Tuesday, October 30, 2007

What Goes Around Comes Around...History does repeat itself...

That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising. The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvellous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind.
In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient working men's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. (Circa 1891)
Please go back and read the above passage one more time and think about what is happening today...need I say more!
Always remember this: "You never had a problem until you elected the bum."
It's time to throw the bums out...all of 'em!
The bum you elected was a dummie just like you before he was elected...after he got in office he amassed great knowledge and became a world renown expert on everything from banking to atmospheric science...and all this overnight!
Some of the smartest people were the dumbest Presidents...no need to go into great detail here but remember Jimmy Carter...all kinds of degrees, graduate of the Naval Academy (of course they had a bad rap about cheating), officer aboard nuclear submarines, even knew how to grow peanuts...wow, I'm impressed! He was just voted the worst President in US history ! (Biggest reason...he is a big time socialist.)
Originally posted on townhall.com By Norm
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:31 PM
(Note: The descriptive dialogue in the following commentary is in no uncertain terms designed to exhibit hatred by the author. As you will note the words, "As you put yourself on display..." clearly identifies with the subject. The subject clearly identifies with hatred.)

The dishonor you spewed onto this nation was evident with every utterance of your outrageous discourse directed at General Petraeus, an honorable man unworthy of your presence…your presence unworthy of the Halls of Congress…your presence unworthy of America. As you put yourself on display as a scheming, deceiving, power hungry Socialist determined to destroy this great nation protected by the likes of General Petraeus and those that preceded him; General Franks…General Eisenhower…General MacArthur...General Marshall …General Pershing… General Grant…General Jackson…General Washington. You Ma’am, are unfit for the cover of protection of even the last thread of their coattails. You Ma’am are the fodder for the traitors from within. You Ma’am, rot the soul of this nation!


Gary Fouse said...

Hillary's Defense of her Gaffe

It's been a bad week for Hillary Clinton. Seemingly on her way to a Democratic coronation as the nominee for president, she had a horrible debate with her comments about giving driver licenses to illegal aliens in New York. ("I am for it and against it."- or something like that), as well as her weak response to a question as to whether she would agree to the release of documents pertaining to her actions as First Lady. Well she and her defenders have been quick to mount a great defense. First, it was the fault of the media (Tim Russert) for directing hard questions only to her, a woman. Then, it was the fault of her competitors-all men-who have ganged up on a woman. Neither of these arguments holds any water whatsoever.

Let me address the first complaint about Tim Russert. Mr Russert is a liberal Democrat. To his credit, he usually tries to be fair and ask relevant questions, unlike most of his colleagues. As Senator from New York, it was entirely relevant to ask Senator Clinton her opinion of the decision by New York State Attoney General, Elliot Spitzer to give driver licenses to illegal aliens. When she tried to answer the question in her usual evasive manner that would offend no one, she was called on it and Russert, appropriately, asked a follow up question to pin down her position. It should be added that may be the first time any member of the media has ever tried to pin her down with a hard question.

Does Mrs Clinton want to see licenses given to illegal aliens? Of course she does. She doesn't want to offend the Hispanic lobby-not that all Hispanics favor such a move. Also consider this: If Clinton goes up against Giuliani in the general election, she is going to need all the votes she can get to carry New York. Make no mistake. A US state driver license is the main form of picture ID in our country. With that piece of ID, other doors open up-including voter registration, where many states including California, are prohibited from checking a voter's citizenship or even ID at the polls.

Yesterday, Clinton appeared at her alma mater, Wellesley University, where she made a pointed reference to the "Boy's Club"-meaning her male colleagues in the debates- a brazen move to gain sympathy as a woman being ganged up on by the "Boys". It sparked loud applause. Indeed, aside from the fact that Obama, Edwards and Dodd jumped on her during the debate, Obama has now criticized her for wanting to be treated in a preferential manner. His criticism is appropriate. Here is why.

Mrs Clinton is running for President- Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, she is the front-runner by a wide margin. It is she who would take us into war. It is she who we expect to stand up to Iran, North Korea and world-wide Islamic terror. If she cannot stand up to this kind of give and take from her male competitors for the nomination, then how can we expect her to be the strong kind of leader that we need in these troubled times? As Obama said, she cannot say, "Don't pick on me." and expect to be considered a serious candidate for president. As front-runner, she should expect to be attacked by the others.

To me, this is further evidence that Clinton would be annihilated in a debate with any of the Republican front-runners. Behind all the glitter, spin and propaganda about her, she is a dishonest charlatan who cannot be truthful about where she really wants to take this country (into socialism). Her shifty lies and evasions should be obvious to anyone watching her on TV or in person. No wonder many Republicans want her to win the nomination.

gary fouse

Storm'n Norm'n said...

Gary...thanks for your comments.
As for the Clintons, I have studied them at length over the years and feel as if I know them better than anyone...that has never met them. I say this with some eruditeness and have predicted with certain accuracy the outcome of their rise to power.
I stated to some students from Ireland at an event at Stonehill College (Massachusetts) in the early nineties, "Bill Clinton is the beginning of the downfall of America." The students,obviously surprised as they believed that the then President was "...good for Ireland." Little did they know that Mr. Clinton is a Globalist-Socialist and will do or say anything to further his Brave New World. Not that I would claim credit for it, but I believe I was the first to declare that the Clintons have no higher authority to answer to, which puts them in the Godless-Humanist assemblage.
If you do the research you will find that Mr. Clinton was an admirer of Professor Caroll Quigley, Cecil Rhodes,and Alfred Milner, et al, who were part and parcel to setting up the Rhodes secret Round Table society. This society, although secret, has let it's ideology known. Mr. Clinton has also stated that he has had the privilege of examing their secret documents and that for the most part believes in their goals; world domination!
As for Mr. Clinton's CGI (Clinton Global Inititive), it is just a front for One World Order. With the billions of dollars he brags about raising for developing countries he has very little to show for his efforts. The last deception of the truth was displayed at a recent TV interview... a pair of reading glasses for a few people in Africa who have trouble reading. I would think that a few billion dollars would buy a liitle something more substantial. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton makes quite a few trips to Switzerland...more than most skiiers...where, it is said, he visits several banks. The rumor is that he, along with George Soros et al, may weaken the American dollar when Hillary enters the White House to make way for the introduction of the Amero.
All this and more can be expected if Hillary's new address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Anonymous said...

This is a Test...testing response time for moderation message to arrive at my email address.

Storm'n Norm'n said...

Correction: ~ Ref: Mr. Clinton has also stated that he has had the privilege of examining their secret documents and that for the most part believes in their goals; world domination!
That should read:"Professor Quigley has also stated that he has had the privilege of examining their secret documents and that for the most part believes in their goals; world domination!"