The Forgotten Right

[SOCALHUSKER]

The Forgotten Right

 

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and

that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If

'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be

made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

- John Adams (1787)[1]

 

It is starting to become apparent to even the most disinterested observer that something much

bigger than even a worldwide recession is happening. The seeds of revolution have taken root.

Iceland led the way by taking to the streets to force regime change through peaceful demonstration.

The French are currently protesting en masse against their government's bailout of the banking

system. One would be naive to think that these are isolated incidents. It is apparent that these are

just early warning signs of a worldwide cauldron that is about to boil over, catalyzed by the financial

and economic cataclysm that will plunge untold millions into poverty and desperation.

While I applaud the peaceful demonstrations going on in France and Iceland, I also recognize that

they are premature. As did Americans in the last election cycle, these Europeans are demanding

"change." However, also like Americans in the last election cycle, they have failed to first answer

the crucial questions, "From what? To what?" They have not looked within to assess who they are,

what their society is, and what they want it to be. Therefore, they run the risk of simply replacing

one oppressive tyranny for another.

 

Likewise, we will never regain our freedom in America until we address the fundamental problem in

our society. I say "the problem," because at the root of all of what we perceive as a myriad of

problems, including the police state, the welfare state, the warfare state, the military industrial

complex, the Wall Street oligopoly, the high cost of healthcare and education -- everything -- there is

one philosophical problem that ultimately leads to them all: the repudiation of property rights.

It is likely difficult for most 21st century Americans to absorb this statement, based upon the fact

that they have been told now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft." However, let us look back at the

philosophers who inspired our founders and see what they have to say about property. Of course,

as I have written here, the primary philosophical basis for the American Revolution came from

Locke. What did Locke have to say about the purpose of government?

 

"The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves

under government, is the preservation of their property.[2]"

 

Certainly this statement must be startling to most 21st century Americans, who believe that they are

supposed to look to their government to fight unemployment, manage the economy, ensure access

to healthcare, promote democracy abroad, and pursue a myriad of other ends outside of protecting

property. Surely, Locke has over-emphasized property rights here, has he not? Certainly he is

alone in his simplistic assessment of the role of government, is he not?

 

He is not. In seeking guidance on how to construct our government, the American founders also

looked to the ancients, particularly the Roman Republic. There, we find Cicero writing,

 

"For the chief purpose in the establishment of constitutional state and municipal governments was

that individual property rights might be secured. For, although it was by Nature's guidance that men

were drawn together into communities, it was in the hope of safeguarding their possessions that

they sought the protection of cities."[3] [emphasis added]"

 

The conditioned response of Americans today is to view these ideas as a defense of one class of

people at the expense of another. We have been trained to associate "property" as a concern of the

"property class," or in more common American terms, "the haves," as opposed to the "have nots."

This is a great deception that has lead directly to our ruin. In fact, it is the poor and those of modest

means for whom property rights are most important. It is they who, not possessing significant

material wealth, must all the more jealously guard the property that they do have. In the end,

however, we are all property owners when one considers the most fundamental, most important

property of all: our labor itself.

 

We learn from Locke that all property has its roots in labor. In order to survive, man must work to

produce the means of his survival. This is true for people no matter what their financial

circumstances. The doctor, the lawyer, the construction worker, the janitor -- yes, even the Wall

Street financier -- must sell his efforts to his fellow man in order to acquire the means of his survival.

Therefore, whoever has control over the individual's labor has control over the individual's life, and

control over the individual's future. If I steal all of your possessions, you can acquire more.

However, if I appropriate your labor, I own all of the property you can ever or will ever acquire. This

is an undeniable reality that we have lost sight of, to our peril.

 

America was founded upon the idea that each individual had an unqualified right to the fruits of his

labor.[4] This more than anything was what the founders meant when they spoke the word "liberty."

It was the extent to which this right was respected that made America different than every other

society in history, before or since. This was the great secret that made America the engine of

prosperity and innovation that it was. This is what made America the land of opportunity to change

one's lot in life. It was this right that gave birth to the American dream.

 

However, we no longer hold this right up above all others. Instead, we have become a society that

is based upon competing groups seeking to plunder each other via the force of government. The

rich plunder their neighbors with corporate bailouts, subsidies, and regulatory fascism. The middle

class plunder their neighbors with Social Security, Medicare, and criminal unions. The poor are

forced to accept legal plunder that they do not want and which provides them with the most

miserable quality of life, when the stolen capital that underwrites it could employ them all if it weren't

seized from its rightful owners. Of course, these examples are only the tip of the iceberg; there is

much, much more. Virtually every political movement in America is based upon a promise to

provide its followers with other people's property.

 

This scenario is neither unprecedented nor has it been unrecognized by the great lights of liberty.

Bastiat wrote,

 

"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized

by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by

peaceful or revolutionary means - into the making of laws. According to their degree of

enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when

they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish

to share in it.[5]"

 

This vision of Bastiat's has become reality in America. However, it cannot go on forever.

Fortunately for humanity, a society based upon legal plunder is ultimately unsustainable. Just as

respect for property rights provides the means to prosperity, violation of them leads to poverty and

want. As force replaces voluntary exchange, productivity decreases, and subsequently more force

is required to plunder even more. This cycle repeats until society is reduced to an authoritarian

nightmare, the first signs of which are becoming apparent in the former "land of the free." If the

people wake up, the nightmare can end. If they continue to slumber, the nightmare can get much,

much worse.

 

This is the great truth that we must rediscover before any revolution can be successful. Before we

commit to "change," we must answer the questions, "From what? To What?" The answers to those

questions must be "from a nation of looters to a nation of free individuals who acquire property in the

only civilized manner: via voluntary exchange." We must reject the use of force as the means to

pursue our happiness, and renew our faith in freedom. Once this great work has been

accomplished, let the revolution begin.

 

Notes

[1] Adams, John A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

(1787)

[2] Locke's Second Treatise Ch. IX, Sec. 124

[3] Cicero, Marcus Tullius De Officiis Book II Chapter XXI

[4] "Individuals" who were included in the system. Of course, the founders recognized but did not

remedy the obvious contradiction to this inherent in slavery.

[5] Bastiat, Frederic, The Law

[strigori]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

[SOCALHUSKER]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

I didn't get that at all from his writing. What he is championing is the ability of citizens to keep what is rightfully theirs, but first changing our outlook on what property truly is. He never once mentioned that property is theft. Rather, he stated that most with socialist or collectivist view points, meaning our welfare state, tend to shift the blame of oppression or poverty from the true root of the problem, governments disregard for property/freedom, on to those who hold something of value. He is correct in that statement. If he was not, we wouldn't see people blaming capitalism for the mess our country is currently in and each of us most certainly wouldn't be forced to turn over 1/3 of the fruits of our labor to fund government programs that promote laziness and reward failure.

 

I hate to bring it to you, but yes, we do live in the society he is writing about. Ever heard anyone mention redistribution of wealth? I can't think of any other way that can be done except to take from one man, that which is rightfully his, and give it to someone else, with whom it does not rightfully belong. You can sugarcoat it anyway you want, but that is theft.

 

Yes, we are a society of consumers as you have stated, but we are also a society of debt. How many people actually own anything they buy? I'd like to think the majority do, but the facts on record debt in this country would say otherwise. We live in a society where people are under the impression that if somebody owns something nice, we all are entitled to the same, and that just isn't true. The sooner we realize this and change the way we think about personal property and individual rights and responsibility, the better off we will be both socially and economically.

[rawhide]

Whoa,

 

Are you saying people should be responsible for themselves, and shouldn't blame others for their own misfortunes or failure? nah never work

 

I have no problem paying my own way through life.

 

 

GBR

[HuskerJen]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

[strigori]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

[SOCALHUSKER]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

 

Nobody said Communism, it's called Socialism and it doesn't work!!

[HuskerJen]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

 

1. I can't believe how badly you missed the point here.

 

2. I love how you stupidly assume I listen to Limbaugh.

[SOCALHUSKER]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

You left out a part. It's not those with the most need that will receive anything, just those the people in power need to keep happy in order to keep getting re-elected!! Either way though, it's still taking from the rightful owner and placing it with someone else who it does not belong. A text book definition of theft!!

[hosker]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

You left out a part. It's not those with the most need that will receive anything, just those the people in power need to keep happy in order to keep getting re-elected!! Either way though, it's still taking from the rightful owner and placing it with someone else who it does not belong. A text book definition of theft!!

 

 

 

reminds me of this pic of Ron Paul's office

 

[Chef K]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

 

1. I can't believe how badly you missed the point here.

 

2. I love how you stupidly assume I listen to Limbaugh.

Well do you? Or Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Weiner..........

 

I'd like to see some proof about Obama or Pelosi wearing red stars on their persons.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

 

1. I can't believe how badly you missed the point here.

 

2. I love how you stupidly assume I listen to Limbaugh.

Well do you? Or Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Weiner..........

 

I'd like to see some proof about Obama or Pelosi wearing red stars on their persons.

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

What is being championed is little more than chaos, and it would not surprise me to see the author start hoarding guns and building his own little fort to protect his property. And the whole argument is more or less void as it is rooted in the wrongly held view that:

 

"now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating

property is oppression, or even that "property is theft."

 

I'm not sure what alternate reality the writing is actually living in, clearly not the one I inhabit. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to that. And giving that the entire American culture is rooting in acquiring things, houses, cars, big screen tvs. And only those who would be decrying these things would be grouped into the category of 'hippies,' I'm not sure where he pulls that idea from.

 

Strigori,

 

Do me a favor, I want you to read the Communist Manifesto and then listen to Obama, Pelosi, etc give a speech. If you do this, over time, you'll begin to see exactly what the author is talking about.

 

Here's an example of what the author is talking about...

 

Okay. I'm a government agent and I'm coming for you. I'm taking your house, your car, your 52 inch flat screen HD television and all your other personal property and I'm going to redistribute those items to people who don't have them. Then, I'm going to take a look at what you make each month and then I'll decide what you should receive. Let's see, you make $4,500 per month so I'm taking 75% which equals $3,375. This means you'll have $1,125 for the month which is plenty for where you live. Then the $3,375 that I collect will be redistributed to others who have more of a need than you do.

 

Your example is absurd. A 3% change on income tax on the top 1% of wage earners, is a far cry from your example. And hardly Communist. Stop listening to the likes of Lembaugh and think for yourself. Nothing being done is communist. Communist is a scare word again. If you want to take a look at communism in action, look at Venezuela.

If we did things the neocon way(which is such a walk into hypocrisy considering neocons usually consider themselves Christians) we would have thousands of people starving to death, and dieing in back alleys from lack of medical care. So much better than medicare or foodstamps. Such is the price of living in a civilized nation.

 

1. I can't believe how badly you missed the point here.

 

2. I love how you stupidly assume I listen to Limbaugh.

Well do you? Or Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Weiner..........

 

I'd like to see some proof about Obama or Pelosi wearing red stars on their persons.

 

It's amazing how the above pundits have become the so-called "spokesmen" for the so-called "conservative" movement. As if Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter or Beck are any better then the leftist they try to bash. Instead of government intervention in support of welfare; Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter hypocritically express unwavering support for the warfare state and the fascism that comes along with it. If the Patriot ACT and our insurmountable foreign policy debt show us anything, it's that the warfare state may be an even bigger threat to our liberties than anything the socialist may bring to the table.

 

As for proof that Obama is pushing socialism, do I need to remind you of his infamous radio bit on the redistribution of wealth. In case you haven't seen it here it is.

[HuskerJen]

Well do you? Or Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Weiner....

 

I don't listen to ANY talk radio. I take an issue, I look at as many differing sources as I can and based on my research then I formulate my opinion based on my own intellect, reason and values. I sure as the hell don't need Limbaugh, Coulter, Obama, Pelosi, etc to tell me what or how to think.

 

And if you must know, I don't think there's a penny's difference between the republicans and democrats. They ought to simply drop the facade of being two different parties and simply merge into one party and call themselves the republicrats or the demicans.

 

I'd like to see some proof about Obama or Pelosi wearing red stars on their persons.

 

Do your own research because it's the only way you'll see the light. Read various socialist or communist materials and then listen to Obama, or any elite democrat give a speech. Over time you will see what I'm talking about.

 

I will give you this to consider...

 

 

On you tube there are countless videos you can see where Obama talks about socialism, government control and a myriad of other topics.

 

You need to read, and understand the Communist Manifesto first because then you'll have contect in which to put Obama's words.

 

And the republicans aren't much better. They get into power and they tax and spend equal to, and in some cases, exceed the democrats.

[rawhide]

what's a neocon? ok never mind I looked it up on wiki