and now they are out of control and NOW people are concerned.

So, the question arises, is it the government that cannot be trusted or is it the people who believe everything a politician or some “talking head” tells them, not bothering to stop and think, “Is this truly what our founding Fathers intended to be the role of the federal government in its citizen's lives.”

This was evident within the first ten minutes of Neil's show when the discussion began with the government's failures with its various programs and showed that even a well respected “talking head” like Steve Moore, a Heritage Foundation visiting fellow, seems to have a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government.

Mr. Moore began by bringing up how much Washington has change and federal spending increased in the 25 to 30 years he had been in the District of Corruption. According to Mr. Moore, federal spending has increased from about a trillion dollars per year in spending to about four trillion in the coming year. He then continued to discuss spending for schools.

Mr. Moore drew attention to the fact that the per pupil spending when compared with the 1950 and 1960's when schools were considered much better, the cost has increased ca. three times as much as it did then. He failed to mention however, that in the 1950's and 1960's there was very little federal money given to local schools.

What followed was usual discussion and various opinions on federal spending, which in my opinion is the same old B.S.. The same B.S. that many others and I have heard over the years from both sides of the aisle. HOWEVER, no where in the discussion about federal spending did anyone bring up the fact that a lot of this federal spending is no where authorized in the Constitution.

In fact, Mr. Moore said, “...(the) problem is this...that government has gotten away from the core functions of what its suppose to do,...its suppose to educate our kids, its suppose to build good roads and highways, its suppose to defend us...”.

Now, such a well educated man like Mr. Moore should realize that the founding Fathers DID NOT intend for the federal government to use tax money to educate our kids. To build (post) roads, YES (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7). To provide for the common defense (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) by raising and supporting an Army and a Navy (Article 1 section 8, Clauses 12 & 13) definitely YES.

No matter how hard I search the Constitution and read the Federalist papers, I can not find anything that says that the federal government should educate our children. In fact, even the Department of Education admits that “The responsibility for K–12 education rests with the states under the Constitution.”

So, where did Mr. Moore come up with the idea that the federal government is suppose to educate our children? Was it from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Free education for all children in public schools...” I don't feel so. 

Was it from the Socialist Party Platform of 1908 and bragged about by the Center of American Progress? Again I don't think so.

I feel that Mr. Moore and many Americans have forgotten one very important thing, even though Mr. Moore eluded to it, “schools were considered much better in 1950 and 1960's”.

That important thing is that “the primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).”

This law, basically took the funding of schools at the local level from the states and allowed for the redistribution of wealth from wealthy states to less wealthy states by the federal government. This redistribution of wealth also gave the federal government the opportunity to gain control of the school systems, can anyone say, “Common Core” or "standard testing" which has lead to corruption among those people trust to educate their children and this is just one case, how many more are out there not discovered.

This redistribution of wealth also lead to the increase in the size of government by the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

I must ask again, just where is the use of federal taxes “to educate our kids” authorized by the Constitution?

This same question can be asked of Medicaid, the various welfare programs and unemployment compensation.

Just where are any of these programs authorized by the Constitution. Or were these programs put in place over the years as part of an agenda to slowly but surly change America from what the founding Fathers intended?

Over all, I found the show informative, but found that Neil Cavuto and the others did not fully explore the real reason why so many people do not trust the federal government or our elected officials.

The reason; is that to REALLY place the blame of this lost of trust would offend many of his viewers. The true source of this distrust is THE PEOPLE. The very same people who would rather believe the politicians who promise to bring “home the bacon” then stop and think, “Is this what the Constitution authorized the federal government to do?”

You tell me, is our current educational system better NOW or was it better before the federal government got involved? Is America better off now, either financially or spiritually, then before the federal government got involved in things not authorized in the Constitution.

Semper Fi!

The Hour of the Wolf – Musings on What is Fair?

As I slowly wake up with my first cup of coffee and cigarette, I turn on the the T.V. and as usual there is a Progressive Socialist complaining that the congress hasn't passed a higher minimum wage. As usual, the Conservative counter point is that the minimum wage should be left to the businesses to determine, something I fully agree with. Then, just as predictable as my second cup of coffee, the Socialist says, “But it’s not FAIR that the owner or CEO of the company makes more then the workers and the government needs to do something about pay inequality.” Isn't the redistribution of wealth one of the main tenets of Socialism?

Later, on a different show, the usual debate on taxes was raging and as regular as clock work, the idea for a FAIR tax was brought up and the usual debate soon followed suit.

I flashed back to something I heard on The Five, when Eric Bolling brought up Obamacare and the Democrat said and I paraphrase, “Its not FAIR that if you don't have insurance and go to the hospital, I have to pay for it.” (ca. 19 March, 2015). Mr. Bolling let a great opportunity pass, all he had to say, "Isn't our tax money paying for Obamacare? Medicaid?What's the difference?"

As I lit my second cigarette and half listened, I started thinking and that's hurts and is rather difficult for me with only two cups under my belt, “WHAT IS FAIR? Who determines JUST what is FAIR?”

Before my rant, let’s take a look at “FAIR”.

I figured it would be easier for readers to check my source if it were online instead of using an old fashion dictionary, so I looked up the meaning of FAIR.

The word FAIR is an interesting word. It can be used as a noun, an adverb, a verb or an adjective.

When it comes to minimum wage, taxes and every other Socialists Democrat talking point, the word FAIR is used as an adjective, so let’s look at those definitions:

1. Agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable

2. Treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

3. Not too harsh or critical

After reading and understanding the word FAIR, I turned to the Constitution and what it has to say about FAIR.

For those who haven't taken time or are too lazy to understand it, I'll remind you that the Constitution lays out WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO, so I'll save you some time, there is only one phrase in the Constitution that may be construed concerning FAIR; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:

“...; but all Duties, Imposts (something imposed or levied : tax...) and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

There is absolutely nothing concerning FAIR when it comes to a minimum wage, in fact there is nothing about the FEDERAL Government getting involved in what private businesses pay their employees. The same holds true when it comes to health care. Or basically anything else in a citizen's life.

In fact, even the much hated 16th Amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Does not say anything about FAIR.

So. according to the Constitution, the Federal government has absolutely no authority in “Agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable”. But, the Constitution does authorize the Federal government to “treat people in a way that does not favor some over others” and “not too harsh or critical.” Yet it doesn't.

Yet, a minority of people will get out in the streets, riot and yell,”_______(fill in your own pet peeve) is not FAIR.” Is this minority determining or “agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable” for the rest of America.

If that's the case, then I as a minority of one can say, ”Its not FAIR that:

1. That America made a promise to my Brother & Sister Veterans, and BROKE it.

2. Peoples' hard earned money is taxed and used for things not authorized in the Constitution, i.e. welfare, medicaid, Obamacare.

3. Friends of mine, as well as many other Americans, have to work a full time job and then work part time jobs just to make ends meet; yet others, who are fairly capable of working, can sit at home and draw government handouts.

4. That a person is promoted, allowed to commit fraud and given special treatment, because of race or sex.

I could go on, but I fully realize that like beauty, what's FAIR is in the eye of the beholder, so before you yell and cry “That's not fair” ask yourself:

Is it FAIR that a person who HAS worked hard to achieve success, did just about everything that America expected and finally earned the privilege to live and use his hard earned “wealth” anyway that person desires and not be demonized, called names, or be degraded? Isn't this the type of propaganda that Socialists/Communists used and are using to take over a country?

Only in a Socialist country that is on the road to Communism is it FAIR for a small group of people or politicians to determine what a person can do with their own money, what they can say, what they can eat or what they can buy (Some will say that the government doesn't control what you can buy. To them, I say, "Can you buy an incandescent light bulb?)? 

How soon will it be that a small group will determine whether a person should work in an office or on the factory floor, no matter the knowledge or skill, because it is FAIR?

Why should a group of elected politicians who are more concern with their own power than what's right for ALL the people.

"I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service."...Theodore Roosevelt (August 31,1910)

What do you think? Let me know.

Thanks to my "Brain Trust", Igor & the Riceman for their assistance.