RealHonestNews.com

Obama and Carter Synonymous

President Obama and President Carters presidency is now officially "Synonymous".

Two of the biggest disasters in office for Americans and American history.  Both Presidents are SOCIALISTS, both inept to lead anything other than a social program.

Please indulge me for repeating a few brilliant words:  Winston Churchill:  Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

No more accurate word apply than when looking at President Obama.  If you will look back in the archives of this blog you will see that I tried to explain how Obama was a extreme socialist and that he was a "pied piper" with a silver tong that will lure you and this country into his web of socialism.  And here we are about four years later and regretfully I was right.

Just where are the bumper stickers and the people saying just give him a chance?

With Obama's chance to run this Great Country, The United States of America, just take a look at the chaos that has arisen from this presidency.

There is no leadership, only social chaos.  It's Obama's carefully executed socialism plan.  Despite what you are thinking ... It's working!

 

Sad Isn't It?

 

RealHonestNews.com

 

 

-----  ooo  -----

The Most Incredible Philosophy I Have Ever Read

The Most Incredible Philosophy I Have Ever Read in my life was written by, Winston Churchill:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

... Winston Churchill

 

 

philosophy:  The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

 

 

Sad Isn't It?

RealHonestNews.com

 

 

-----  ooo  ------

This Article Was Written In 1990 ... Do You Get It Now?

This article was written in 1990 by Lawrence W. Reed, comparative information that was written before this nation was really looking at our politicians as corrupt, stupid, self-serving, in-it for themselves and just plainly speaking ... "Slime bucket-cockroaches".

We as citizens of The United States of America have been sleeping at the wheel way to long.  This condition that America is in now has taken about forty years to come to fruition.  People we have "cockroaches" running this country whether you want to believe it or not.  The same cockroaches that was running the "Roman Empire" in A.D. 274. The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it."  

Remember this people:  "Kershner's First Law" "When self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare".

 

This article was published in the June 1990 edition of Freedom Daily.

The United States and the Roman Empire by Lawrence W. Reed, June 1990   Nearly four decades before the birth of Christ, the Roman orator Cicero offered this sound advice: "The budget should be balanced, public debt should be reduced, the treasury should be rebuilt, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall." Well, the Romans didn't take his advice and guess what? Rome fell. At nearly $3 trillion, our government's "national debt" represents an ominous recurrence of just what Cicero warned twenty centuries ago. If figures that large mean little to you, let's put it another way. If the national debt were in $1 bills, it would stack almost to the moon, fill 282,730 dump trucks, weigh as much as 2.14 million Oldsmobile Cutlasses, or buy enough food to feed the current population of Los Angeles for 978 years. Government in ancient Rome grew to mammoth size for some of the same reasons ours has. The philosopher George Santayana may have had that in mind when he said, "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." Consider the following: Long before Christ, a Roman politician named Clodius was elected to public office on a platform of "free wheat for the masses." When Julius Caesar came to power, he found 320,000 persons in Rome — a city of 1 million — on government grain relief. Emperor Nero once declared, "Let us tax and tax again. Let us see to it that no one owns anything!" He may also have been the architect of the first urban-renewal program. He burnt a large portion of Rome to make way for a number of construction projects. A few years later, another emperor dabbled in farm policy. To reduce production and raise the price of wine, he ordered the destruction of half of the vineyards in Rome's provinces. The ancient government assumed the responsibility of providing the people with publicly funded entertainment and arts programs. One historian estimates the modem equivalent of $100 million a year was poured out in circuses and gladiator duels alone. Welfare statists loved it in A.D. 274 when Emperor Aurelian made the right to relief hereditary and boosted welfare benefits considerably. Businesses were pulverized under a burden of public hostility and excessive taxation and regulation. The masses demanded their handouts and the most productive in Roman society were made to cough up. Some of them, thinking they were buying time, actually supported those politicians and funded those institutions which were dedicated to their very destruction. What was left of their businesses was eventually confiscated and nationalized. City administrations within the empire spent themselves silly and, beginning with the emperor Hadrian, were bailed out through a kind of "federal revenue sharing," with lots of strings attached. (After all, he who pays the piper sooner or later calls the tune.) Spending to satisfy special interests and a soaring debt prompted the government to debauch the national currency. It imposed wage and price controls, seized the people's gold holdings, took the silver out of the coinage and manufactured junk money like there was no tomorrow. And for Rome, there wasn't. The great empire expired in A.D. 476. It fell like a ripe plum to foreign enemies. When the barbarians walked into the city, many Romans actually welcomed them in the belief that anything was better than the tyranny of their own tax collectors and regulators. It has been said that many civilizations have run their course by this pattern: From bondage to individualism to great courage to liberty to abundance, then from abundance to complacency to apathy to dependency and finally back to bondage again. More to the point, what is called "Kershner's First Law" sums up what happened to Rome pretty well: "When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare." Are we going to continue letting it happen here? Lawrence W. Reed, an economist, is president of the Mackinac Center in Midland, Michigan, and also serves on the Board of Speakers of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

 

 

Sad Isn't It?

 

-----  ooo  -----

Just How Much Do We Really Know ... About "World Politics"?

Just how much do we, as Americans, really know?  You know, "World Politics"?  What decisions are made behind closed doors in those political meetings?  "The United States is manipulating other countries or are other countries manipulating the United States"? 

This is an interesting article written by Sheldon Richman ... You know, there is so much of "World Politics" that we just don't know about!

U.S. Versus the Egyptian People ... by Sheldon Richman

 

The last thing the U.S. policy elite wants is real democracy in Egypt. That country has been a linchpin of American foreign policy for more than 30 years precisely because its government has been able to defy the will of the Egyptian people. If that should change now, America’s rulers and their Israeli partners will be in panic mode, if they aren’t already.

 

We may discount the insipid kind-of-pro-democracy statements coming from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They wanted the street protesters to go away, and if lip service to human rights would help bring that about, then they would engage in it. But they were careful not to encourage the throngs in Cairo’s Tahrir (Liberation) Square because they don’t trust common people with big decisions. Obama and Clinton played a cunning game, but rather ineptly. Earlier this month their special envoy, Frank Wisner, publicly said his old friend Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak “must stay in office to steer” the way toward a “national consensus around the preconditions” for reform. Clinton tried to distance herself from Wisner’s too-blunt words before essentially saying the same thing later.

 

But events moved too fast, and now Mubarak is history.

 

The American policymakers must be frustrated. They need a firm hand in Egypt, but Mubarak stayed too long and they were powerless to maneuver Vice President Omar Suleiman into power. Suleiman was to be their new man. He had been a good servant through the years: When the CIA needed to have someone tortured, he was the go-to guy. The people would not have accepted him as the successor to Mubarak.

 

Why did the U.S. government side with authoritarianism in Egypt? To update what Franklin Roosevelt is reported to have said about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1939: Mubarak and Suleiman may have been sons of bitches, but they were our sons of bitches. For decades they were faithful agents of the American empire, at a cost of well over a $1 billion a year from American taxpayers. In the eyes of the power elite, it was money well spent.

 

Support for Egyptian dictators was part of a bigger plan. Since World War II, when America succeeded Great Britain as the chief imperial power in the region, the U.S. government has opposed Arab nationalism and independence, and supported any ruler — secular or religious — who would toe the U.S. line. When it was necessary to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt because it hated secular nationalism and Marxism, that was the policy the Americans pursued. (In 1953 Dwight Eisenhower hosted a Muslim Brotherhood envoy at the White House, despite its reputation for violence.) At other times, it supported autocratic rulers who suppressed that organization (which renounced violence more than 50 years ago). It all depended on who America’s official enemy was and who was willing to carry water for the U.S. government — a cynical game, but that’s what superpowers do to gain their objectives.

 

And what were America’s objectives? Control of the vast oil reserves, which are seen as essential to U.S. global hegemony, and (mostly for domestic political reasons) unconditional support of Israel, including its expansion onto Palestinian land and intimidation of its neighbors. Any Arab leader willing to advance those goals — no matter how brutal or defiant of the people — could be a well paid friend of the United States. Otherwise, watch out.

 

The problem for America’s policy elite is that Arabs like neither foreign interference nor the brutal treatment of the Palestinians. That’s why they had to be denied a say in their own governance. Look up what happened when the “wrong” parties won elections in Algeria and Gaza. If the winner in a free Egyptian election is a party that sides with the long-suffering Palestinians, don’t expect the U.S. government to stand by.

 

And yet what could it do? Egyptians have experienced people power. They know what it’s like to abolish a government. Incredibly, Mubarak is gone, and resistance to other dictators is spreading. For America’s rulers, the chickens are on their way home. How could they not have known this day would come?

 

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation www.fff.org and editor of  "The Freeman" magazine.

 

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philisophique  (1764) ... Surprise ?

 

 

Background Note ...  

The Dictionnaire philosophique (Philosophical Dictionary) is an encyclopedic dictionary published by Voltaire in 1764. The alphabetically-arranged articles often criticize the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions. The first edition, released in June of 1764, went by the name of Dictionnaire Philosphique Portatif. It was 344 pages and consisted of 73 articles. Later versions were expanded into two volumes consisting of 120 articles.[1] The first editions were published anonymously in Geneva by Gabriel Grasset. Due to the volatile content of the Dictionnaire, Voltaire chose Grasset over his usual publisher to ensure his own anonymity.[2] The Dictionnaire was a lifelong project for Voltaire. It represents the culmination of his views on Christianity, God, morality, and other subjects.

 

 

Even back then!

 

-----  ooo  -----

 

Fascism Is Coming To America ... Believe It !!

Fascism is coming To America and so many Americans don't see it. … Believe It !!

• Who out there in The United States of America really wants "Fascism"?
• Who is it that can keep voting liberal "Fascism" into office?"
• What makes citizens of The United States of America want to dismantle "Freedom"?
• What will these "Fascist" do when they wake up and their dream of Fascism comes true?
• When will "Fascism for America" come to fruition?  ... It's here now!
• When will these liberals socialists "Fascists" realize that they have voted in these controlling Politicians?
• Where in the history of the civilization has "Fascism" worked?
• Where did these liberal socialists "Fascists" learn all of this "Devastating, Destructive, Damaging" information?  American schools and universities ... That's where!  Mostly on their parents dime!
• Why would a liberal socialists "Fascists" want this control over their lives?
• Why is this liberal socialists "Fascists" segment of our country growing?
• Why do liberal socialists "Fascists" want to save the world even when the rest of the world doesn't?

For the citizens of The United States of America, that are not "Liberal Socialists Fascists", these questions are so frustrating to answer!

God Bless America ...

Because there are a lot of so called "American Citizens" that want to destroy America.

 

Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans who have been working to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our nation’s greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination, all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society.  . . . . . . . . . . . .   — John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching [1944]   Sad Isn't It? -----  ooo  -----

 

 

 

 

Andrew Klavan of PJTV

Dude, check it out. That funny guy on PJTV has the 411 on a piece of paper that protects us from cranky old people. Some dudes in wigs wrote it with ink feathers, or something. It was like a really long time ago, but it's, like, people totally forgot about it. Whoa, right?

Four Minutes well worth it ... This video might bring awareness of our major political problem in the United States of America, today.

 

Sad Isn't It?

---- ooo  ----

What Barack Obama Is Thinking ... Mirroring History

What Barack Obama Is Thinking ... Mirroring History!

This is a re-print from:    http://spectator.org/?nomobile

What Barack Obama Is Thinking

By Peter Ferrara on 5.26.10 @ 6:09AM

Students of history will recognize the method to President Obama's madness.  The parallels in both policy and politics to the Roosevelt Administration are too striking not to be deliberate. President Obama is consciously modeling his Administration on the Roosevelt Administration. But just as the liberals of the 1930s graduated to the New Left of the 1960s, President Obama's policies and politics transcend the liberalism of the 1930s. He is building what Newt Gingrich rightly calls a secular socialist machine in his new book To Save America.

Unreconstructed Keynesian Economics

Roosevelt's Keynesian economics was left for dead in the 1980s with President Reagan's supply-side revolution miraculously ending the stagflation of the 1970s with a 25-year economic boom. But President Obama came into office talking as if that never happened, casting it down the memory hole. While Reagan's early 1981 budget cuts slashed the federal budget by about 5%, Obama rammed through an almost $1 trillion stimulus package of nearly all Keynesian economics from the 1930s, laughing at his astounded critics with the question, "What do you think a stimulus is?"

Economically, it didn't work, just as it didn't in the 1930s or the 1970s. Now 29 months after the recession officially started in December, 2007, unemployment is 10% and rising, and the stock market is again stumbling, with the Dow still 4000 points off its last highs. The recovery was overdue a year ago, and even now economic growth is not half what it should be.

But note how the stimulus spending was structured so that more is spent this year than last. Was the goal to reduce unemployment as quickly as possible, or to use the guise of Keynesian stimulus spending for a political slush fund to buy as many votes as possible in this political year? Note also that about half of the direct "stimulus" spending went to state and local governments to prop up the employment of public employees,the most reliable supporters of liberal Democrat candidates. The only thing President Obama's stimulus is stimulating is a left-wing Democrat political machine.

The Weimar Republic ... History? ... Learn It!

The Weimar Republic ... History? ... Learn It!

Please, Take the time to look in the mirror.  If you think I'm kidding ... I'm NOT.  Remember this information about Germany is actual history, with what actually happened, not what might have happened.

One (country) who doesn't learn from history is doomed to repeat it.  The incredible correlation between the "Weimar Republic and what is happening in the United States of America, today!   ....   Look in the mirror it's what's happening to your country now.

Information from Wikipedia.

The Weimar Republic ( Weimarer Republik), is the name given by historians to the parliamentary republic established in 1919 in Germany to replace the imperial form of government. It was named after Weimar, the city where the constitutional assembly took place. Its official name was Deutsches Reich (German Empire), however. Following World War I, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly convened in the city of Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, to be adopted on 11 August. This liberal democracy eventually lapsed in the early 1930s, leading to the ascent of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler in 1933. Although the constitution of 1919 was never officially repealed, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in February and March 1933, commonly known as Gleichschaltung ("coordination") meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. The constitution became irrelevant; thus, 1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Hitler's "Third Reich".

In its 14 years, the Weimar Republic was faced with numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremists and their paramilitaries, and hostility from the victors of the First World War. However, it overcame many discriminatory regulations of the Treaty of Versailles, reformed the currency, unified tax politics and the railway system.

Name ...

The name Weimar Republic was never used officially during its existence. Despite its political form, the new republic was still known as Deutsches Reich in German. This phrase was commonly translated into English as German Empire, although the German word Reich has a broader range of connotations than the English "empire", so the name is most often translated to the German Reich in English. The English word "realm" captures broadly the same meaning. The common short form remained Germany.

The History Story continues ...