GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label for the people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label for the people. Show all posts

Monday, May 7, 2012

From the cradle to the grave, Obama says the government should control your life

By: Old Ironsides  - Conscience of a Conservative – Cross-Posted by TMH of the Noisy Room

Well, Obama’s mask is finally beginning to slip off his face. A few days ago the 2012 Obama campaign released its official slogan, FORWARD, and immediately the origins of this favorite action word became known thanks to Obama’s greatest adversary, the conservative bloggers. From now until November the Democrats will be marching FORWARD to victory. Just as their fellow communists have done in the past. Most of those communist posters from past history were not written in English so they’re not as obvious, see the blog written by Hack Wilson, http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com/ But, even though Obama’s Democrats left out the revolutionary soldier carrying the red flag in their poster, at least one of those communist posters from modern history is in English. And it is most convincing in its true meaning when the Leading Light Communist Organization uses it.

clip_image001

So now the Obama Democrats have taken the next step in convincing everyone of their true purpose, spreading the philosophy of Karl Marx. Only the Obama Democrats are being a bit cautious because they are revealing their plan in little pieces. Such as their new web site propaganda piece “The Life of Julia” wherein the Democrats show their love and compassion for everyone from the cradle to the grave. The part they left out is what they expect from you in return.

clip_image002

No, it isn’t Socialism, it isn’t Communism, it isn’t Marxism, its just our good old Democrat pretender Barack Hussein Obama telling America that life is better when you depend on the government to give you everything you need. Is the word “depend” the right one to use? Maybe the sentence should read: Life is better when you allow the government to control your life, because control is what the Democrats want. Too bad the wisdom of a true American patriot, Thomas Jefferson, has been forgotten by so many Democrats today. Back in the days when our Founding Fathers were creating our Republic, Jefferson argued that A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Maybe that’s why so many liberal teachers are rewriting American History today because they don’t want tomorrow’s voters to think about these things.

I know where I’ve heard that Democrat slogan before. It was first written by Karl Marx when he said: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the authors of The Communist Manifesto. The Obama Democrats have presented the later part of the Marxist statement, the part that appeals to greed, but they conveniently left off the first part, the part that dictates what the government wants in return. Wikipedia reveals the complete origin, along with the full text in which it appeared.

The complete paragraph containing Marx’s statement of the creed in the ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ is as follows:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Then another search of Wikipedia reveals more on the application of this basic communist philosophy.

“Claiming themselves to be at a “lower stage of communism (i.e., “socialism”, in line with Marx’s terminology), the Soviet Union adapted the formula as: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work (labor investment)”. ”

Proletarians and Communists
The second section, “Proletarians and Communists”, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class, declaring that they will not form a separate party that opposes other working-class parties, will express the interests and general will of the proletariat as a whole, and will distinguish themselves from other working-class parties by always expressing the common interest of the entire proletariat independently of all nationalities and representing the interests of the movement as a whole.

The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate “free love“, and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.[15]

The implementation of these policies would, as believed by Marx and Engels, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society. In a controversial passage they suggested that the “proletariat” might in competition with the bourgeoisie be compelled to organize as a class, form a revolution, make itself a ruling class, sweep away the old conditions of production, and in that step have abolished its own supremacy as a class. This account of the transition from socialism to communism was criticized particularly during and after the Soviet era.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Old Ironsides.

The 0bama administration is trying to have this removed from Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_%28generic_name_of_socialist_publications%29

 

Monday, March 14, 2011

The Hate for Sarah Palin

By Mark Levin - March 14, 2011

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218.html

But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in whichPalin_on_O'Reilly Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.

A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980.  In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan.  Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election.  For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will.  It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan's presence on the national scene for many years.  2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale.  Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.  Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties.  But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing "news" site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan's candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard.  The "non-intellectual" voters knew better.  3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush's former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. (Even Barbara put her two cents into the hate soup!)  Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy.  That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.  In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs).  And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard.  Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices.  I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.  (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements.  No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit.  They clearly are accomplished.  But that's not the point.  Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.  What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions.  Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run.  This has been going on for some time now.  If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession?  Why the contempt?  Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies.  In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative.  (Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)  My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another.  Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias.  That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

palin-reaganAs a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan’s 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, reminds me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I’ve not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by “the intellectuals” but opposed by a majority of the people.

A Tale of Two Speeches: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama on the Tragedy in Tucson

The Audacity of American Exceptionalism

Fear Factor: Palin Derangement Syndrome

See:  Journolists: The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed

Sarah and Alveda 8.28.10Sarah and Puppies