By Jeff M. Lewis, September 23, 2021

If you’re thinking that Biden’s policies are destroying America, you’re right. And the worst part is that this is exactly what Democrats want.

Richard Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven were both Columbia University professors and long-time members of the Democrat Socialist Party. They were the authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy (paraphrased from Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia):

Overload the American public welfare system and create a crisis that will bankrupt the nation, leaving no choice but to adopt a socialist/communist system of government.

In addition:

The ultimate objective of this strategy is to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income.

There is ample information available via internet searches to validate the Cloward-Piven strategy as I have characterized it above. The essential takeaway is that the goal is to collapse the government and financial systems of the United States and then rebuild the United States into the ever-sought but never-achieved socialist utopia.

Perhaps the best thing about Barack Obama being elected President and serving two terms, along with Democrats’ deranged reaction to Donald Trump’s election is the radicals are no longer in hiding. They are now saying out loud, in public and in broad daylight, things that nobody in Bill Clinton’s administration would ever have said or admitted. Now, we can clearly identify the enemy in plain sight, who is not just inside the gate but entrenched throughout our vital national institutions.

These radicals are not slowing down, they are “pedal to the metal” and accelerating. Time is critical. We must resist them at every opportunity, locally and nationally, and let them know we will not shirk our duty to stand for Freedom.

Here is a short list of what they are doing to wreck the country (keep looking, and you will find there are more).

Big-Government Socialized Healthcare

Nearly every network evening news and local news broadcast begins with a “COVID-19 Update” and another sales pitch to get the vaccine or to scare and shame the unvaccinated. Government health agencies and bureaucracies focus only on vaccines of waning effectiveness, and that is killing people. Still, they insist we must get vaccinated or we’ll get lockdowns, masks, and every other mandated measure they can think of.

The installed administration is now exerting top-down control of preventative medicines and is aggressively seizing monoclonal antibody treatments from states that use them to distribute “equitably” to states that don’t.

It’s all meant to make us do as we are told, and it proves the long-held assertions among conservatives that socialized medicine equals rationing of medicine and care, and lets the government decide who lives or dies.


Politicizing the Military

The United States Armed Forces and those who currently serve (or have served in the past) have been a perennial source of pride for Americans. The military has been one of America’s most well-respected institutions. In less than seven months, the installed regime has revealed just how politicized the military leadership has become. It is an understatement to say that the retired military community views with grave concern the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the reports of the “back channel’ communications General Milley had with his Chinese counterpart, and the purge of any officer in leadership who expresses a sincere concern for the “social justice” initiatives currently being taught.

Mr. Douglas Murray, a British political consultant commented on Tucker Carlson’s show recently that once you begin to politicize an agency that’s meant to represent the whole country, that’s a terribly self-destructive move.

Bingo! That’s exactly what Democrats intend: destroy the country by making its citizens unwilling to serve and unwilling to defend it.

Resist. The entire retired Veteran community needs to be heard on all of this as well.

Open Borders

Since the installed regime’s illogical, reflexive, and disastrous (some say illegal) repeal of every measure the Trump administration enacted to secure the border, the situation has continually degraded before our eyes (at least when the news media honestly reports what is happening).

The evidence of the humanitarian crisis is overwhelming: the number of illegal aliens found dead on South Texas brush country ranches has increased; fatalities on the border states’ roads and highways have also risen from illicit human traffickers’ attempts to evade border protection or law enforcement officers and the human toll exacted on those who cross the border, endure the elements, and face over-crowded processing facilities is impossible to calculate.

None of it is compassionate, and none of it is for the illegal aliens’ welfare because unknown numbers have become indentured servants to the criminal enterprises that brought them to the United States. They will likely never know freedom. The Democrat party, its apparatus, and the installed administration all want to change America’s demographics to have more “voters” who are dependent on government largesse and will vote Democrat, cementing its permanent political power. It is a sickening subjugation of the rightful, legal citizens of the United States.


Politicizing and “packing the Court”

What leftists have never been able to do is legislate a radical transformation of the United States. Their strategy has been to infiltrate the legal/judicial system and to seat as many anti-American activist jurists in the judicial branch of our government.

These activist judges, once in place, legislate from the bench to support America’s radical transformation, enabling the government to intercede where the Constitution draws specific limits, stripping citizens of their constitutional rights, and granting rights unknown in centuries of Anglo-American legal precedent. These activist judges will be sure any legal challenge to the constitutionality of their agenda will fail.

Their attempts to “pack the court” are an attempt to legislatively re-structure the court system in a manner that enables them to install new judges or replace active judges with those who support their leftist transformation of America.


Voting Rights Legislation

The inestimable, inimitable, and transformative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said of the Democrat party (and I’m paraphrasing from memory):

Democrats do not want to have to win your vote. They do not want to have to compete in the arena of ideas nor do they want to have to win elections. Keep a sharp eye, because they want to eliminate elections as they are currently held in the United States, and they want to remove any chance they will not win elections. They only want the political power necessary to be able to exert as much control of you as they see fit.

Rush would tell his listeners, “Don’t doubt me.” Do not doubt that Rush was right about the Democrats’ radicalization and their aim to secure for themselves a permanent majority and permanent power in our government.

Their “Voter Rights” bill currently making its way through Congress has nothing to do with voter rights; it’s about legalizing every method of cheating they used in the 2020 election. The current bill is an attempt to thwart the Constitution and the fifty states’ constitutionally derived powers to oversee their own elections.

Nothing the Democrat party or its leftist, social democrat politicians want to do is good for America. They run to the same old playbook, and none of it has ever worked, anywhere, or any time it has been tried.

We are at a turning point. Don’t let them win. Resist!

Jeff M. Lewis is a Christian, a husband and father, a Veteran, and a self-employed small business owner who resides in South Texas.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

JUNE 2021

By William Sullivan, May 9, 2021

By the time the Cola Wars really heated up in the 1980s, Coca-Cola had perennially enjoyed the upper hand over Pepsi in a rivalry that dated to the dawn of the twentieth century. In 1975, however, Coke began to feel threatened by Pepsi, due to a marketing ploy -- “the Pepsi Challenge.” It was a blind taste test to show that “more people preferred Pepsi over Coke.”

Interestingly, this wasn’t just a gimmick. Internal research at Coca-Cola confirmed that when the brand association was extracted from the equation, “consumers preferred Pepsi,” with its “sweeter, more syrupy flavor.”

In one of the most famous business decisions in modern history, Coca-Cola reacted to what they believed to be consumer sentiment in 1985. People were “in love with the notion of Coca-Cola, but they weren’t necessarily drinking Coca-Cola” to the extent they had been before. So, it changed the signature formula of the drink to taste more like Pepsi, with the new concoction becoming known as “New Coke.”

It was a move that has been described as both a “colossal business blunder” and an “unintended stroke of marketing genius.” Coke fans were immediately outraged, and Pepsi was delighted to be “The Choice of a New Generation,” a slogan that persisted into the 1990s. Coke was the past, and Pepsi was the future, my generation was told.

And yet, it simply didn’t work out that way.

The public backlash against Coke was fierce. Former employee and archivist Phil Mooney says that he couldn’t give “New Coke” away, with friends rejecting even samples, saying “give me the original Coke back!” What senior leadership didn’t understand at the time, he says, was the “deep psychological attachment people had to Coca-Cola. We heard stories about how Coke was with them on their first date, or during World War II.”

Ed Hays, now the Chief Technical Officer of Coca-Cola, recalls that “New Coke also showed that people craved -- and still crave -- a degree of certainty, familiarity and comfort in a world that changes so quickly and so dramatically.”

Within three months after the launch of “New Coke,” the original formula, known as “Coca-Cola Classic,” was reintroduced, and it took the world by storm. People wanted to “taste the beverage again,” and not “just feel good about” the Coca-Cola brand, writes Becky Little at History.

In 1985, Coca-Cola executives opted to alter the company’s product to satisfy what they believed to be the progressive tastes of Americans. In the end, it was Americans’ loyalty to the company’s corporate brand that saved them from its executives’ decision to make sweeping changes to its product for the sake of perceived “progress.”

There’s still a clear leader in the space of sugary soft drinks, and it remains Coca-Cola. But as Daniel Greenfield observes at FrontPage Magazine, Coke currently owns “a majority share of a declining market.” To address this crisis, Coca-Cola’s current executives have opted to alter the corporate brand in order to satisfy what they believe to be the progressive political desires of Americans, and it doesn’t appear that there is even a remote possibility that Americans’ loyalty to the product alone could ever save Coke from this stupid decision.

North America may be the biggest soft drink market in the world, but consumption of the sugary stuff has been on a steady decline in recent decades, and none are drinking less of it than the demographic that Coke is desperately trying to reach with its recent political posturing.

As anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to American culture should easily recognize, it’s not effete, health-conscious, coastal leftists that have been bolstering Coke’s market capitalization these past decades. But somehow, is it possible that internal corporate research has suggested to a few poor decision-makers at Coca-Cola that its embarrassing prostrations toward effete coastal leftists are the path to more people drinking Coke?

I have difficulty believing that. More likely, as Daniel Greenfield observes, Coke is destroying the pro-America brand association that it had been building for over a century because “it’s afraid” of the political forces aligning against it.

And who can blame them? Democrats like Michael Bloomberg in New York have been arguing for government-imposed limitations on sales of large-size sodas for over a decade now. Blue states like California tax soft drinks so highly that one can’t help but buy fewer of them, regardless of the taste. And it really doesn’t matter which cola company gets a contract with AMC Theaters or Cinemark next year, because the same people who think your soft drink should be smaller and taxed more heavily by the government are also the people who think that you shouldn’t be allowed to sit next to others in the movie theater if there’s an immeasurably small fraction-of-a-percent chance that someone may get sick by your doing so.

And yet, Coca-Cola abandoned its brand, signifying its woke virtues in order to forge an alliance with that group of people?

In February, Coca-Cola announced a quota for attorneys it would hire, saying that 15-percent of billable hours of service would be provided by “black attorneys,” which is larger than their demographic representation in America. Then, famously, employees at Coca-Cola were encouraged, on company time and the company dime, to “be less white,” which ostensibly means to be less “defensive,” “arrogant,” and “ignorant.” Most recently, the company injected itself into American politics in a manner that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. Coke openly aligned itself with the Democratic Party, spreading propaganda on its behalf in order to signal its opposition to Georgia’s legislation meant to protect election integrity in future elections.

This isn’t the 80s. This time, the degree to which Coke has offended its consumers runs much deeper than our taste buds. Back then, American consumers forgave Coke for its mistakes, focusing on the brand and the fond memories. This time, the schism between Coke and its once-loyal consumers seems much more permanent. One reader’s comments at The Daily Wire stand out:

I have collected Coca Cola memorabilia for many, many years. Since I was a kid. I found them to be very Americana, and looking at my collection always gave me a sense of home. I packed everything all up last month. It was not a great feeling.

He’s not alone. According to a Rasmussen poll, 37-percent of Americans are less likely to buy Coca-Cola products due to the company’s recent political stance. This is counterbalanced, some might suggest, by 25-percent who say they’re more likely to buy Coca-Cola products due to that stance.

However, consider what this means. A smaller number of Americans, who probably don’t really like drinking Coca-Cola at all, happen to love the new Woke Coke’s politics -- though they still likely hate all their corporate profits, and wish that politicians would limit or eliminate sugary drinks as a consumer choice, for the sake of public health. A larger number of Americans probably love Coca-Cola’s American history and the brand, have been loyal customers for years and would prefer that consumers, not government, should decide Americans’ beverage preferences -- but will henceforth avoid buying Coca-Cola products, or even displaying its memorabilia, wherever possible.

Coca-Cola can fire the people responsible for pitching the stupid ideas behind its recent wokeness, as it has, but it’s hard to imagine an outcome where Coke finds anything close to the soft landing that its good fortune, and red-blooded Americans’ goodwill, provided it back the 1980s.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

MAY 2019

By William L. Gensert, March 15, 2019

The Democratic Party is no longer a political party; it has become a religion. Its acolytes practice politics with every bit of the religious fervor of Islamic militants throwing a gay man off the roof of a ten-story building because Sharia tells them it’s what he deserves. Make no mistake, every day, our new socialists fight for the right to do the same to us.

After driving two hours to vote against Sandy O, I was told my ballot would be challenged because my signature didn’t match from when I registered as a Conservative in 1976. I offered to show ID, which only engendered anger. ID is not allowed -- too reminiscent of using Voter ID to weed out illegal voters. Of course, the real reason for the challenge was the “C” next to my name. The poll lady was not about to allow a conservative to vote. If they were willing to do that in an election they were guaranteed to win, what will they do next year? 

Democrats know Donald Trump will win in 2020 and are planning to cheat to deny him victory. These new socialists are importing a new electorate through open borders and have proposed legislation to allow illegals the vote. They stole seats in the midterms using ballot harvesting and miraculously appearing boxes of “uncounted” Democrat ballots and will do the same in 2020.
The midterms were a trial run for 2020. The left is organized and prepared. 

To have any chance, we must behave the way the left behaves, and that means we should take a page from the Democratic playbook. 

In 2008, there were members of the New Black Panthers stationed outside voting locations. The right needs to do the same, and have people in place to document everything. Challenge them at the polls; challenge them outside the polls; challenge them every time we see them cheat; challenge every single vote if need be. Sue them in court over every irregularity, otherwise, they’re going to deny enough ballots, harvest enough votes, or find enough in trunks of cars to win. We will need to fight for a fair 2020 election, or they will steal it.

The media was always biased, but at least they used to pretend that they weren’t. After Obama’s election, they dispensed with all pretense and worshipped the man as a god. Now, they worship the Democrats’ socialist ideology. Every article either praises the left or pillories anyone who disagrees with them. 

The battle in the media is lost. We will never get fair and balanced coverage. Yet, if we have learned anything from Donald Trump, controlling the media doesn’t guarantee controlling the message. Part of the president’s success has been in dictating the narrative. By using Twitter, perhaps at times injudiciously, but at other times brilliantly, Trump has bypassed traditional media and gone directly to the people -- it got him elected and it can be used to fight the socialist takeover of this nation. Facebook, Twitter, comments on articles, and public activism are all weapons at our disposal.

We have allowed the Democrats using Antifa, Black Lives Matters, and SJWs dominion over the public square. We need similar tactics; there are far more of us than them, and in a battle against an army of pajama boys, we have the edge.
And we must be assertive not only vocally but physically. A group of men preventing Antifa/BLM/SJWs from pummeling dissenters will be on CNN 24/7 -- they will provide the platform because they will not be able to resist portraying the right as the aggressors. So of course, we need to travel in groups and record everything. Think what the left would have done to Nicholas Sandman had there not been video exposing their lies. 

Most importantly, we must never attack first; we are not them. Nietzsche said, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Never strike first, but certainly strike last; we don’t start, we finish.

But even if we can prevent them from stealing the election, it won’t be over. This is a battle for the soul of the nation, and they are not only trying to win elections, they seek to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into the next socialist utopia. They are pursuing us at every opportunity because for them to win they must get rid of us.

One need only look at their policies to see what is coming. Do we want to live in a world of unlimited abortion, before, during, and after birth? Should our children live in a nation without cars, planes, meat, and affordable electricity? Do we want our grandchildren to live in a world where a president has so corrupted executive agencies under his command they try to first steal an election and then depose his successor in a coup attempt based on lies bought and paid for by the likes of Hillary Clinton? Are we willing to let Democrats give illegals the same rights and benefits as citizens? Will we allow them to force those not directly responsible to pay reparations to those who didn’t directly suffer? Can we live in a country that has taken away our 2nd Amendment and 1stAmendment rights?

Donald Trump fights, but he’s one man. He can’t save us alone. If we believe the dream that is America is worth saving, we are going to have to fight, for if we don’t, America is lost.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

APRIL 2016

By James Mullin, March 29, 2016

These are interesting times. The United States stands ready to espouse a collectivism that its very founders were repelled by and that its citizens fought and died to defeat. Western Europe seems compelled to surrender itself to a religio-culture that its distant ancestors epically fought to a standstill over 700 years ago and then rolled back over centuries. Cultural and national mass suicide is now the cause célèbre in the West, toasted by academics and the media alike.

Consider the old saying "By their fruits shall you know them." This holds for civilizations and societies as well as individuals. Ponder what epic, game-changing accomplishments have been served up to humanity by Islam since, say, the 1500s. An "empire" that stretched from south Asia to north Africa! Yet no diseases cured. No architectural breakthroughs. No pivotal findings in astronomy, geology, or even art or music. And the last century saw an epochal vastness of wealth come into Islamic hands via the price of oil.

And what of the Soviet empire (from Siberia to East Germany) that spanned almost a century? Or the Chinese communist empire of almost a third of the Earth's population for over 70 years? Or of communism or collectivism in general? Breakthroughs in telecommunications? In energy? Medicine? Transportation? All, no. In literature, the greatest Soviet writer of the century, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, used the mass slavery of his culture as his central theme. How is that for a cultural talisman?

Now contrast this with the West, be it the United States or Britain or France, Germany, Italy, etc. Ironically, the current U.S. president is perhaps one of the West's great haters, and yet the U.S. and Europe have produced, over a similar span of time, the telephone, electricity, the internet, vaccination for over a dozen ravenous diseases, aspirin, recombinant DNA, the microchip, the transistor, the skyscraper, the automobile, the lunar landing, robotic surgery, fiber optics, atomic physics, the Hubble telescope, hybrid crops, jet travel, satellite communications, artificial joints, organ transplant surgery, and on and on.

With the tide-like advance of Islamic jihad and totalitarianism in general – Marx's or Mohammed's – over the last century, I find myself fearful not for my country or my religion, but for my species. To hand the Earth over to the subhumans who espouse all forms of hegemony is to plunge Homo sapiens into a dark age from which it may never arise. At a minimum you can say goodbye to any of the advances we hope are just now outside our grasp: cancer cured; plentiful, clean energy; Alzheimer's cured; malaria cured; interplanetary travel. They would be myths, not breakthroughs.

Look at the track record of these systems and societies and ask yourself: what advances can you really expect to come to fruition? If it is not a better implement to kill, I doubt that it is in these enemies of humanity's skill set to achieve.

Free men create. Free men dream. Enslaved men simply try to survive. The enslavers of men simply suck the lifeblood of the human spirit and give nothing back. Before it is too late, it is time for all men and women to honestly look at the fruits of what they espouse, and truthfully ask themselves: what good do they offer humanity? What has collectivism in its various malignant forms ever offered us?

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


By Bruce Walker, January 4, 2016

Orwell grasped the vital need for real history and he saw how those who lust for power will murder history as their first victim. Winston Smith, the protagonist in 1984, works in the Ministry of Truth and systematically destroys history so that no clues of its death can even be found. The virtual elimination of any parts of authentic history that might conflict with the prevailing and politically correct history warps our thinking, usually without us even being aware of our ignorance.

As one example, Turner Classic Movies on January 4, 2016 has a night of films about the Spanish Civil War. Virtually all the films are propaganda for the Popular Front; they portray the Nationalist side as illegitimate, brutal, and corrupt. Try to find a film that presents the Spanish Civil War in any other way.

History books, especially textbooks, are monolithic in describing that civil war. Any facts, any scraps of history that might make the case for the Nationalist side or might condemn the Popular Front have been relegated to the Memory Hole in the Ministry of Truth. Almost no one, if asked today, could even propose any arguments in support of Franco in that war, because most of us go our entire adult lives without ever having heard anything but the propaganda of one side in that war.

Yet the true history of that civil war, as reason might suggest in any civil war, presents a complex and morally ambiguous event. The Nationalists, for example, are routinely accused of overthrowing the legitimate "Republican" government of Spain, but the first free election in Spain with universal suffrage in November 1933 was a decisive defeat for the Popular Front.

That electoral defeat led to the February 1936 elections, the last elections before the civil war. The Nationalist side won the votes of 4.9 million Spaniards in the Cortes, while only 4.3 million cast votes for the Popular Front. Extreme gerrymandering gave the Popular Front a plurality, not a majority, of the actual seats in the Cortes. The Popular Front used its plurality to re-certify the election results (often before the election results had even been announced) to give the Popular Front eighty more seats, and a majority in the Cortes, that it had not won in the election.

As another example, the April 1937 attack on Guernica, made famous by Picasso's painting, is an icon of Nationalist malice, but there may well have not have been a massacre at all. Dorothy Thompson, perhaps the most important journalist in the world at the time and an honest opponent of the Nationalists, first reported Guernica as a massacre, but by June 2, 1937, she was cautioning in the New York Herald Tribune that much had been invented or exaggerated and that "[e]ven the question of the bombing or Guernica is not established to anything approaching general satisfaction."

Moreover, Spanish towns in Nationalist hands that were destroyed by the Popular Front field artillery or naval guns, and atrocities committed against women and children by the Popular Front, were accepted by almost everyone covering the Spanish Civil War, with some estimates of innocent Spaniards killed by the Popular Front as high as 500,000, or about six percent of the population of Spain.

The imaginary history of the Spanish Civil War routinely describes the Nationalists as "Fascist," though almost no Spaniards called themselves "Fascists" at all, which writers noted at the time. When the Second World War began, Franco allowed the French to inspect France's border with Spain, where there were no Spanish troops, so that France could concentrate on stopping Hitler. After France fell, Franco stayed out of the conflict when joining Hitler would have cost the British Gibraltar and the war. During the war, Franco intervened to save at least 40,000 European Jews from the Holocaust, according to three different books on the subject by Jewish scholars.

Franco's authoritarian, rather than totalitarian, rule accounted for the painless transition of Spain into a healthy democracy after his death. Spain was not free then, like Italy, but it was much freer than Poland. Franco, the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War, and his reign after the war were composites of good and bad.

All history, though, has been purged of any details that conflict with politically correct opinions. This means that the cadres of the left who seem so unhinged from reality can dwell in their universe of utter fantasy, because this contrived pseudo-history guides their hearts and minds.

Murdered history matters.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index


By Howard Houchen, August 8, 2011

An American Politburo has materialized before our eyes. Yes, our Congress is the result of a two-party system (those Rs and Ds) and, on the surface, doesn't fit very well with the one-party USSR system, but, let's look at those little pesky things called facts.

Administrative actions are already replacing legislative acts as the primary governance mechanism. Just examine the number of regulations emanating from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, etc, etc. Unelected officials (unaccountable to the citizenry) all around this land are producing laws we must abide by, or face some form of punishment, without ever coming under scrutiny by those we elect to represent our interests (and to protect and defend the constitution of these United States of America). By the way, governance is not government (as Americans know government). Governance is, very simply, rule.

Many large- and medium-sized cities in America have formed Councils on Sustainability, Councils on Urban Development, Councils on Transportation, Councils on Economic Development, and Council, after Council, after Council. Hmmm...most of these councils are appointed, not elected, here in America.

Just exactly what is a council? The Russian term for council is soviet. In the Council Union (the Soviet Union), rules were laid down by local soviets, regional soviets, and the national soviet. Notice there is no mention of a state council. Councils (Soviets) were responsible for regions. Regions did not have political boundaries so, for all intents and purposes, you had regional governance, outside the political structure, unelected and unaccountable.

Today we see many acts, via legislation and administrative rule, pushing for regionalism in America (for a more in-depth discussion of Regional Governance see: Soviets in America are real -- unelected councils -- and they are coming to a region near you.

The executive branch of our government has taken to surrounding itself with "czar" policy advisors (unelected, unaccountable appointees) and lobby interests who represent notions and desires other than those of the general citizenry. We are being held hostage to the "revolving door" Washington power-brokers. These folks conjure up memories of another piece of Cold-War-era vernacular: Nomenklatura. In good ole Council Russia the nomenklatura were the perk-getters of the Communist Party. American nomenklatura come from the vast apparatus that feeds off gaining influence over the decisions made by the unelected. Lobbyists, academic experts, and the bureaucrats who never have to worry about health insurance, retirement, or unemployment. Not to neglect the courtier corporations. They know the system and thus are able to negotiate government contracts for more of our tax dollars (that are worth less with each revolution of the earth around the sun). "Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI), Admiral Loy (former head of the Transportation Security Agency), George Tenet (former Director of the CIA), Frank Moss (former program manager for the State Department's E-Passport program), and many others who previously held key positions in the federal government all joined Viisage/L-1 as members of the Board of Directors or as paid employees of Viisage/L-1" (see Viisage/L1 is a Biometrics Industry giant.

On 01 August 2011, our federal legislators created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Congress (central-committee -- for those still following the analogy) created what has been dubbed the "Super-Congress" because, by its rationale, the urgency of America's deficit problem cannot await action by it as a whole body. Ladies and gentlemen, American government has created a Politburo!

The 8th Party Congress in March 1919 instructed the Central Committee to elect a new Politburo of five from its ranks; its formal role would be to decide on questions too urgent to await Central Committee deliberation. The Politburo soon assumed a major position in party and state administration, and it eventually came to overshadow the role of the Central Committee. Until mid-1990 it consisted of about 12-15 members. -Britannica

The intent and purpose of our founding principles have been overruled. Yes, each House of Congress can develop its own operating rules...but...these rules do not end with this Congress and they limit input from most of the elected representatives of the citizenry. Our politburo has virtually the same limits as the much-used commerce clause...none. Anything and everything can conceivably be construed as being conducive to deficit reduction policy and the sure to follow legislation to pursue that policy.

William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, published Toward Soviet America in 1932 to provide his thoughts on a blueprint for transforming these United States of America into a Socialist system. In 1958 W. Cleon Skousen published The Naked Communist to outline 45 goals for Communists in order to transform America. Michael J. Petro Jr., U.S. Navy veteran and writer, published Welcome to Soviet America, in 2010, to examine to what extent the outline and goals of Foster, Karl Marx, and W. Cleon Skousen have been implemented.

Do cvidaniya, Comrades!

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker:

Return to Index

JULY 2010

By Kevin Jackson, June 15, 2010

When slavery is implemented by force, it is certainly a despicable institution. But is it any less despicable when the slaves are there by choice?

The interesting point about slavery is that whether it's forced or voluntary, the master is responsible for the slaves. The master feeds, clothes, and cares for his slaves, some masters better than others. But masters also manipulate their slaves. Eventually, all slaves start to notice the dichotomy between their lives and the lives of their masters.

There is an urban legend of a slave owner named Willie Lynch who recognized that slaves needed to be controlled. In a purported speech he gave to slave owners in 1712, he laid out a strategy that he said would keep slaves (blacks) in check for three hundred years. This strategy of control replaced hanging rebellious slaves with using fear, distrust, and envy. Lynch supposedly said, "[D]istrust is stronger than trust and envy is stronger than adulation, respect, or admiration."

Another thing the likely fictional Lynch went on to say in his speech was,

Don't forget you must pitch the young Black male against the old Black male ... You must use the dark skin slaves versus the light skin slaves ... You must use the female versus the male ... You must also have your white servants and overseers distrust all Blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect, and trust only us.

Whether Lynch existed or not is unimportant. Whoever it was, the true author of this strategy was right in his approach for the continuing servitude of blacks and in establishing a slave mentality in our race. All that was subject to change is exactly who the master is at any given time.

Regardless of the time, however, one thing we do know is that the master was a man of means, and it doesn't matter how he came to financial prominence. The one obvious truism is that the master lived comparatively lavishly, and even more so because of his slaves.

Think of all you could do if you had the free availability of somebody doing your cooking, cleaning, running errands, sewing, watching your children, performing chores, and so on.

Then when the lean times came, you could occasionally loan out your slaves for barter or even to create extra income for your home. What an amazing life that would be! Your complete focus could be on personal or creative endeavors.

Are things much different today? Not really. I contend that the government is the 21st-century master -- new and improved. And the new Master has a monopoly on slavery. That monopoly on slavery has allowed for enough creativity in the government that all the government seems to occupy its time with is considering, "How can I get more productivity out of my slaves?"

During lean times in the old days, the master would work slaves incrementally harder and harder, providing them incrementally less and less. Longer work hours, cramped quarters, and leftover food, all for the slaves to live their lives of quiet desperation until the next day, and the next.

Slaves would finally become desperate with hunger. When the master ordered a pig slaughtered, the entrails, feet, hide, and head were all that didn't go to the master. Yet nothing went to waste, with slaves eating everything on a pig, "from the rooter to the tooter!"

Slaves ate pig's feet, skin (pork rinds), or "chitterlings" (pig intestine), while the master ate pork chops, pork steaks, and pork tenderloin wrapped in bacon.

For slaves, minutes dragged into hours that limped lazily into days, weeks, and months, as they slowly developed the "slave mentality."

In my book, I described the worst kind of prison: the prison of the mind. Slaves then and now are more captive than prisoners in SuperMax facilities -- because the prison of the mind has no need for walls or guards. Escape is as simple as walking away, yet few people leave.

There is little argument that blacks are the biggest sufferers of the slave mentality today. Most blacks believe the government will take care of us from the cradle to the grave. What they don't know is that the government carefully guards that ratio of black votes versus black sycophants, employing stealth weapons like placing abortion clinics mainly in black neighborhoods, ignoring crime in black neighborhoods, and essentially ushering blacks to prison.

The government has not forgotten the lesson of the Willie Lynch, pitting black liberals against black conservatives. Use fear, distrust, and envy.

Many think that the "slave mentality" is for only blacks or the poor, but they are wrong. How many things are all Americans conditioned to accept without question or protestation? Once you buy your home, the government demands a property tax, and you have been conditioned to pay it. Is there a time when enough taxes have been paid, and you can own your home outright?

Perhaps we have willfully accepted illegal immigration, only now getting to point of making it an issue thanks to Arizona. Perhaps all but Arizona have bought into the new terminology of "undocumented worker." Do all illegal immigrants work? Are some of them undocumented criminals or even undocumented terrorists?

One could educate oneself out of the slave mentality if it weren't for the fact that we begin acquiring the slave mentality in government schools.

It is mandatory that children attend school in America, with only a small percentage of kids who opt out of government schools in search of alternatives. Still, our master takes tax money from all and gives it to the 70% of the students who attend government schools. The schools get paid by the master for attendance, not results. So attendance is enforced, but results are dismissed as arbitrary. Everybody passes; just show up.

In our slave mentality, we have become comfortable with the idea that the fox is guarding the henhouse. Teachers control the schools through their unions. Our tax dollars pay the salaries of teachers, who pay money to their unions, who lobby for the rules. Circular dysfunction.

The 30% of the kids who are not educated in government schools get none of the funding, yet ironically produce the best results! Yet, our master laments, if only he had more of our money.

Americans have all been enslaved little by little for many years. There can be no doubt that the federal government is the new slave master, something the Founding Fathers warned us against.

We have all made the unconscious choice to be slaves. Now the question is, can we make the conscious choice to leave the plantation and truly become our own masters?

If we can, then 2010 will truly be Emancipation II -- the year everybody gets freed!

Kevin Jackson is a best-selling author of The BIG Black Lie. Follow Kevin at
Page reprinted from the American Thinker:

Return to Index



It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy." Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another.. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "free man" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin© 1999-2009.. PRAVDA.Ru. When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors. Originally published April 27, 2009.

Return to Index


By James Simpson, November 23, 2009

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly and now Mark Levin.

The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America and taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May, 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.

The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the Strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations but most notably the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.

As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system which ACORN then exploited.

ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.

The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then vote reliably Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.

It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

The real goal of "healthcare" legislation, the real goal of "cap and trade," the real goal of "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to government control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves, except in their ability to deliver power, and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.

This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Barney Frank said "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."

These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.

It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws, and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so - the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.

Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his/her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we win competent, principled leaders willing to defend our constitution and our country. Otherwise the malevolent cabal that occupies the seat of government today will become too entrenched.

After that all bets are off.

Businessman and columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

Page Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: at November 23, 2009

Return to Index



On January 2, 2001, the Wall Street Journal published an article in which a 27-year-old Finnish Internet entrepreneur and newspaper columnist, Jaako Rytsola, was featured.  He was stopped while cruising in his BMW one evening for going 43 miles an hour in a 25 mile-an-hour zone.  He was fined $71,400 in October, 1999.  He was stopped again in August for zigzagging in downtown Helsinki and fined another $44,100.

In the Socialist state, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver's income.  The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades.  When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor.  "This is a Nordic tradition," says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior.  "We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments.  So the more you earn, the more you pay."

While this system has been used for some time, the fines were calculated on the basis of the honor system.  The miscreant would tell the police officers what their current gross income was and by consulting a book of tables, the fine would be calculated.  The problem was that the violators lied. 

Recently, the Finnish government made some major changes, including basing fines on net income and providing the police with cellular phones.  Now the officers can tap into official tax records and learn within seconds a driver's reported income and the corresponding fine.  This change has resulted in the kind of fines featured above.

Return to Index



An editorial in the May 28, 1999 The Detroit News by Barrett Kalellis spoke of the current issue of an alumni magazine published by the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts which featured a story celebrating the 25th year of the school's Women's Studies Program.

While the magazine attempts to portray this program as an outstanding success, the course descriptions show that the offerings are a thinly disguised socialist political agenda, using history as a cudgel. Noting how politicized American universities have become with the entrenchment of the left, Kalellis notes that "women's studies resembles not so much a course of higher learning as it does a secular cult. . . . (U)nder the tutelage of feminist gurus with ideological axes to grind, [women] are suckled on the bitter fruit of propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Once weaned, they too often begin their lives with a lopsided view of society, a resentment of men and an unhealthy reliance on political activism, government and the courts to remedy what they were told are grave social injustices."

She concludes: "That the University of Michigan . . . has surrendered so many of its departments over to this pseudo-intellectual claptrap should be a cause for alarm, not only for students, but also for taxpayers and alumni who in earlier years were actually able to get a good, well-rounded education in Ann Arbor."

Return to Index



On June 13, 1999, the European Union (EU) countries counted the votes for the European Parliament (EP). Reuters reported on June 14 that the EU's mostly left-leaning governments have suffered "body blows" from the bloc's voters who swept the center-right into dominance in a new EP. The center-right European People's party sharply gained seats, upstaging the Socialists for the first time.

In Britain voters gave Conservatives 34 seats to Tony Blair's Labour Party's 26. In Germany, Christian Democrats claimed 48.7% of the country's seats while Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats polled just 30.7%. In Italy, the center-right bloc led by Silvio Berlusconi won 31 seats to Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema's Socialists' 17.

In national voting held at the same time, Belgium's center-left government suffered a humiliating defeat and Luxembourg's socialists seemed likely to lose their places in the next coalition government. Scandal-stained Jacques Santer, head of the European Commission forced to resign in March by the EP's most impressive show of power to date, won a seat in the new assembly as a Christian Democrat from Luxembourg, where he used to be prime minister.

In Britain and Germany, Blair and Schroeder had emphasized the "Third Way" of governing patterned after Clinton and the "New Democrats".

In Britain, the Conservatives had centered their campaign on keeping the pound sterling rather than swapping it for the euro as Blair hopes to do.

Schroeder was quoted as saying, "It would be wrong to deny this is a bad result."

Return to Index

JUNE 1999


Back in the 1880's, the federal government established a program for carving up millions of acres held communally by Indian tribes and reservations into individual parcels, between 80 and 160 acres each, explained the Chicago Tribune in an editorial dated March 13, 1999. As one U.S. Department of Interior official explains now, the purpose was to teach Native Americans about private ownership and "make them more like white people."

However, unlike private property owners, the federal government kept the new titles in individual trusts for the Indian owners but no system was ever set up to keep track of the parcels. This is particularly important since the government leased some of these parcels to third parties for commercial purposes such as forestry or mining, and the number of heirs multiplied over the years.

It was a suit for an accounting of the funds due to individual Indians which led to the contempt citation of both Secretaries Bruce Babbitt and Robert Rubin. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) records are in such a mess that audits of just two decades of the trust accounts revealed that $2.4 billion in funds are not accounted for and the total federal liability could reach $10 billion.

An example of the problems created by this "communistic" ownership system is taking place in the Indian lands in northeast Arizona. An article in the Christian Science Monitor of Jan. 26 1999 explains the history of the area known as Big Mountain, Arizona.

In 1882 the U.S. created a reservation for Hopi and other Indians and set it within the much larger Navajo reservation -- total lands, about 2.5 million acres. There was no difficulty between the groups who lived together in the an area known as the "joint-use area" until the 1950's when one of the world's densest deposits of accessible coal was discovered under the area. Congress passed the Relocation Act of 1974 dividing the property between the tribes leaving about 12,000 Navajos were stranded on newly declared Hopi land and about 300 Hopi families were now on Navajo land. Many of these residents do not read, write or speak English. They generally live self-sustaining lifestyles herding sheep, weaving and dry crop farming without the benefit of water, electricity or any modern conveniences.

The Peabody Coal Company, which has leased the land pays the tribes about $40 million a year for the leases, money which is used by the tribal councils (which the residents of the area claim were established by Peabody) and, according to the Navajos provide 65 to 75% of the income of the Hopis.

The U.S. has spent over $400 million to forcibly relocate most of the residents, but about 1,500 to 3,000 remain. Many who have moved wound up homeless because of real estate fraud, expensive mortgages, and taxes they could not afford. Those who remain also claim that this has led to soaring rates of suicide, alcoholism, family break-up, emotional abuse and death.

On March 11, 1996 a federal judge issued a decision to revoke Peabody's mine permit. While they continue to operate under an interim permit, the decision states that Peabody's permit cannot be reinstated until the people living in the mining permit area either give their consent to Peabody to mine or relocate.

In 1996 the Congress got involved again and adopted a law, a 75-year Accomodation Agreement which was supposed to allow the Navajos to sign 75 year leases to stay on the land. However, the Navajo don't want to sign the leases which force them to acknowledge Hopi ownership and required permits for everything from the number of livestock they may own to what they can do to their homes.

It must be remembered that Peabody cannot strip mine the area while the residents live there, and while many in both tribes obtain substantial benefits from the Peabody payments, only the residents of the area suffer from the damage the mine does.

The 1996 Agreement also provides a $25 million incentive to the Hopis if they get 85% of the remaining families to sign or relocate. The BIA and local Hopi police have been removing the livestock on which the inhabitants depend for their survival to convince the Navajo to vacate these lands. They do this on the basis that these animals do not have the necessary permits. They also post eviction notices and threaten to burn the homes of the remaining residents. The Hopi have until January 1, 2000 to get the job done.

The late Barry Golwater who helped get the 1974 relocation law through Congress called the episode the biggest mistake of his career.

However, when people do not have individual rights to property, it is hardly surprising that those who have the power will take the benefit -- especially if the majority stands to win and a minority suffers the loss.

Return to Index



More than 50 Democrats in Congress are members of a policy group which is working with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the domestic branch of the Socialist International Party, CNS reported on November 11, 1998. For the complete story see

The website of the DSA,, indicates that this "Progressive Caucus" is working with DSA to promote, among other things, "economic redistribution" and "social and environmental justice."

According to the DSA website, the organization is "the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (also in Francais and Espanol). DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics. . . "

The Caucus is led by Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a declared Socialist who is often misidentified as an Independent. The three Michigan members who are identified on the website are: Reps. David Bonior, Lynn N. Rivers and John Conyers.

The website also identifies many organizations as sponsors of the "Progressive Challenge," including, but not limited to Americans for Democratic Action (self-identified as "the nation's oldest independent liberal political organization," Demilitarization for Democracy, National Organization for Women, National Council of La Raza, Children's Defense Fund, National Education Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and the AFL-CIO.

Return to Index



A trip to the Southwest of the United States is virtually impossible without some venture into the Indian Country. Much of the northern sections of New Mexico and Arizona and the southern parts of Colorado and Utah is covered with Indian Reservations. The largest of these is the Navajo Reservation consisting of 17.5 million acrea. There are approximately 210,000 people who live on the reservation.

Sections of property are allocated to families who are allowed to live on the property and build their homes there. While much of the Reservation has electricity, a great many of the homes are serviced by outhouses. Many of the structures are mobile homes. This is likely due in part to the lack of trees in this desert like setting.

According to a National Public Radio broadcast, over half of the adult males on the Reservation are unemployed and on welfare. Few jobs are available on the Reservation. Few small businesses exist. The reason, in large part, for the widespread poverty is the lack of venture capital available to the residents. They are unable to obtain loans for even the smallest startup costs for small businesses because they have no collateral. Because they own nothing, no creditor can count on any security for the loan. This means that normal commercial lending establishments can not make the loans because of regulations which require good and valuable collateral to be pledged for loans for the sake of depositors and to protect the viability of the lending institutions.

The lack of wealth of the residents of the Reservations precludes any major infrastructure development. The lack of infrastructures limit the ability of people who are able to get their hands on investment capital to succeed in growing large enough to hire many of their neighbors.

All largess is provided by the Federal Government -- "The Great White Father" -- through the Bureau of Indian Affairs or other specialized programs designed basically to maintain the residents at the poverty level. It is no wonder that those Indians who have been able have started Casinos. They have a commodity (the right to gamble on their sovereign lands) which is basically the only thing they can sell. For this right, outside investors are willing to invest and the tribal members, at least collectively, if not individually, have a possibility of obtaining capital which might ultimately be used to improve their lot, assuming that the tribal officials who handle the money are honest enough to dedicate it to the tribe's benefit.

Aren't you glad you have the right to own property? Don't you think it would be a great idea to follow the Constitutions of both the State of Michigan and the United States and protect private property rights? If there is any question about the benefits of private property ownership, go live in the Socialist Territorities of the United States for a while and get it out of your system.

Return to Index



In the summer issue of Rising Tide, the RNC magazine, Jim Nicholson features an article by Balint Vazsonyi (BAH-lint VAH-zhon-yee) which raises serious issues about the direction in which this country is heading. Mr. Vazsonyi, a concert pianist, journalist, author, was born in Hungary and had the dubious distinction of living under both the Nazis and the Soviets before he came to this country in 1959. His recent book, America's Thirty Years War: Who is Winning? (Regnery Publishing) deals with his life experiences which seriously raise the question of whether "liberalism" or "progressivism" are just other names for socialism.

He documents how America's founding principles of rule of law, individual rights, guarantee of private property rights, and a common American identity are being gradually replaced by government mandated group rights, redistribution and multi-culturalism.

In the European model, in contrast, intellectuals essentially teach that man can create utopia, in which everybody would be equal, but what they mean is that everybody would be the same. This is exemplified by Vazsonyi's observations when he first arrived in the U.S. He states:

In the past thirty years, well-meaning people, in an effort to rectify some of America's problems have looked to the Europen models which always divide humanity into groups, oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited, Jews and Aryans. One group is pitted against the other; one is "bad", one is "good". The "good" groups are taught that it is alright to hate the "bad" groups or anyone who disagrees with them.

To accomplish the noble socialistic goals, an increasing number of laws are passed which restrict individual freedoms to achieve "social justice" -- everyone ends up with the same slice of the pie regardless of ability or effort. This results in destruction of property rights so that redistribution is possible.

Vazsonyi believes that it is not too late to save America from the Socialist dream, but one of the first steps is stop the linguistic double-talk and call the "liberal" and "progressive" Democrats the Socialists they are. The debate can then honestly take place between the two possible futures America can have -- and let the year 2000 be the year for choice -- Socialism or Freedom?

To read the entire article go to the website: or call the RNC Radio Hotline: (202) 863-8550.

Return to Index

Go to Our Main Page Legislation, Lawsuits, Items of Interest Look for Past What's New Articles Fill out a Membership Application
Search our Website Meeting Information Some Interesting Links Send us an E-Mail