Tag Archives: Harry Reid

The Sixties Radical The Statists and The Media are Lairs

Once again the ruling class doesn’t have a clue on what how the real world operates.

John Boehner is another in long line of jackass politicians who are raping the American people with the stupid fiscal ideas.

In the real world a cut in spending means exactly what one does.

It is cut out of the budget.

Not in the political word.

In the world of Washington DC this means you spend like hell until the truth catches up with ya.

Obama will spend 9.7 trillion dollars.

Then the idiot ruling class will tell ya that okay now we’ll cut 1.7 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

And this is called spending cuts.

Do the math.

Some how this is called a saving.

In the real world these clowns haven’t done crap to fix the problem.

Instead of cutting spending the elite ruling class are giving Obama a blank check for 9.7 trillion dollars.

This is call insanity.

Insanity means doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

If a CEO submitted a budget like this he would be put in jail.

WE ARE BROKE.

WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY.

THIS INSANITY HAS TO STOP.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, Harry Reid, the evil Obama and the rest think, “We the American People are stupid.”

We are tired of this shit.

Cut spending means cut spending.

Not fake cuts or Washingtonian gimmicks to make it look like there are cuts being made when in reality the spending and taxes will go through the roof.

November 2012 John Beohner and his ilk will get the full wrath of the American people.

These are Boehner’s exact words on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Well, this agreement was worked out between myself and the bipartisan leadership in the Senate, and it’s a two-step process. It cuts $1.2 trillion from the discretionary portion of the budget over the next ten years and puts spending caps in place that will make sure that that savings actually does, in fact, occur.
It mounts up over time, but in the first year, you know, we’re already spending $38-1/2 less than what we spent last year in that portion of the budget. This will cut another $26 billion out of real outlays going out and about $7 billion in what we call budget authority. Secondly, though, it sets up a joint select committee of the members of Congress: Six members from the House — three Democrats, three Republicans — and six members of the Senate. And they’re charged with finding an additional $1.8 trillion worth of deficit reduction over the balance of this year. And they all meet. Any proposal that gets seven votes out of that group would go into a package where there’s an automatic up-or-down vote in the House and Senate

There really are Democrats who want to cut spending, and I’m confident that our members can go in there and make the case for why America needs to act because the greatest risk to our country is not missing August the 2nd. The greatest risk is that we do not make the cuts necessary to put our financial house in order.
Well, listen, now we’re getting into budget talk. It’s $7 billion in budget authority below the current year. It’s $26 billion below in actual outlays that go out the door — and again, remember, we made big cuts from last year into this year. We’re gonna make more cuts going into next year. When have you ever seen a Congress in that one-third of the budget actually spend less from one year to the next? And we’re gonna do it two years in row, and frankly we might even get to three years in a row.
First, if this bill were to pass, the President could ask for an increase in the debt limit up to 95% of the cuts. Remember one of the principles here: We are not gonna increase the debt limit by anything more than what we’re willing to cut spending. I’ve said the cuts have to exceed it, he’d have to ask for it.
Trillion dollars roughly and will take them probably into February, maybe March

We waited too long to deal with the problem — and when we got 10,000 Baby Boomers like us retiring every day, more money for Social Security, more money for Medicare, it’s just a fact. But I believe that the joint select committee can in fact produce real cuts in spending. But there’s a third part of this, Rush, and that is that it requires the House and Senate to have a vote on a balanced budget amendment after October 1st and before the joint committee would report — and the idea here is twofold. One is to get all of our friends on the same page as to which balanced budget amendment, and secondly, to allow the American people our members and others to put pressure on these liberal members of Congress to step up and to vote for a balanced budget amendment — and, frankly, we need time to build that support because today, I’m not sure it’s there.
That’s the point the President’s making. That’s why he wants a $2.4 trillion blank check today that lets him continue his spending spree. If, in fact, the joint committee does not report the Congress is going to have to act, and we could be right where we are today. But it’s the only way to force the Congress to make the cuts necessary to get our fiscal house in order. Now, I’ll be the first one to tell you, this plan isn’t perfect. Again, it was an agreement between both houses of the Congress.
Well, some people are concerned that the joint committee, “My God, they might raise taxes.” Well, I’m gonna tell you what: It’s gonna be pretty hard for the joint committee to do that. I don’t believe that the Republicans on this committee that get appointed are gonna vote to increase taxes — and if they did, I don’t believe the House of Representatives would approve the report of the joint committee. So I don’t fear that problem — and, frankly, I’m not afraid of the debate. If they want to have that debate, let’s have it.
Let’s separate the two issues, Rush. The debt ceiling is about debts that America has already incurred, obligations that we’ve already made. It’s like you going out and buying something on your credit card. You’re obligated to pay for it, and these debts have already been incurred — and, frankly, I think it’s the moral obligation of our government to meet its debts. Having said that, it is time. If you’re charging more than what you can afford, it’s time to start spending less. What I’m trying to do is set up a scenario with this bill that we’re trying to move through the House to force the Congress to finally act.
Then Congress will have to go through the regular process, which isn’t that hard in the House. It’s much harder in the Senate, and frankly this joint select committee was set up to facilitate a real vote to cut spending in the United States Senate.

This plan is stupid. This plan will send us even faster on fast track to hell.

This is what you get when let John Boehner and his merry band of idiots run the show the destruction of our country.

The add to the mix an evil Marxist Obama, the Democrat Socialist Party, the Left and all the Libs this is a sure concoction that will blow this country smithereens.

WE NEED REAL CONSERVATIVES AND CONSTITUTIONLISTS TO FIX THIS COUNTRY.

Here is a novel idea don’t spend more than you take in.

Ten percent should be saved, ten percent to help the poor, and the rest take care of the bills.

Try it works,.

This is called ECON 101.

The Sixties Radical on The Real Democcrat Socialist Party Agenda

You just gotta love this Bullshit that is coming out of the White House and the Democrat Socialist Party.

Harry Reid, Man Child President, the evil Little Lord Fauntleroy Obama, and the state run media are throwing a hizzy fit over House Majority leader Eric Cantor who after years of taking the shit that these clowns have been dishing out finally said I have a enough of your crap and told them to go pound sand.

This is about time.

Somebody has to do it so why not Eric Cantor.

Harry Reid etal can do this to the Republicans but how dare someone dare turn the tables on us especially a Jew.

Obama is an anti-Semitic prick.

So are Harry Reid and the rest of them.

You fight fire with fire.

Let me quote a line from The Untouchables- they put one of yours in the hospital you send three of theirs to the morgue.

It comes down to this.

If Speaker of the House John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mitch McConnell cave our country is screwed.

Will now become a Marxists society.

The lies are coming out.

The evil one has destroyed the housing industry, the auto industry, the banking industry, and the food industry just to name a few.

We have to stop this evil dead in its tracks.

Lyndon Baines Johnson destroyed the black family in 1965 with the war on poverty.

American’s Christian and Jewish roots upon which this country was founded have been destroyed by the Left, the Democrat Socialist Party, the state run media, the elitist Republicans etal have forced this country to turn its back on the God of The Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

When this happens all hell breaks loose in a society.

It all starts with abandoning of  God.

Then social institutions of the family, education, and  political stones upon which a society is built fall apart the society is doomed.

The last to go is the economic.

This is basic Sociology 101.

Here are some definitions 

A social institution is a complex, integrated set of social norms organized around the preservation of a basic societal value. Obviously, the sociologist does not define institutions in the same way as does the person on the street. Lay persons are likely to use the term “institution” very loosely, for churches, hospitals, jails, and many other things as institutions.

Sociologists often reserve the term “institution” to describe normative systems that operate in five basic areas of life, which may be designated as the primary institutions. (1) In determining Kinship; (2) in providing for the legitimate use of power; (3) in regulating the distribution of goods and services; (4) in transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next; and (5) in regulating our relation to the supernatural. In shorthand form, or as concepts, these five basic institutions are called the family, government, economy, education and religion.

The five primary institutions are found among all human groups. They are not always as highly elaborated or as distinct from one another as into the United States, but, in rudimentary form at last, they exist everywhere. Their universality indicates that they are deeply rooted in human nature and that they are essential in the development and maintenance of orders. Sociologists operating in terms of the functionalist model society have provided the clearest explanation of the functions served by social institutions. Apparently there are certain minimum tasks that must be performed in all human groups. Unless these tasks are performed adequately, the group will cease to exist. An analogy may help to make the point. We might hypothesize that cost accounting department is essential to the operation of a large corporation. A company might procure a superior product and distribute it then at the price which is assigned to it, the company will soon go out of business. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to have a careful accounting of the cost of each step in the production and distribution process.

A social system basically consists of two or more individuals interacting directly or indirectly in a bounded situation. There may be physical or territorial boundaries, but the fundamental sociological point of reference is that the individuals are oriented, in a whole sense, to a common focus or inter-related foci. Thus it is appropriate to regard such diverse sets of relationships as small groups, political parties and whole societies as social systems. Social systems are open systems, exchanging information with, frequently acting with reference to other systems. Modern conceptions of the term can be traced to the leading social analysts of the nineteenth century, notably Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim; each of whom elaborated in some form or other conceptions of the major units of social systems (mainly societies) and the relationships between such units- even though the expression social system was not a key one. Thus, in Marx’s theory, the major units or components of the capitalist societies with which he was principally concerned were socio-economic classes, and the major relationships between classes involved economic and political power.

The most influential conceptualization of the term has been that of Talcott Parsons. Parsons’ devotion to this issue has two main aspects. First, what is called the problem of social order; i.e. the nature of the forces giving rise to relatively stable forms of social interaction and organization, and promoting orderly change. Parsons took Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, 1651, as his point of departure in this part of his analysis. Hobbes had maintained that man’s fundamental motivation was the craving for power and that men were always basically in conflict with each other. Thus order could only exist in strong government. To counter this Parsons invoked the work of Max Weber and, in particular, Durkheim, who had placed considerable emphasis on the functions of normative, factors in social life, such as ideals and values. Factors of this kind came to constitute the mainspring in Parsons Delineation of a social system. Thus in his major theoretical work, The Social system, 1951, he defines a social system as consisting in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors, who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the optimization of gratification and whose relations to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.

The major units of a social system are said to be collectivities and roles (i.e. not individuals as such); and the major patterns or relationships linking these units are values (ends or broad guides to action) and norms (rules governing role performance in the context of system values). Parsons second major interest has been to make sociology more scientific and systematic, by developing abstract conceptions of the social system; one of this points being that even though Weber placed much emphasis upon normative factors as guiding action, there was in Weber’s sociology no elaboration of a theoretically integrated total system of action. Hence the attempt to combine in one framework both a conception of actors in social situations and an overall, highly abstract, outside view of the major factors involved in a social system as a going concern. Various points in Parsons’ formulation have been criticized. Notably, objections have been made to the emphasis upon normative regulation, and it has been alleged that Parsons neglected social conflict under the pressure of his systematic perspective; i.e. pre-occupation with system ness and analytical elegance which blinds the sociologist to disconsensus in real life and spurs him to stress integrative phenomena in his analyses. However, it is widely agreed that sociologists should operate with some clearly defined conception of what constitutes a social system. Thus, for many sociologists the term social system is not by any means restricted to those situations where there is binding normative regulation; but in order to qualify as social system it must involve a common focus, or set of foci, or orientations and a shared mode of communication among a majority of actors. Thus, on this basis there can be a system of conflict.

In the end we as a nation have moved away from the grace of God.

Our Founding fathers knew this.

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported.

Oliver Ellsworth, The Landholder, December 10, 1787

Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The truth is we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar. This can’t go on.

WE ARE BROKE.

Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the rest of you Republicans hold firm. Do not take the deal. Push your budget through the House. Cut taxes and spending.

Do away with The EPA, The Department of Education, The Department of Energy, and all the other departments.

Stop the spending.

Just say no.

The lies are being exposed.

The truth shall set you free.

Here’s a nother diddy. The Democrat Socialist Party are pushing for more spending and if the Republicans want to stop government waste and fraud they must give into new taxes and spending.

Part two- The Democrat Socialist party plan B is Mitch McConnell idiotic plan.

Give me a break.

McConnell you are a joke.

How does one compromise with evil?

If good compromises with evil, evil wins.

Can you say Bye-bye USA.

 

 

The Sixties Radical on The Republicans Selling out the Country for Nothing but a Pittance

I have had with the chicken shit Republican Leadership. These no good for nothing leaders will not stand up to the evil one Barrack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck “YOU” Schumer etal.

Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican leader Mitch McConnell have said that they will not attack the deficit problem.

These two idiots have both blinked.

McConnell and Boehner are in the process of selling us down the river for a slice of the power pie.

The Republicans don’t get it.

They were elected by “We The People” to stop this out of control spending and stop the government take over of our lives.

This country is in the position losing everything.

The evil one is spending trillions of dollars.

He is bankrupting this country and the country of our children and their children.

The straw dog argument is this.

We have to tax the rich. Tax the oil companies. Tax everyone who makes over 250 grand and this will fix our problems.

The real truth is this.

All of us little people will lose everything.

In the end “We The People” lose and get screwed.

The USA takes in enough money to cover its obligations.

We have a spending problem.

Let’s say the government takes all money from all millionaires and billionaires, all the money from the oil companies and big business this would only cover our expenses until mid-October.

The Government would have to take everyone’s income from one dollar to a million dollars and this money would only take care of the expenses until midnight December 31 2011.

The government can’t continue spending money like a bunch of drunken Marxists.

WE ARE BROKE.

WE DON’T HAVE THE BUCKS.

The spending has to stop now.

If the Republicans cave on this issue you are finished.

People like me will never send you a dime.

We will form a third party.

The evil one will win another term and the USA is toast.

This is the sad fact of your actions if you cave and try sell us a bill of goods like you did the last time.

We are sick and tired of this shit.

Hey Boehner the House controls the purse strings.

You have the power.

Stop spending money.

Close the purse strings now.

It is time you stand up for this country instead of the Leftist, the Libs, the Republican Party, and the rest of the political elites in this country.

Beohner you are not a man of principle your are chicken shit who will sell out his country of bowl of porridge.

I have an idea read the Constitution.

Oh yeah, that’s right you did that and January and it went in one ear and out the other.

You still don’t get it.

Read the Bible.

Read a basic ECON 101 book.

You can’t spend more than you take in.

In the bulls eye of the evil Obama is our very way of life.

Our freedom is hanging by a thread.

You have to act now.

Stand up and do the right thing.

Don’t compromise.

Shut this sucker down.

If you Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and the rest of you Republicans were around at the time our country was formed you would have sold us down the river.

We would still be under the thumb of England.

You are gutless wonder.

The difference between you and Chuck “YOU Schumer is this.

Schumer lies all the time and we know it.

You know what is right and won’t do it because you are scared of what the state run media will say about you.

You lie to us.

You say one thing and do another.

Does the recent Budget bill strike a familiar note?

You said 65 million when in reality it was it was less than that.

You lied.

You and the Democrat Socialist Party are a cut from the same cloth.

Government control of our lives under the guise of doing what is best of us we the people

Once freedom is lost we will never get it back.

You are the idiot. 

Boehner you are part of the problem.

You are part of the cancer that is murdering this country.

Boehner has to go.

Just like the rest of McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Let me ask you this.

How do you compromise between food and poison?

 

 

The Sixties Radical on Obama The Marxist

This President is nothing but a race baiting anti semantic prick. The evil one is void of substantive ideas. Instead he uses race baiting, class warfare. These ideas are taken right out of The Communist Manifesto.

Obama’s ideas aren’t new.

They have been tried since the advent of man.

I heard Mark Levin call him a Trotskyite.

Here is a simple but effective definition of Trotskyism-

trotskyism , definition of trotskyism , meaning of trotskyism – 1  ( noun )  Trotskyism the form of communism advocated by Leon Trotsky; calls for immediate worldwide revolution by the proletariat Noun1 . Trotskyism – the form of communism advocated by Leon Trotsky; calls for immediate worldwide revolution by the proletariatcommunism – a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

Trotsky is a believer in permanent revolution. He is disciple of Karl Marx except he takes it a step further.

Trotsky wants to keep a nation in total turmoil until the working class takes over.

Trotsky is an orthodox Marxist  and Bolshevik Leninist.

 He is a proponent of the dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This means the working class is total control of everything.

Trotsky’s ideas are anti capitalism.

It is pure Socialism.

Here is the kicker.

The mother state is Russia.

Trotsky’s ideas have spread to Bolivia, Brasil, Argentina, and Venezuela, Europe, and Asia.

Now the evil one is introducing Trotsky to the good old USA.

Trotsky is the founder of the International Left Opposition in 1930.

In 1933 the name was changed to International Communist League and then changed names in 1938 to the Fourth International.

The only difference between Obama and Trotsky is this. Obama wants to be King.

He is the ruler.

We are the surfs.

The state is God.

This will not be a workers paradise as created by Karl Marx but it will turn into a living hell for all except those in power.

 In the real world if we don’t follow the great Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck “YOU” Schumer, Barney Frank etal we will die.

Here are the exact words of Karl Marx from the Communist Manifesto- In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

 The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture. That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 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 rights of inheritance.

. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation 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 work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

 

The Sixties Radical on the Stupidty of Harry Reid and Mitch McConell

Our country is going to hell in a hand basket. The idiot leaders Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Vic clown Joe “Bite Me” Biden, and the evil Obama are deciding who to tax and who not to tax.

These jokers want to raise the debt ceiling.

Little Tim Geithner is spreading gloom and doom if we don’t raise the debt ceiling.

The truth is if we don’t raise the debt the spending levels will go back to 2006 level.

We will have to pay off the debt first.

Here is a little ECON 101. You can’t spend what you don’t have. If you do you go broke.

What part of broke don’t these people get?

They do get it.

This is done by design.

Tax the hell out of all of us.

If you think it is okay to tax the rich. Think again bozo.

The rich is considered anyone who makes 250 grand a year.

This means we will all take it in the shorts.

And if you think taking away tax loopholes is a good solution.

Guess what your taxes go up.

This is a tax increase.

These tax increases on businesses are passed on to the consumers.

This is why gas and food prices are through the roof.

Here’s a news flash.

Gas companies do not get subsidies.

If you want to cut subsidies stop giving money to General Electric, the Ethanol industries, green energy such as wind power, solar power and electric cars.

Here is a news flash left.

Electricity is created by coal.

Guess what?

Cut coal power electric generators.

No electric cars and high electric prices.

Jeez people use your head for something besides a hat rack.

Take the shackles off of us.

Let us do what we do best.

Create.

Make money.

Big daddy government led by the evil Obama is driving us into the drink.

This is called totalitarianism.

If the USA falls the rest of the world is fucked royally.

Thomas Jefferson wrote these words.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.

Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789

 

 

Excessive taxation will carry reason & reflection to every man’s door, and particularly in the hour of election.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, November 26, 1798

For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

 

One final parting shot. When has Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, etal have ever drilled for oil or built a car company?

When have these idiots started and run a business.

Met a payroll.

Not on the taxpayers dime but theirs.

Not law firms either.

The dirty little secret is this.

The evil Obama and his minions are creating all of these situations. This is done so the economy completely tanks. Then these clowns will step in and have a ready made solution.

See free market economy doesn’t work.

Government to the rescue.

The government controls our entire lives.

 

 

 

 

The Sixties Radical on the Decline of The USA

Look folks there only so many ways one can say this. This nation is broke. We do not have the money. The evil Obama and his minions have spent us into oblivion.

All you lap dog Democrat Socialist Party members, seminar writers, lame stream state run media sycophants, and leftist are helping the evil one rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You are buying into the destruction of this country.

This is either because you are stupid or this is done on purpose.

I think this is done on purpose.

The sad fact is this most of you like me will wind up losing everything and be forced to live under the dictates of the King.

Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi etal believe they are the rulers of us all.

Please remember the evil Obama said during his campaign for President that he wanted to change the nature of this country.

The evil one has. He has pushed us towards the new Democrat Socialist States of America.

Please show me where it is written in the Constitution it is the job of the President to change the country into his own image.

Lets remember this all-important fact. Once you give up freedom you never get it back.

The lynch pin to our freedom is private property rights.

Once this is taken from us all of other freedoms will be take away.

The downfall we as a nation are facing is directly tied to 1962 when we officially kicked the God of the Bible out of our country.

Remember God didn’t abandon us we abandoned God.

We told him voce vai.

Since the 1960’s the institutions of the family, religion, and education have been destroyed by well meaning fools.

The last to go is the economy.

Guess what folks this is happening big time.

Please read this article written by The Heritage Foundation-

The Debt Is Not a Game, Mr. President

Well, President Obama asked for it. And last night he got it in grand fashion—a “clean vote” on raising the nation’s debt limit, free of any of the desperately needed spending cuts that Americans are demanding, conservatives support, but liberals abhor. And by a 318–97 margin, the House of Representatives shot down the President’s effort to authorize $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing by the federal government without condition.

The vote was introduced by the House Republican majority to send a message to the President in advance of their meeting today at the White House: There cannot be more borrowing and spending without significant spending cuts and reforms. But when asked yesterday about the vote, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney merely said, “It’s fine. It’s fine,” and assured reporters that President Obama will “definitely” win the debt limit fight. Meanwhile, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) decried the vote, calling it a “political charade” and a “30-second ad attack.” Rep. Hoyer and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) then joined Republicans and voted against President Obama’s wishes.

Unfortunately, all is not fine, this is not a game, and what the White House and congressional Democrats view as nettlesome roadblocks to the continued growth of government is a movement to at long last restore sanity to the federal government amid a fiscal crisis. And that movement is occurring in the utter vacuum of leadership centered at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

That failure to lead can be traced back to 2010, when the Democrat-controlled Congress did not pass a budget for the first time since current budget rules were put into place in 1974. And from there, a straight line can be drawn to last week, when the Senate voted 97–0 against President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. It is in this empty garden, left untended by leadership from the White House, that our federal government has been allowed to grow unchecked.

The federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends.  The accumulated national debt stands at nearly 70 percent of the country’s annual economic output, set to climb to 100 percent by the end of this decade. And according to some comparisons, the U.S. economy is already in worse shape than the stumbling economies of most European nations. But never fear: The President is holding a meeting with congressional Republicans today to “hear and listen to their ideas, their concerns.”

Mr. President, it’s not enough to simply “hear and listen.” Now is the time for you to lead the way in cutting spending and reforming government. Take the advice of more than 150 economists who authored a letter warning about the consequences of increasing spending without changes in the way government does business:

An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth and represent a tremendous setback in the effort to deal with our national debt.
And with yesterday’s vote, it’s clear that raising the debt limit without reforms is not an available option. The path forward should instead be one marked by substantial spending cuts designed to target our nation’s fiscal problems. Those cuts should be followed by crucial changes such as hard spending caps and entitlement reforms that would return the nation to fiscal sanity and keep it there. David S. Addington, Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, writes:

[T]the least acceptable outcome is for Congress to continue to raise the debt ceiling over and over, doing nothing to drive down federal spending and borrowing, and to pile trillions of dollars in debt upon the shoulders of America’s children and the generations to follow.”
While the White House warns that not raising the debt limit would be “calamitous,” “disastrous” and “catastrophic,” their end-of-days rhetoric is equally applicable to the present state of the nation’s fiscal course. In the absence of leadership from the President, conservatives in Congress have attempted to right the ship. It’s about time that the President get on board.

The Sixties Radical on The American Dream

This little piece of information needs to be shared. The evil Obama and his Marxists cohorts in the media, the left, and the Democrat party are murdering the American dream.

The Democrat Party of today is not the same Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy.

This I borrowed from Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.

The Dems stand only for themselves and keeping their power at any cost.

These folks are evil.

The Dems want to destroy this country and turn it into a Communist state.

Obama doesn’t care about anyone else all he cares about is himself and taking all of our money, property, and freedom and giving it to the state, the state and federal unions, and all of the Democrat special interest groups.

If you think Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck “YOU” Schumer etal want a better life for you and your family I have a bridge for sale.

It is called the Brooklyn Bridge.

The real truth is this. We don’t have two until the 2012 elections to stop these people dead in their tracks.

Obama and his evil cohorts need to be stopped now.

John Boehner and the rest of you Republicans better wake up now and fight for this nation.

It is time to fight fire with fire.

Call the Dems on their lies.

The Dems are liars.

The Prez is a liar.

It is time We The People take our country back.

Please read this little diddy from The Heritage Foundation- It is an eye opener.

The American Dream Is In Jeopardy

Companies like General Electric and Caterpillar might sound as American as apple pie, but like many other multinational firms, which employ a fifth of all American workers, they’re cutting back on their domestic workforces and increasing hiring overseas. That disturbing trend points to a serious problem in the United States: the Land of the Free is not the attractive place to do business that it once was.

Big government policies are setting us on a path away from a fundamental freedom we cherish—one the Founders strove to preserve. It’s the freedom to pursue the American dream—economic freedom—that, tragically, is in jeopardy.

When many folks think about freedom, the first thing that comes to mind is the freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, to vote, or to have a trial by a jury of their peers. Though it isn’t enumerated in the Bill of Rights, economic freedom is just as important. In The Heritage Foundation’s “Understanding America” series, Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. explain why it is so important:

America’s founders knew that liberty is about more than just securing political freedoms. True liberty requires economic freedom—the ability to profit from our own ideas and labor, to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to our own choices. Thomas Jefferson underscored that point when he observed that “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

The desire to control one’s freedom to pursue happiness was at the heart of the American Revolution. That freedom was in short supply as the colonies suffered under economic policies over which they had no say. That sentiment sounds familiar to many Americans today as they watch our government grow unchecked with trillion-dollar deficits and an entitlement crisis waiting to smother future generations. That frustration gave birth to the Tea Party movement and the conservative tidal wave in the November 2010 elections. Americans were right to be concerned.

Sadly, the United States is no longer economically “the Land of the Free.” According to The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, the United States ranks ninth internationally, behind such countries as Denmark, Canada, and first-place Hong Kong. And that’s all due to huge increases in government spending, which was supposed to combat unemployment and spur economic growth. But that growth hasn’t happened, and instead the American economy is handcuffed by taxes and regulations that have strangled creativity, productivity, and competition, all of which are at the core of economic freedom.

And now we’re seeing the results. As The Wall Street Journal reports, “companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.” That’s in stark contrast from a decade ago, when for every job U.S. multinational companies created abroad, they created nearly two jobs here in America, according to economist Matthew Slaughter. Though President Obama might pay lip service to Americans’ desire to rein in government, he’s late to the party. From Obamacare to a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, trillions in new debt, a $26.1 billion government union bailout, and more, President Obama and the previous Congress have given us plenty of reasons to question their commitment to reform government and restore economic freedom.

With the arrival of the Tea Party movement, the culture of Washington began to change, and the trending topic in D.C. became fiscal restraint, not government largesse. That’s good news for those who want to ensure that America remains the Land of the Free.