I will love him and squeeze him and call him "Progressive Liberalism".

 “They think they have a better idea for what you need, as far as health insurance, than you do. That’s the root of it, this is Progressive Liberalism.” –Dana Perino

That’s true. And here’s the reason. Progressives look to those who are downtrodden as their army. They see them as those they can rally to their cause. Progressives tell them that THEY are their cause, but that is not true. Socialism’s rallying cry of “Power to the people” is alluring, but historically speaking- the first thing that is discarded once Socialism is implemented is “Power to the people”. Progressives (socialists, communists) don’t want people to have the power. They want to hand out power as they see fit. They want to hand out resources as they see fit. Prosperity as they see fit. Life as they see fit.

Progressives see themselves as the intellectual elite. No one is smarter than them. They can’t be wrong. It’s inconceivable to consider error associated with their ideology. So they deflect logic with cognitive dissonance (See MSNBC). Cognitive Dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. Perhaps you’d like an example? Sure… happy to help. The left is anti-Israel/pro-Palestine. They are also pro-gay. Palestine ain’t pro-gay. They string them up from cranes. Get it? “tonight on the TSA channel- 2 policies enter the death cage and only one will emerge victorious… Foreign V. Domestic!”

Now… don’t call progressives on this. #1 – they aren’t wrong. And #2 – you’re a racist.

Can you hear me now?

Don’t  take my word for it. You can ask my friend. He knows all about this stuff. He’s called History.

I hated history in school. Now I love it. Not because history agrees with my world view- on the contrary it shapes it. No I love history because I can learn lessons from it without having to go through the same trials other have gone through to learn. There have been many test beds for Socialism and Communism. If you THINK you are a socialist because its NEW and HIP, think again. Socialism is old news. It's as old as the Pharoahs. But time and time again it's implemented-- "this time it will be different"!  It is always an abject failure. They try to dress it up… but in the end, reality kicks you in the teeth.

            Russians thought they were seeing Potemkin villages—the term derives from Prince Gregory Potemkin, said to have built model villages to impress Catherine the Great on tours of her overextended domain—because that is how they prepared to receive important visitors in their own country: Clean up everything, put undesirable elements out of sight, show the best, and persuade visitors that what they were seeing was typical. Such suspicions reached to the highest levels of the Soviet government. When Soviet president Nikolai Podgorny visited Austria in 1966 and saw the bounty of Viennese markets, he remarked, "Look how well they set things up for my visit."

            Boris Yeltsin reacted somewhat differently to a Houston supermarket in 1989. He expressed astonishment at the abundance and variety of the products he saw, but in his autobiography Against the Grain he describes the experience as "shattering": "When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons, and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people. That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it."

            After Yeltsin visited that Houston supermarket, says Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "he became a reformer." Bill Keller, a former New York Times Moscow correspondent and now the Times's executive editor, sees Yeltsin's visit to the United States in even broader perspective: "The prosperity, the rule of law, the freedom and efficiency [Yeltsin] witnessed in America, catalyzed his notions about the fraud of communism."

Communism, Socialism, Progressivism. They are all frauds. They never lead to prosperity. Except for the elites.

Capitalism has the power to raise people above their station to greater prosperity.

Don’t take my word for it. Ask my friend.

The Leadership Principle

Cross Examination of Hermann Goering

[From "Eighty-Fourth Day, Monday, 3/18/1946, Part 16", in Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the
International Military Tribunal. Volume IX. Proceedings: 3/8/1946-3/23/1946. Nuremberg: IMT, 1947.]

[Testimony on 3/18/46]

THE PRESIDENT: Do the Chief prosecutors wish to cross examine?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You are perhaps aware that you are the only living man who can expound to us the true purposes of the Nazi Party and the inner workings of its leadership?

GOERING: I am perfectly aware of that.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON You, from the very beginning, together with those who were associated with you, intended to overthrow and later did overthrow, the Weimar Republic?

GOERING: That was, as far as I am concerned, my firm intention.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, upon coming to power, you immediately abolished parliamentary government in Germany?

GOERING: We found it to be no longer necessary. Also I should like to emphasize the fact that we were moreover the strongest parliamentary party, and had the majority. But you are correct when you say that parliamentary Procedure was done away with because the various parties were disbanded and forbidden.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You established the Leadership Principle, which you have described as a system under which authority existed only at the top, and is passed downwards and is imposed on the people below; is that correct?

GOERING: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like once more to explain the idea briefly, as I understand it. In German parliamentary procedure in the past responsibility rested with the highest officials, who were responsible for carrying out the anonymous wishes of the majorities, and it was they who exercised the authority. In the Leadership Principle we sought to reverse the direction, that is, the authority existed at the top and passed downwards, while the responsibility began at the bottom and passed upwards.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: In other words, you did not believe in and did not permit government, as we call it, by consent of the governed, in which the people, through their representatives, were the source of power and authority?

GOERING: That is not entirely correct. We repeatedly called on the people to express unequivocally and clearly what they thought of our system, only it was in a different way from that previously adopted and from the system in practice in other countries. We chose the way of a so-called plebiscite. We also took the point of view that even a government founded on the Leadership Principle could maintain itself only if it was based in some way on the confidence of the people. If it no longer had such confidence, then it would have to rule with bayonets, and the Fuehrer was always of the opinion that that was impossible in the long run-to rule against the will of the people.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But you did not permit the election of those who should act with authority by the people, but they were designated from the top downward continuously, were they not?

GOERING: Quite right. The people were merely to acknowledge the authority of the Fuehrer, or, let us say, to declare themselves in agreement with the Fuehrer. If they gave the Fuehrer their confidence then it was their concern to exercise the other functions. Thus, not the individual persons were to be selected according to the will of the people, but solely the leadership itself.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, was this Leadership Principle supported and adopted by you in Germany because you believed that no people are capable of self-government, or because you believed that some may be, not the German people; or that no matter whether some of us are capable of using our own system, it should not be allowed in Germany?

GOERING: I beg your pardon, I did not quite understand the question, but I could perhaps answer it as follows:

I consider the Leadership Principle necessary because the system which previously existed, and which we called parliamentary or democratic, had brought Germany to the verge of ruin. I might perhaps in this connection remind you that your own President Roosevelt, as far as I can recall-I do not want to quote it word for word-declared, "Certain peoples in Europe have forsaken democracy, not because they did not wish for democracy as such, but because democracy had brought forth men who were too weak to give their people work and bread, and to satisfy them. For this reason the peoples have abandoned this system and the men belonging to it." There is much truth in that statement. This system had brought ruin by mismanagement and according to my own opinion, only an organization made up of a strong, clearly defined leadership hierarchy could restore order again. But, let it be understood, not against the will of the people, but only when the people, having in the course of time, and by means of a series of elections, grown stronger and stronger, had expressed their wish to entrust their destiny to the National Socialist leadership.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The principles of the authoritarian government which you set up required, as I understand you, that there be tolerated no opposition by political parties which might defeat or obstruct the policy of the Nazi Party?

GOERING: You have understood this quite correctly. By that time we had lived long enough with opposition and we had had enough of it. Through opposition we had been completely ruined. It was now time to have done with it and to start building up.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: After you came to power, you regarded it necessary, in order to maintain power, to suppress all opposition parties?

GOERING: We found it necessary not to permit any more opposition, yes.

**************

Since most people who vote in this country are totally clueless, I say that in the nicest way possible, I’ll spell this out.

In congress, right now… there are about 7 or 8 conservative Republicans. All the others are stuck. Stuck between siding with the Rebel Alliance of 7 or 8 ---- or migrating to the left-center (until election time).

We call these others- RINO’s. Republicans in name only. They don’t hold with the ideals they once did. They are weak and then need to go. Badly.

In congress, right now… there are about 4 or 5 JFK democrats. All others are Communists.

NOW you are either really reading or preparing to stop reading. Oh… you are crazy. Another sucker who thinks there’s a communist conspiracy! Get a load of this clown.

I know some of you are thinking this… because *whispers* I used to be just like you.

And if you don’t know anything about politics or history and how the two mingled over the last 50 years… you’ll tend to disregard the rantings of, well, me.

But they can’t call themselves “communists”. So they call themselves “Progressives”.  See what they did there… they changed their name. brilliant. I know some still aren’t convinced and rightly so… I haven’t even started yet. But consider this…

There is a book. It has a dust jacket.

The book is Treasure Island.

The dust jacket says Treasure Island.

Now along comes someone and takes the dust jacket off and puts another one on the book.

The dust jacket says Curious George Rides Again.

What book is it? If all you look at is the dust jacket, you think it is Curious George Rides again.

And if you never look any closer, you’ll be tricked. 

They are counting on you know looking any closer. 

We’re nice: we’re called Progressives! Progress! Forward! Hope! Change! 

When you vote democrat now… you are not voting for Harry Truman or JFK Democrats.

Not even close. You’ve been duped.

Republicans aren’t much better… They mostly worship at the altar of re-election.

Every member of Congress and our President *swears* to protect the constitution.

I invite you to read the constitution.

I then invite you to tell me what member of Congress or if the president defends the constitution.

Go on… I’ll wait.

Here’s the deal. The one’s that do- are made to be demons in the media. You know who they are.

With the election cycle coming up again… be prepared from people to start tearing them down.

It’s started with Christie… and I’m glad- didn’t like him anyway.

He’s a bully. Like Obama. 

Obama passes Obamacare. Not one Republican voted for it and they didn’t need any of their votes.

Time and time again, he’s granted waivers. Time and time again, he’s delayed it- now to 2016 after the next 2 elections. Isn’t that strange? This wonderful law is so wonderful that they can’t enact it totally, because they know they’d be toast in those elections. 

AND- now the white house and the Justice Department say that you cannot, if you are a business owner, cut staff and hours because of Obamacare. If you make cuts to your staff or cut hours BECAUSE of Obamacare-  you will be prosecuted.  You have to swear to the DOJ and probably the IRS that you cut hours NOT because of Obamacare. 

*can’t have Obamacare looking like the reason for the decrease in hours – EVEN THOUGH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAYS THAT HOURS WILL BE CUT!!!!*

So the President can break the law, but if you try to augment your business model to absorb new taxes that affect your business- you will be prosecuted.  NEWSFLASH: That’s what businesses do. They try to keep their profits up. Now the Government is trying to force people to adhere to an unconstitutional law (I don’t care what the SCOTUS says) that is so bad that they have to delay its implementation to keep control of Washington. 

Get it? You better. 

Tyranny. This is what Kings do. 

To me… this is like trying to re-teach 2+2=4. 

It’s simple people. The Leadership Principle is being enacted here. Plain as day. Our President believes he can do whatever he wants. He lied before being elected (scolding Bush for all his executive orders) by writing his own at every whim. He lied after being elected (if you like your healthcare, you can keep it).

History is a great teacher. If you pay attention to it, it will impart great knowledge to you.

If you neglect the past, it will sneak up behind you and conk you on the head with the Frying Pan of Ignorance. 

It hurts. Trust me.

Man of Steel -- The Choice

People are talking about the ending of Man of Steel.

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT> STOP READING.

Go see it before reading this. Right now. It’s awesome. Take it from someone who’s read Superman comics for 30 years. I’m telling you, being happy with a Supes movie was a tall order for me. I walked out thinking the movie was Magnificent on almost every level. Loved it.

There is much going on in this movie. Some big ideas that you don’t really get the gravity of and discover the far-reaching implications of, until the end.

This is the problem with big ideas in a movie that is being viewed by people who were not ready for big ideas… they need time to think about it. Maybe another viewing.  They think about what they might have missed.

Kind of like taking a test that you thought you were ready for but when you get your paper back, your grade isn’t all you hoped it would be… you tear through the paper and try to find out what you missed. And WHY you missed it.

It could all come down to one question. One tiny aspect of the movie that you disregarded as just a plot Lilly pad --- instead of a plot stepping stone. Perhaps that one line of dialog was more important than you realized. Perhaps those words you overlooked, were meant to bear more of the weight of the plot than you realized… Words have meaning and power. Especially when they are used correctly.

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

This is one of the BIG ideas in this movie. So much of what happens is founded upon this.

Jonathan Kent tells a young Clark to find out who he is.

Jor-El tells an older Kal that he was the first natural birth in a very long time on Krypton. Thereby, giving him a release from what Kryptonians, for ages, have leaned on for assurance and structure. Kal would not be created for a specific purpose.

He would have the ability to CHOOSE.

It is this power of choice that is the ultimate crux of the most controversial moment in the movie.

Clark is faced with a choice.  In my opinion, an impossible choice. Neither is good. Some are mad that he made the choice he made. I wonder if, if they would be happier if he’d allowed to happen- what would certainly have happened, had he NOT acted? I think not. (that may not make sense, but go see the movie)

His opponent, General Zod, is not however a person with a  choice. He will do whatever he has to do to accomplish his goal in life. He was bred for one purpose. And one purpose alone.

Zod will kill humanity. He has stated as much.

Clark’s solution to the situation is to… SPOILER.

Just go see the movie.

It is this power of choice that this movie is ripe with. Some say it violates Superman’s character to accept the choice he made. I do not believe it does. He made a choice. He is pulled in 2 directions in this movie… between humanity and Krypton. There is a time when he doesn’t really like either choice.

Make no mistake. This is a big idea movie. Big idea movies stand up will to the years of scrutiny. I suspect this one will as well.

Well done, to all involved with Man of Steel.

Maximum Overdrive (the bad movie from '86) and a few thoughts on Guns

I’m gonna use this really bad movie to make a political point. If you have seen the movie, you probably remember the cheese that was the motion picture offering of Stephen King’s directorial debut. 

Did you see it? It was a long time ago… I remember watching it over at a friend’s house years ago… I was  a kid. His name was Jim Bob. Nobody names their kids that nowadays… I only mention it to prove it was a long time ago. For those of you that like numbers, it was 1986. So there. 

For those of you who never saw it—don’t. I’ll spare you the trouble with my concise plot explanation(and even this may hurt). In the near future, earth would pass into the tail of a comet, and then all machines start turning on the lifeforms present… Trucks kill people. Toy trucks kill dogs. Soda machines fire can drinks at the crotches of ball coaches… you get the idea. Even a small military cart with a mounted machine gun gets into the fantastic fun. Check out the video.


WARNING: This video contains graphic use of FAKE BLOOD and REALLY BAD portrayals of PEOPLE BEING SHOT because they were still standing up after 100+ rounds have already been fired. So if you don't like fake blood-filled sacks being busted to look like someone has just been shot, please don't watch the video. END OF WARNING...

1986. When the idea of lifeless objects suddenly coming to life and killing people---was a fantasy.

Fast forward (for those of you who remember VCRs and Cassette tapes) to today.

2013. When the idea of lifeless objects suddenly coming to life and killing people---is reality.

You see—there is a distinct difference in people. Some see guns as evil (maximum overdrive). 

Now I know that no one thinks that guns are just going to jump off the counters or out of their holsters and start killing people all by themselves. I believe that. The problem is: they don’t act like they know it. Want me to prove it? I’d be happy to. You hear politicians talk about Gun control but you never hear them talk about crime control, anymore. Everything gets blamed on the gun. If we didn’t have guns, the world would be at peace. Even some senators say that if guns weren’t sold in stores—no one could buy them. 

If you don’t see the absurdity of that statement, I’ll point it out. If the what the senator said is true, how do you explain how people are able to buy crystal meth? Marijuana? I used to sell arrowheads I found  by the creek to kids at school when I was younger. If there is a market for a product, there will be a supply of it.  

Some see people as evil (Norman Bates). Norman didn’t need a gun to be deadly, and I don’t need an “assault rifle” to be deadly. 

But here we are. Pretending like their bright ideas will help solve the problem, even in light of good historical data saying it won’t.

Now let us look at the machine as man. Just to give it a full discourse. 

The Terminator. Deadly T-100

Terminator 2. Protecting T-100

What is the difference? Its intended use. Its implementation. The person controlling it.

If Iran was the only country that had Nuclear capabilities, what would the world be like?

What if the U.S. was the only country? What would the world be like then?

One scenario would be very bad… the other would be very peaceful. 

Maximum Overdrive. Bad movie. I guess it was cool to an 10 year-old. But that was a long time ago. I have a firm grasp of reality. I can see that movie for what it was. It was an attempt to make people suspend their disbelief that machines weren’t inherently evil. 

Guns do bad things in the hands of evil people.

But they can do good things in the hands of moral, decent people.