In the Hour of the Wolf – The Reevaluation - American Communism

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."... Ronald Reagan

Unlike many people, when I enter into a project, whether it be scientific or blogging I do so with a fairly open mind. I am human (some wouldn't believe it) after all and as I said in the beginning of this series, I have been forced to reevaluate by ideas on whether American has become a socialist country or have we become more communistic.

The more I researched the history, principles and theories of socialism and communism, I can say that socialism and communism are like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. Whether you believe that socialism and communism are the same thing or that they are two distinct economical ideas and systems, the one thing every sane, thinking person should realize, NEITHER ONE IS GOOD FOR FREEDOM and NEITHER ONE WORKS.

Realizing this doesn't seem to stop people from seeking power and control from attempting to do it “their way”, trying to prove history and commonsense wrong.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ...Lord Acton

When Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels published the Manifesto of the Communist Party, they basically forgot or didn't even to take into account one very important factor, human nature.

It is this very human nature, the quest for power that has lead to, what I believe a vast misunderstanding of socialism and communism and in turn has lead to American communism by the use of lies and propaganda to prey on people's basic instincts, envy, greed and laziness.

When a people follow their basic instincts, they fail to see the insidious nature of American communism, the destruction of freedom and putting people into slavery.

As Victor Berger said back in 1898:

“Such “knownothingness” is not surprising, because Socialism has been misrepresented
and maligned by press, pulpit, and politicians so long that even some so-called Socialists who did not study the subject have rather vague and misleading conceptions about it.”

Just as in 1898, the same is true today.

There are many if not all who say socialism consists of central planning by the government that puts into place a number of ideas from either the Manifesto or their own beliefs.

I need to remind people, NO where in the Manifesto is GOVERNMENT mentioned. For those that say, you can't have a society without a government, with human nature that's true.

People need to remember that the root of society and hence socialism is socius which means sharing, joining in, partaking, united, associated, kindred, allied. 

Sadly, there are just as many who believe that without revolution leading to a change in government communism cannot be put in place. Evidently these people haven’t heard of a quiet revolution. This is the same type of quiet revolution that has changed the traditions of America. Today we refer to this type of revolution as a “Velvet Revolution”.

That revolution that has taken place in America over the past hundred plus years and sadly the “knownothings” then and now didn't see it coming or chose to ignore it.

Big Government or American Communism

When you mention Big Government, a majority of people think about the number of departments and people working within the government. Politicians of both stripes campaign on either growing or shrinking the size of government BUT few to none ever mention the scope or reach of government. In others words big government control.

Most of early socialists agreed that Socialism is:

“...the collective ownership of all means of production and distribution”. 

While they also agreed that Communism proposes:

“the common ownership of production or in some cases production and consumption”.

Or as Bliss said,

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

Is this not what has been going on here America? Have our elected officials, whether on local, state or federal level used any “crisis” to gain more power and control by passing laws or regulations that in one way or another controls the various aspects of production and consumption therefore basically controlling American's lives?

“The closest thing to immortality in this life is a government program.”...Ronald Reagan 

Production

When most people hear “common ownership” they think, quite naturally, that everyone possesses the means of production.

Remember to own something also means to have power or mastery over.

Who supposedly owns the government?

For better or worst, the American people do. Therefore, the American people have power or mastery over the means of production. This power is transferred to politicians when the American people elect and reelect them at all levels who use this power to work to institute American communism or in other words, worked to increase their power thus more power to the government.

For those who care to argue, just look back at history, how many times did politicians of all stripes didn't let a “good crisis go to waste” and used their power to enact various government programs that to added more central control of everything from farming to manufacturing.

Does the federal minimum wage law not control production by forcing the means of production to do more with less people and charge more?

Do the various EPA regulations, thus the government, not control means of production of electricity, industry and even farms?

Do government regulations and laws control the means of production of FOOD by paying farmers not to grow or to grow certain crops?

Do government regulations control the means of production of automobiles by imposing mileage and emission requirements on cars and trucks?

Does a 1901 law passed by congress, which allows the president to put PUBLIC land off limits for exploration and drilling for natural gas and oil, not constitute government control the means of production?

Anyone with a brain and an open mind should see that the answer to these questions is a resounding YES. 

Every citizen should ask where in the Constitution are any of these and many other government controls allowed? 

For the lazy, I'll save you the time and effort, ITS NOT! But it is in the 10 planks as outline in the Manifesto and also in the Socialist Party platform of 1908.

Consumption

Some will automatically think that when I say consumption it meaning eating or drinking, but remember consumption also means using something.

Now, take a look at the list above and ask yourself, “Do these government controls on production effect how much I pay for and thus use various products and services?”

Can you buy an incandescent light bulb? NO! Why, because central government says you can't, thus making you use (consume) light bulbs containing a hazardous material or purchasing more expensive light bulbs.

Has gas prices gone up from an average of $1.80 a gallon before the current regime took office to over $2.00 a gallon now?

Can we get petroleum from Canada for consumption in America and if needed for export.

For those who smoke cigarettes, including myself, has the TAXES imposed on a legal product made the price rise, thus the government is controlling our consumption.

Are you going to pay more for electricity because of EPA regulations, thus government control? Is this not government control of consumption of electricity.

Has not Obamacare and Medicaid not effected your consumption of healthcare by raising prices?

American Communism

America has not become communist like the old Soviet Union did under Lenin in 1917, which is what everyone thinks of when the word “communism” is mention.

Nor has America become communistic under a brutal dictator like present day North Korea.

BUT America has become communistic by as Victor Berger said in 1898 when writing about American Socialism:

“To accomplish this we want to make use of our political liberty and take possession of the public powers.”

Is this not exactly what has happened? Haven't people elected and reelected politicians who over the years and allowed corruption and in turn basically destroy the real meaning of the Constitution, particularly the “General welfare clause” using it for everything from helping those less fortunate, to saving the environment and of course the ever popular, “we have do it for the children”.

Whatever catch phrase a politician uses it amounts to one thing. GOVERNMENT CONTROL of your life.

How many times have you heard, “The administration hasn't done anything to help ________(fill in the blank).”

People have forgotten that the federal government was not established to be good or bad.

Our federal government WAS NOT designed to control production or tell the American people what they can or should consume.

BUT AMERICAN COMMUNISM IS!

No Chit Sherlock: Where have YOU Been?

Like most Americans who are fighting for the American way of life when I come on line there is one site that always comes up, the Drudge Report.

While scanning the headlines, I came across a link to a story that made me choke on my coffee.

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking at the time and didn't copy the headline for farther use, BUT will attempt to paraphrase from memory, “Schlafly: TPP means Congress abdicates authority”. Now, if I didn't get it exactly right, sorry, I'm sure Drudge or someone will correct me.

Now, in all due respect to Ms Schlafly, who from what I have read is a very smart and talented writer, BUT I must ask her, “No chit Sherlock, where have you been?” Congress (as well as the states) has unconstitutionally been abdicating its authority for over a century and NOW people are complaining.

First things first

Let's take a look at the Constitution, you know the document that is suppose to tell the federal government what it CAN do, as opposed to the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, which tells the federal government what it can not do.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 says:

“...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...”

I fully understand that there is no single man elected to the office of president who does not need advice from “experts” in their fields, except maybe Obama, to govern this great country. But does this clause mean that a department within executive branch can control by regulations, NOT laws passed by congress, commerce and just about all aspects of American's freedom and life.

So what did/does congress do instead doing their duty as defined by the Constitution, they unconstitutionally turn their “powers” over to the executive branch by either passing laws or establishing cabinet posts.

Antiquities Act of 1906

This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

The key word is owned, did or has the Federal government paid any state or did any state's legislature give its consent for this land to be taken or was it seized on the whim of the President with consent of congress in order to give federal government control over mineral, including oil and gas, exploration and production? As stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

“...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...” (My emphasis)

Or was this an early attempt for the “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (Page 26) or maybe “The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.” (Page 376).

Federal Communication Commission

Take a look at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which clearly says:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Once again people need to ask, does this clause say that congress can abdicate this power to the executive branch?

As with the Antiquities Act of 1906, congress willfully violated the Constitution to establish the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1934 to take over the duties that were handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” by working towards “six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security.”

The key words, in my opinion, is regulate interstate. Is this NOT the responsibility of Congress or is this a subtle way to establish “The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.” (Page 376)

There are some who will say, “This was passed under FDR and was needed because of the 'Depression'.”

Would someone please explain to me how government control of radio, telephone, radio and telegraphs (at that time in history) would help America to recover from the Depression.

Let's fast forward, this same FCC has and is working very hard to seize control of the internet through “Net Neutrality”. Again, where in the Constitution does a department within the executive branch have the right to regulate what a privately owned business can or cannot do?

Where in the Constitution does it give an agency, not even a Cabinet post to regulate international trade and or treaty? Is this not the jobs of the House and Senate?

Take the out of control EPA.

The EPA was established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, was established to protect both public health and public welfare by regulating the emission of air pollutants that could be (my emphasis) hazardous to the health of the Earth. The law set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in each state and continues to monitor the air quality through these standards.

Now, like all Americans, I know the need for clean air, but by passing this law it, in my opinion, allowed congress and the states to turn over their control of interstate and intrastate commerce to an agency headed by an unelected official, who is not even a cabinet head.

Later in 1972 congress passed the Clean Water Act in order to regulate the water quality standards. This includes navigable waters and any connecting water, including coastal waters, lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands and now mud puddles.

Again, congress and the states unconstitutionally abdicated their right and duties as defined by the Constitution to the executive branch.

These are just a few of instances where Congress and the States have basically violated the Constitution in favor of a centralized government. (SPOILER ALERT! On going in depth project research on this in work for posting later)

So I have to say to Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council and M's Schlafly, who are calling the TPP “another power grab” and pointing out the abdication of congressional powers to the executive branch.....

No Chit Sherlocks: Where have YOU Been? 

Semper Fi!

Further information can be found in:

Undermining the Constitution by Thomas James Norton

The Federalist

Federalist No. 9 - The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, page 38

Federalist No. 47 - The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained, pages 249 – 55

Federalist No. 51 - The same subject continued, with the same view, and concluded, pages 267–72

Federalist No. 66 - A further view of the constitution of the senate, in relation to its capacity, as a court for the trial of impeachments, pages 342– 44 

Federalist No. 71 - Concerning the constitution of the president: a gross attempt to misrepresent this part of the plan detected, page 371

Federalist No. 73 - The same view continued, in relation to the provision concerning support, and the power of the negative, pages 379 – 384

Federalist No. 75 - The same view continued, in relation to the power of making treaties, pages 387–90

Federalist No. 78 - A view of the constitution of the judicial department in relation to the tenure of good behaviour [sic], pages 402–408

Federalist No. 81 - A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the distribution of its authority, pages 418–419

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!