Posts Tagged ‘soros’

The state of the nation, our nation, is not so complicated as one might think.  We now have “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) springing up almost out of nowhere, with no leadership, no funding, and no direction.  Believe this and I will sell you a bridge – call me, I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is available.

There is, however, one very cogent message coming from the occupiers.  It is that the top 1% of wealth in this country controls the power.  Abraham Lincoln was apparently wrong, at least for our time, when he proclaimed at Gettysburg: :”…government of the people, by the people, and for the people…”

Today and for over one hundred years, we do not have a free and independent Congress, unions bought and paid for our current President, and our Supreme Court suffers from “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, no longer deciding cases on their merits, but instead using ideology.  Money derived from the 1%, dictates who our candidates are, dictates how our representatives vote, and attempts to shape populist opinion through a media void of integrity.  We have a government monetary system perennially dictated by Goldman Sachs alumni, regardless of the administration.  It should be no suprise that Goldman Sachs is the common hobby horse of the 1%.  It is where they play.

While the world has always been about wealth retaining and wielding power.  This country, with brief lapses, has muddle through despite the wealthy for 222 years [the Republic we know was officially started March 1, 1789] , because we are a republic with a great founding document.

Now an amalgamation of often disassociated factions has come together to bring us “Occupy Wall Street”, with the only overriding theme being capitalism does not work and the 1% control the world.  The solutions from these folks stem from eliminating money to pure distribution of wealth in a socialist system.  Is this really grass roots with no leadership?  If you believe so, then answer this question, how do they manage to have a finance committee?

Here is a good question.  Is this a quest for the uber 1% to gain even more power by throwing off the yoke of that restraining document, the Constitution?  Someone has to be orchestrating this supposedly grass roots event and providing the money, so much money that they have a finance committee.  We have seen reports that George Soros, a long time proponent of abolishing the Constitution and creating a one world government under a new world order, has his various tentacled organizations heavily involved.  George Soros is one of the 1% of the 1% worldwide.  Is this their, the 1% of the 1%, world conquest using ultimate financial power?  Remember, we have prepared the masses for this by dumbing down the schools, offering only radical socialist speak at universities, and by a radical transformation of the media – we no longer have a fourth estate to keep folks and government honest.

Do we break the yoke, involving both major political parties, of the 1%, and lurch toward a one world new world order, without our Constitution, under socialism led by George Soros, et al., through the amalgamation of disassociated factions in favor of the 1% of the 1%, or do we modify our Constitution to provide term limits, lobbying controls, and elimination of contributions by any organization: union, corporation, or association?  Do we, by a Constitutional amendment, continue to limit individual contributions, and allow political speak (ads) only from individuals?

While the OWS people are right only about the 1%, their methods and resources are absolutely the wrong way for this country to go.  Ask yourself, are the occupiers useful idiots of the devious 1% of the 1%.



Read Full Post »

Why is the decision by the Administration, through its Department of Commerce Census Bureau, to count all residents of the United States without regard to resident status in the 2010 Census a big deal?

Before we can answer this question, we need some background.  The United States Census is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic.   It is the ultimate arbiter of how states are represented in the House of Representatives and how the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.   Due to the cornerstone nature of the Census to our nation, it is unconscionable to make the 2010 Census subject to tampering, manipulation, a skewed citizen count, or an ideological interpretation.  Why will it be skewed if the current Census Director, members of Congress, and the Administration proceed as intended?

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution originally provided for the enumeration of “persons” of the several states.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, “persons” consisted of free persons and a three fifths fraction of the slaves inhabiting this land, with the exception of Indians.  Let’s look to a further clarification of the intent of the Founders at the time of ratification of the Constitution by the states.  We find in Article II, Section 1 instructions on the presidency eligibility: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Thus all persons residing in the United States at ratification were considered to be Citizens of the United States and thus the term persons referred to Citizens.  We also find that the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 2, which modified Article 1 Section 2, requires “…counting the whole number of all persons…” eliminating the fraction and the counting only of free persons.

Before you go off on a tangent about the callous use of a “fraction” of slaves, the compromise method was to prevent the people of the Southern States from having a lopsided vote and a lopsided representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College and a “super vote”, if you will, using slaves to inflate the population count, while only white men voted.    Now to the big deal!

The 2010 census operation fully plans to count any person legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen—remember only citizens can vote.  We should be counting only “persons” which in the Constitution is synonymous with citizens.  Failure to do this means that states with an abundance of people who are not citizens made up of both legal and illegal residents, without the right to vote, will be unjustly rewarded with more representatives in Congress for law making and taxation and a greater weight to the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States.  If we grant more representatives and more electoral votes to these states, then we seriously skew the one person (citizen) one vote rule.  We end up giving the citizens of these states the power to cast what amount to those “super votes”.  Essentially, a smaller electorate will have the power of a larger state population.

Senator Vitter of Louisiana, Senator Bennett of Utah, and Representative Chaffets of Utah, want to add a question to the Census Questionnaire, which asks “are you a citizen?”  They are not being received very well, by the Bureau of the Census and members of Congress.  Seems like a logical and appropriate constitutional question to ask during a census, as we are also asking many other questions that are not nearly as important as how many possible legitimate voters exist to apportion House seats and to be represented in the Electoral College—remember only citizens are supposed to vote and be counted in Congress.

We must be cognizant of and stand up to prevent this ideological effort to establish an unbalanced and truly un-constitutional apportionment in the House of Representatives and in Electoral College voting to states with a large illegal population.

Read Full Post »

Socialism may be coming to a country near you soon.  Yes, if Senator Obama and the Senate and House Democrats win, it will be the end of the trail for capitalism.  The secular progressive movement, led by George Soros and his minions, has been funneling money into the Democratic Party and to its candidates for some time now, with the intent on building a slate of Senators and Representatives who are decidedly socialists by nature.  The crowning achievement for the movement was the support provided a Senator chosen early on for his socialist beliefs to run for President, Barack Obama.  Read: Soros poised for payback on his political investment an editorial from the The Examiner.

George Soros will now have a superhighway to Change – Socialist Change.  We will see wealth redistribution on a grand scale – Obama said it himself recently when he told a hard working self employed plumber that he will experience wealth distribution – his wealth will go to some one else.    We will see the single largest growth in government in the history of this nation.  We will expand the culture that people are not accountable to themselves or to others and that regardless of their actions, government will attempt to take care of them, albeit in a grossly inefficient manner.  Who will be the arbiter of just how much wealth will be redistributed at any time?

There are basically three economic systems found in the world.  Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are the three, but no one is practiced in its purest sense.  We might ask why an economic system is important.

“…a country’s economic system determines the allocation of the nation’s resources of labor, land, machinery, materials, etc. between their alternative possible uses.” “… a country’s economic system determines the distribution between the individuals in the nation of that which is produced using the nation’s resources.”  “We need to know how an economic system attempts to solve the problems of allocation and distribution before we can see why there is unemployment, inflation, poverty, and so on.” These quotes were taken from an old text book  “Introduction to Economics” by John Craven.

Socialism is chosen by some as an artificial means of controlling unemployment and poverty.  The problem with this noble effort is that time after time, in national experiment after experiment, it actually creates more unemployment and more poverty.  The key element of socialism, redistribution of wealth, actually reduces the incentive for those who create jobs by growing businesses and making wealth for themselves.  When the incentive is removed, as there can be no success in business, the effort dwindles and the economy shrinks.  The shrinking economy fosters more government programs, and greater protectionism.  More government programs means taking more from those who “have it” and giving it to others, until the loss in incentive becomes a vicious cycle.  As protectionism grows, the cost of imported goods rises, and the ability to export diminishes, further restricting jobs, increasing unemployment, and increasing the price of goods and services.  The vicious cycle continues.  By now you get my point.

Socialism is a misguided effort by those who do not learn very well from history.  Read “Disillusioned with Socialism: South Asia experiments with free enterprise.” Europe has toyed with socialism.  Just look at their GDP and unemployment rates – they are far worse than the capitalistic United States.  Europeans have learned that once you start the wealth re-distribution project for those who are either not motivated to contribute to society or have been unsuccessful, you have spread the proverbial toothpaste into the culture and that toothpaste cannot be placed back into the tube easily.  Europeans are paying the socialism price now – yet we do not learn from the failed experiment.  Be careful of what you seek.

What we do have here is a lawyer, an avowed socialist masquerading as a populist, supported by the George Soros machine.  Barack Obama is about to achieve an ignoble change in our economic system by taking income from hardworking productive people – medium and small business owners – job creators,  and redistributing it to those who either have been less fortunate or are simply not as productive.  If he is elected, we shall see just how effective this lawyer’s theory is: reduce the incentive of hard workers to work hard; forcibly share what they have worked for; and grow government to create jobs.  The theory fails to take into account that without the medium and small business job creation machine; jobs will be lost, not created.

Remember, the man, Barack Obama, has never run anything, managed anything, or built anything, in his life.  He is a lawyer turned socio-economic theorist.  Remember that his espoused social plan has not worked in the past and will not work now.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: