The Contraception deception…

“If you like your plan, you will get to keep your plan!” Remember Obama promising you that about ObaMAOcare?!?!?!

Do you think Religious institutions, exercising their conscience by not having their plans include contraception and the (Morning after) Abortion pill, like their plans the way they are?!?! Obama shows how “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” is, and always has been; as well as most everything else out of his mouth is; A LIE!

There is something else that everyone is missing here. This is a purposeful, willful, and with malice of fore-thought, a direct attempt to get Religious endeavors TO DROP THEIR PLANS causing countless more Americans to be in that “Public Option,” which was, is, and always has been, their (Liberals) goal. They are moving to complete, outright, Government controlled Socialized Medicine; ObaMAOcare was designed to do this from the outset – to destroy and move people away from Private Health Care Insurance plans to a Government option.

Time and time again, we warned people this was the plan/goal from the outset and so many just buried their head back in the sand – too lazy to pay attention and do any research for themselves, just buying into any and all lies from Liberal/Progressive Democrats about the ObaMAOcare scheme. They have been pushing for this since the 1930′s (long before HilaryCare) and only now under Obama and while they had Democrat control of the House and Senate were they finally able to (do what they couldn’t, but tried, to do under Clinton, and) ram it through.

Shamefully, Mitt Romney continues to struggle on finding the “right message” (response) to the ‘Obama-care is just Romney-care on a National scale’ meme. While there are similarities (Mandate), they are NOT exactly the same. The words Romney, and other Republicans, must be putting forth is the simple truth: Obama-care was designed to DISGUISE itself as a Romney-care clone, but is little more than a Trojan-horse (Wolf, in Romney-care clothing). While it (Obama-care) keeps the facade of “Private Insurance” coverages, countless other pages/sections are designed and in-place to undermine that (“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”) concept and drive more and more people unto the “Public Option.” Obama-care was/is designed TO FAIL over the long haul, at which time having harmed Private coverage and driven people off their plans onto the Public Option, and usher in the Democrats next calls for out-right and complete 100% Government-run Socialized Medicine.

I have seen many Religious spokespersons asking that we contact our Representatives and ask that “this policy” be “corrected!” THAT IS THE WRONG APPROACH, ALL OF OBAMA-CARE MUST BE REPEALED – that is the correct/only option and course of action that will stop Liberals/Progressives from exerting control over any and all aspects of your Life in the name of Health Care. Our Representatives must STOP trying to tinker around the edges and continue to demand complete repeal – no Republican that offers/promises any less should be supported!

Obama’s mistake was letting this cat out of the bag before this 2012 election. Rest assured, if they cave on the issue now, it will only be to get past the election and to once again push this issue. It’s all about pushing people from Private coverage (by badgering, bullying, regulating into submission, or HC inflation to cause cost prohibition, organizations into dropping their coverages – pushing their people) to the Public Option.

Obamaocare primers: here, here, here, here, here, and HC summary here.

As always, Regards from JLenardDetroit from “NoMoTown (The MOTORless CITY)”
“Remember, Liberals – looking to do for America, what they’ve done to Detroit. – Destroy it!”
“I think, therefore I am Conservative”
“Conservative by choice, Republican by necessity”
“The more things ‘hope and change’ the more they stay the same”
“You can lead a Liberal to the Truth (Facts), but you cannot make them THINK!”
“Romney (No, not my first choice) does NOT have a MORMON problem. He has a, far too many Americans; these days; are MORONS problem!”
“No more Lawyers to DC, send Accountants!”
closing quotes attributable to (me) JLenardDetroit

Follow @JLenardDetroit

//
cross-posted: “Rattle With Us” Tea Party, Before It’s News, and RedState

see related items:
Liberal’s true Religion is Government (Separation FROM Church TO State)
‘The Greater Good’ – “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the One.”
Frustration with dealing with Politically Brain-Dead
Warning: Children Will Die!!!

Occupy Wall Street, Democrats, the Obama administration, Davos, the Communist Party, and various and sundry fans of government have recently gotten on yet another predictable kick about replacing capitalism with some form of highly regulated central planning. When people are free to buy what they want and make what they want, they say, the marketplace goes wild, dogs and cats start living together, the poles melt, glaciers topple into the sea, polar bears float away, banks collapse, hedge funds steal grand-pappy’s Teamsters’ Union pension, and generally a whole boat-load of bad things happen. As an alternative to all of this chaos with people trying to maximize their own happiness, they claim, maybe just maybe we should have the government step in and regulate the amount of happiness that everyone is allowed to have, including controlling manufacturing so that everyone can get exactly as much stuff as they need in order to be happy, no more and no less.

Read More →

This letter is not targeted any public servant in particular. My hope that in this Christmas and Hanukkah season, when life focuses around our individual families and blessings, it will trigger in all public servants who read it, a pause and cause for reflection.

While “Global Warming” was a good primer, for people across the world, to clamor for a green God (Government) to bring us salvation from our sins, or face the impending doom of life on a “planet with a fever”, today the new fashionable term is “sustainability”. And it is all encompassing.

Sustainability is the next step in the green government religion, to mandate what statists want, at the local level.

It is undeniable, that the Rahm Emmanuel’s ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ concept, is driving this latest assault on all aspects of our private lives.

All you need are a few of willing $cientists and ‘experts’ to testify that, _______ is a problem, which is not sustainable. Ergo, Government is now morally justified and obligated to take action for the greater good, and legislate new mandates at the local level.

The Great Prohibition is back, new and improved for the 21st Century, living in the “cloud” as a “Virtual Amendment”, and it now prohibits anything and everything falls under it’s limitless authority, to accomplish social change. Nothing is out of it’s reach. Plastic shopping bag bans, mandates to have toxic mercury-laden curly bulbs. Outlawing 100 watt bulbs on Jan1st 2012. Calorie counts on menus, Ethanol in gasoline. Banning oil drilling & fracking, mandating solar farms, and windmills, banning lead in bullets, forcing one to buy health insurance (obamacare). The list is endless.

To wit, locally on Long Island, it is the perceived “threat to our underground aquifer” that is the new ‘crisis’, hence the latest driving a force to mandate new personal water consumption habits. All individuals need to be forced off their private wells and hooked to a single source provider, The “Water Authority”, so we can be better regulated by our all benevolent green God; In Government we Trust!

Since “Sustainability” is the new politically fashionable term, I submit to you the sober, undeniable Truth: The reality is, Government is not sustainable.
Government spending is not sustainable.
Government deficits are not sustainable.
Government growth is not sustainable.
Government’s behavior to reflexively pass restrictive legislation on everything real or imagined, is not sustainable.

When you are among your government peers, I wonder what percentage of legislation you consider, is restrictive and punitive, and how much legislation is liberating to the individual citizen?

Every day across this great nation, when a government body comes into session, a new personal liberty is lost to a mandate.
That is clearly not sustainable.

How many more new laws can we the People, sustain, before our elected representative, Servants of the People, have successfully shackled us into serfdom, and become our Rulers?

To remain “sustainable”, governments had better take a lesson from nature,
for Sustainability is the talent of the parasite.

Respectfully,

Jacques Ditte

“all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
— Declaration of Independence. 1776

Like a sleight-of-hand-artist on a busy street with a briefcase that turns into a table, three walnuts shells and a pea the perpetually re-elected and their town criers in the Corporations Once Known as the mainstream Media appear to be perennially able to fool the perpetually distracted by pulling a metaphorical quarter out of their ear. 

I know a professional revolutionary.  We grew up together.  He has correctly diagnosed America’s disease as a corporate cult in a symbiotic relationship with a corrupt government.  He deftly outlines the general theory, although not the specifics of how crony capitalists and political hacks have crafted a system wherein money laundering has become national policy.  The political hacks fleece the sheeple through taxes and inflation.  They give the money to their accomplices in the flimflam corporations who funnel huge chunks of cash back to the hacks for re-election.  Every few years the sheeple rouse themselves out of their media induced coma long enough to be herded to the polls to vote for more of the same. 

Yes, the professional revolutionaries and their government educated followers have correctly diagnosed the disease.  However, they have prescribed poison instead of medicine.  Their answer to the curse of Corporatism’s National Socialism is less nationalism and more socialism.  Since corporatism has built a coffin our body politic cannot seem to claw its way out of, he prescribes cutting out the crony capitalists and giving the whole operation to the political hacks. In other words if the black shirts have ruined the country let’s try the reds.  That would be as transparent as fighting the most horrendous war in human history because Hitler attempted to pull Poland into his freedom smothering embrace and then giving Poland to Stalin. 

Headlines and talking heads scream for days, “The Super Committee cannot fail or the sky will fall!”  Endless hours in the 24 hour news cycle are devoted to debating, “Will the Super Committee succeed or will they fail?”  Meanwhile most of the sheeple are consumed with concern about the NBA strike, a celebrity drowning thirty years ago, or was Kim’s wedding a set-up all along.  Then we’re told he Super Committee failed accompanied by endless squabbling about who caused the failure. 

It is all nothing but Kabuki, a form of Japanese drama based on popular legends and characterized by elaborate costumes, stylized acting.

Remember how the Super Committee became so super?  It didn’t come from another planet with a red sun and lower gravity.  It was instead the Frankenstein created as the cover for another rise in the debt ceiling.  The Tea Party had just made a Herculean effort in the 2010 elections and achieved an historical sweep of the House of Representatives.  Over sixty newly minted congressmen owed their seat at the table of plenty to the greatest grassroots movement America has seen in generations.  They had campaigned on changing the culture of corruption in Washington, stopping the deficit spending, severing the cord to the crony capitalists, and paying down the national debt. 

Before they could even arrive the Republican leadership colluded with a recently humiliated inexperienced president and a recently repudiated Democratic leadership to extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for more spending in the lamest of all lame duck sessions.  Then as soon as the fresh troops arrive they raise their hands in salute to the same old Republican leadership, renew the patriot Act, pass a series of continuing resolutions allowing the drunken sailors to continue spending, and then vote to raise the debt ceiling by another few trillions. Oh but they fought!  They wrangled and they refused to give the Spender in Chief more trillions of our great grandchildren’s money unless he agreed to a Super Committee backed up by automatic cuts and automatic tax increases in future deficits totaling trillions of dollars in cuts.  This was drama worthy of As Washington Turns.  If it was joke it wouldn’t be funny. 

To begin with the Super Committee wasn’t filled with deficit hawks and balanced budget advocates.  It was instead filled with the most partisan members from both wings of the Party of Power guaranteeing there would be no settlement.  Obviously the plan all along was for the automatic cuts and taxes to come into play, over the next ten years.  In other words the spendaholics of this Congress are going to place limits on the credit card of following Congresses who have the ability to vote away the limits any time they want to.  How could that ever fail? 

The smoke and mirrors of political theater is meant to hide the fact that all they’re arguing over is reducing the yearly deficits way off there in the future somewhere.  All they ever discussed was slowing the rate of increase.  Even if the most draconian plan so far introduced by the young firebrand Representative Ryan had been adopted the budget still went up every year, and the national debt still grew every year.  And though there would have been more and more spending with no end to the red ink in sight Ryan was portrayed as pushing Grandma off the cliff and a large percentage of the population believes it.  This is baseline budgeting wherein the proposed budget becomes the base for what is cut.  In other words our leaders can cut all day and the spending still goes up. 

It is time to tell our hypnotized fellow citizens to take the blinders off.  Wake up!  The house is on fire and the firemen are pouring gasoline on the flames. 

The system is broke and it is becoming very clear that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put this thing together again.  The spending goes on every second of every minute of every hour of every day.  The tax code that ostensibly is designed to pay for it all is in reality a bewildering maze meant to trap those unsophisticated enough not to hire an army of tax lawyers and accountants while legally recognized persons such as GE file 57,000 page tax returns on fourteen billion in profits and pays no tax at all. 

While the hemorrhaging of our descendants wealth goes on night and day we are being set up for the next battle to raise the debt ceiling, the balanced budget amendment.  Even if this long threatened turkey could finally make it to the block what good is a balanced budget amendment?  The spendthrifts we call a government can still spend all they want as long as they raise enough money to pretend to cover at least the on budget portion of the swag.  And where do you think they will raise the money?  They will either raise taxes or print money.  Either way we pay so they can play. What we need is a spending amendment that limits spending to a prescribed percentage of the GDP.

At one time the best tongue in cheek advice for coping with the policies of the convention of confidence men masquerading as the American government was get a government job and study Spanish.  Now the situation has descended even beyond the black humor of that cynical joke.  Today the best advice may be to hunker in the bunker, store food, and learn enough History so you can tell those who come after what America used to be. 

Last year I thought it was time to take the gloves off and tell America the emperor has no clothes.  To do so this advocate of the Constitution and limited government wrote The Constitution Failed.  A book which places current events in a constitutional and historical context proving that while our nation was founded upon a document meant to limit government we now stand face-to-face with an unlimited government.  I believed it was time to sound the alarm.  I thought people were ready to admit the terrible truth; our government does little more than tip its hat to the Constitution while doing whatever it wants.   The first step in solving any problem is admitting you have a problem.  The second is recognizing what that problem is.  My hope is that The Constitution Failed will help people recognize and identify the problem so that we the people can reach a solution.

As one who has been pounding this drum and singing this song for fifty years all I can do is wonder, will the drowning Lady Liberty finally see the life preserver as she goes down for the last time?  Will she finally grasp the Constitution as the only thing that has ever guaranteed limited government, personal freedom and economic opportunity in America?  Will she remember her past and save her future or will she sink beneath the waves of government regulation and drown in the red tape of an all-powerful central government? 

I wrote The Constitution Failed to make a difference.  I wrote it because I see my beloved country walking off a cliff into the abyss of socialism and I am compelled to throw out the life line. 

If you want to read The Constitution Failed send me an email with your address and I will send you a complimentary copy.  I want to see the re-birth of limited government.  I want to see personal liberty and economic freedom continue to exist in this: the last best hope of mankind.   And I’m ready to put my money where my heart is, limited government, personal liberty and economic freedom.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2011 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

Today, we celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution (September 17 falls out over the weekend this year).  On this day, it is imperative that we reflect on the importance of our constitution and celebrate the roots of our founding.  As our nation comes under attack from the forces of tyranny within, we must reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of our founders and founding documents.

Most people often mistakenly refer to our nation as the greatest democracy on earth.  They are mistaken because we are not an absolute democracy; we are a constitutional republic.  That is what makes our nation great, for if we were merely a democracy, we would be anything but great.  And to the extent that we no longer function as a constitutional republic, that greatness is rapidly ebbing away.

Why did we need a constitution?  Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?

Read More →

Today, we celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution (September 17 falls out over the weekend this year).  On this day, it is imperative that we reflect on the importance of our constitution and celebrate the roots of our founding.  As our nation comes under attack from the forces of tyranny within, we must reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of our founders and founding documents.

Most people often mistakenly refer to our nation as the greatest democracy on earth.  They are mistaken because we are not an absolute democracy; we are a constitutional republic.  That is what makes our nation great, for if we were merely a democracy, we would be anything but great.  And to the extent that we no longer function as a constitutional republic, that greatness is rapidly ebbing away.

Why did we need a constitution?  Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?

Read More →

Everything happens for a reason. In the wake of Minnesota’s state government shutdown, many reasons have been offered to explain the impasse between Governor Dayton and the Republican-led legislature. Most seem to center around the notion of compromise.

On Friday’s Almanac, DFL party chair Ken Martin sparred with MN-GOP vice chair Michael Brodkorb over which party was to blame. Each accused the other of refusing to compromise. While there is certainly an instructive argument to be had over which side has been more willing to negotiate, it defers the important moral consideration which will inform any deal.

Martin evoked that consideration on Friday. “I ask you… Why is it so important in this state to protect 7,700 millionaires at the expense of 99.9% of Minnesotans?” Almanac co-host Cathy Wurzer summarized the DFL talking point as “millionaires over Minnesotas,” as if earning a certain amount of money is a renunciation of one’s residency and citizenship.

Read More →

 A new report by The Washington Times shows that Medicare will lack the sufficient funds to pay out full benefits by 2024.  And where Social Security was not expected to experience such an event until 2037, a slow economic recovery has shortened that forecast by a year to 2036.  Knowing well that these have been considered “doomsday” events for the two leviathan entitlement programs, the government will look to continue demanding that taxpayers fund them, and will just run them in “permanent” yearly deficits. 

Despite the fact that progressive politicians have often bucked the calls to reform these programs by presenting them as not only moral imperatives but as complex abstractions that can only be understood by experts, it should be clear to anyone who can balance a checkbook why they are unsustainable.  One expert named William G. Shipman condensed it very clearly.  He describes “an interesting paradox; as countries become more wealthy, their social security systems become more poor.  The oddity is driven by the casual relationship between increasing wealth- and increasing life expectancy along with decreasing birth rates- all wrapped up around pay-as-you-go financing.” 

The dire formula is painfully easy to solve:

(Decreasing number of contributors) + (Increasing number of collectors) =

Perpetually increasing burden upon taxpayers                                          

Yet despite being ever more unsustainable, the government has chosen to accept inevitable failure and simply run these programs in “permanent” deficits until the taxpayer fountain dries up.  But as shareholders financially backing the American venture, shouldn’t we do something to stop such nonsense?

Imagine for a moment that Medicare is not a government entitlement program, but a business.  Then imagine that the CEO of that business announces his intention to run his company in “permanent deficits.”  What would be the reaction?  Shareholders would largely jettison their stock, the CEO would be replaced by order of the remaining shareholders, and the business model would be amended to again become productive. 

Government programs enjoy no such adaptability.  We can’t just stop paying, immediately cast Obama and Geithner out of their positions, and revamp entitlement programs to become more successful.  So we must wait to hold elections.  And to ensure that those elections yield a proper result, we have to first convince the indoctrinated American people that we need to amend what is obviously broken. 

Yet election after election, this has proven to be a difficult task.  Progressives cling to these entitlement programs with profound ideological resolve.  Where our founders and modern conservatives view the government as a “necessary evil” whose influence must be limited to preserve individual liberty, progressives have come to view government a sort of “necessary benevolence;” a means for the productive to subsidize the unproductive via wealth redistribution.  And no deluge of logic or reason can dislodge some of them from this unmistakably socialistic position.

But sensible Americans need to act- and fast.  The Social Security and Medicare constructs are aflame, and adding more taxpayer revenue will only fuel the fire and make it that much more difficult to douse.  We must demand that our representatives restore our individual property rights and seek responsible alternatives to counter the undeniable fiscal burden of these entitlement programs, rather than allowing the left to continue positioning it as a moral debate that has been twisted into a crisis by a fear-mongering right.

The aforementioned William G. Shipman, among others, has presented sound and constitutionally prudent ideas to Congress.  He suggests that we can pay benefits for existing collectors and proximally collecting retirees while establishing a personal investment alternative to government administrated retirement programs.  In describing this course of action, he relates:

If [Americans] could acquire this freedom they also would have personal property rights over their accumulated wealth. They have no such rights to Social Security benefits. They also could bequeath some or all of their retirement assets. They cannot under Social Security… They would no longer be tethered to the government. They would no longer be subject to politicians’ preferences over when they can retire, how much they can get, how their spouses are treated, how much they’re going to pay, and all of the rules and regulations that have evolved to the point of being incomprehensible. They would be free.

Now that sounds like a plan our founders would agree to: limiting the government’s right to an individual’s property and allowing liberty and freedom of choice to shape the destiny of American citizens.  We cannot let our lamentable lapses into socialistic enterprise lead us to our ruination, but rather, we must re-imbue our nation with the ideals of its founding.  That is the only way we can reverse or reform these destructive redistributive platforms.

Including ObamaCare.

William Sullivan commonly contributes to American Thinker, and blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com

The United States, like most nations in the developed world, maintain a progressive federal income tax system, meaning people not only pay a given percentage of their income in taxes but that percentage increases for high income earners, from 10 percent for individuals making a little more than $8,000 a year to 35 percent on incomes over $370,000.

As a result, in 2008, the top 1 percent of American income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent that year paid 58 percent.

According to statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, America has actually the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations!

But you wouldn’t know it listening to Barack Obama’s deficit reduction speech on Wednesday. The president, like members of his party so often do, portrayed the tax burden carried by top income earners as unjustly light and blamed much of the nation’s fiscal crisis on the top rate tax cuts enacted during the previous administration.

In the last decade, the president noted that the average income of the bottom 90 percent of working Americans had declined while the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. “That’s who needs to pay less taxes?” he wondered.

Yet it is what Republicans have proposed. The budget drawn up by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin would lower both corporate and top income tax rates to stir investment and job creation. The president rejected the idea, saying, “there’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

Unlike the president’s own proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next twelve years, the Ryan plan actually does manage to balance the budget, if barely, by 2021—without raising taxes. But it does so at the expense of popular health support entitlements that Democrats are unwilling to reform.

Reflecting the ideological divide on taxation, the president professed that “at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.” Rich people, he added, “don’t need another tax cut.”

Except most of those “fortunate” Americans didn’t get rich by sheer fortune. They worked for their money and already, they shoulder more than fair share of the tax burden. They may be able to “afford to pay a little more,” but the real question is—should they?

Democrats claim the moral high ground by appealing to an undefined suspicion that “the rich” really don’t deserve to be; that they amassed their fortunes at the expense of honest, hard working Americans who never stood a chance against the unscrupulous, rugged capitalist businessmen who don’t care about fairness and human dignity. It is why so many people hate the rich.

The reality is very different. The supposed maldistribution of wealth that characterizes a free society is actually the fair outcome of honest competition. Entrepreneurs and professionals who work hard and innovate prosper whereas people of limited ability remain poor.

That’s not a vision Democrats can accept. As Obama put it last Wednesday, they do not “begrudge those who’ve done well” but he does believe that people “who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more,” adding that this “has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.”

The notion that somehow “those who’ve done well” owe their success to society at large and should therefore “give back” is widespread among leftists and it justifies them in demanding “little” tax increases time and again. What is more, wealthy people won’t miss the money anyway because, as the president said, they continue to do well.

In this vision, it is the government, not those who pay taxes, that determines much taxation would hurt people, or “hinder their success.” In this vision, tax cuts equal “spending” and tax increases are “spending reductions in the tax code.” In this vision, most wealthy Americans would gladly “give back” more to the country “that’s done so much for them. It’s just Washington hasn’t asked them to.”

In the real world, Washington has asked plenty of the rich and compelled them to seek all sorts of tax deductions and accounting tricks to avoid having to pay high taxes.

Even if the infamous Bush era tax cuts are reversed, as the president likes to do, it would not solve the nation’s record $1.6 trillion deficit. It is disingenuous to pretend that simply by making taxes “fairer,” America can avert a debt crisis.

If balance is to be restored to the federal budget without raising taxes, deep spending cuts will have to be enacted. If Washington wants to boost revenue, it cannot simply target “the rich” without undermining economic growth and the president’s much cherished “competitiveness.”

This is not popularity it is populism, and they are as different as good and evil. Populism dates back to Rome, the Populares Party has been considered the origin of both socialism and Populism, the populares, “People’s Party.” Populism is often considered a major factor in the downfall of the great Roman Empire and should be considered one of the most destructive forces in politics. The Populist Party in the US, originally the People’s Party was established in 1891 and in 1896, the Populists gained control of the Democratic Party in turn became part of the Progressive Movement, Fabian Socialism. What makes populism different from popularity seems to be the exploitation of economic and social interests. We now have what can be called a Populist Revolt in Egypt, as of now we see many colors being added but no one knows the final hue, it is only speculation. From this we can certainly see how infectious Populism is and how it spreads. This goes beyond a pure democracy in to more of a “Mob Rule,” or unchecked popular power, this only leads to social instability and was almost never successful throughout history. Populism often leads to abuse, we see politicians play their role as champion of a greater cause, but in reality they are fighting their own personal struggle for power. Nazism had its roots in Populism, as did many other failed democracies.

Thankfully, the framers of our US Constitution placed our form of government to the right of a pure democracy and “Mob Rule.” James Madison said, “Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” This should be the dividing line between left and right, with those on the right supporting the original intent of our Constitution, The Tea Party to Conservatives are and must be anti “Mob Rule” and anti- Populism. Most certainly, those so named Republicans that do not support our Constitution need to be flushed out because everyone needs to be on the same side of the fence on this. Thanks to the culmination of compromise and bipartisanship, our government has grown beyond its original scope, and now unpopular and drastic cuts need to be made. The fundamental argument from the Populist opinion is that liberty and capitalism is wrought with corruption and unscrupulous people. Therefore, government must step in and intervene, often giving the power to unscrupulous politicians and more corruption, a fallacious argument. Lord Acton astutely noted human nature, “Absolutely power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely.” The argument the leftist Populist use is what can be done, it is a crises, and this is apocalyptic thus shifting the argument from should anything be done to close the eyes to the burden of those actions. This shifting of the narrative toward the Populist opinion is so powerful in human nature reason is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory and fear mongering. Those that use this response are nothing more then useful idiots that ignore historical facts, human nature and natural law.       

Populism comes in many flavors, at times it may be hard to tell what flavor but it is predominantly one color and that is more government, left. Benito Mussolini used the Ministry of Popular Culture, a version of the politically correct police that release news broadcasts and newspaper stories glorifying the Populism of Mussolini. Lyndon B. Johnson used his sympathy for the 1891 Populist Party to push for The Great Society. The New Deal and the ACLU were often described as Populist. The French Revolution was a Populist Revolt and Marx studied the history of the French Revolution resulting in the use of Populism in Marxism. Populism unlike class warfare attempts to take a broader swath of “The People” against “The Privileged” and both as shown throughout history to be involved with some sort of demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism. We hear it all the time from the left, blame Bush, well the Republicans did, the Tea Party is a bunch of racists and so on, but this is not to say the left are all the same as Mussolini yet they seem to live in the same house. The People’s Republic of China, here we are again with a “People’s” Party in their Great Leap Forward used the Populism of productive force determinism, the Populism of a Communist utopia and more than 20 million people died. Luis Echeverría Álvarez Mexican president used the Populist rhetoric of social change and economic progress and became the first former Mexican president to be placed under arrest on charges of genocide. This is not some easily dismissed conspiracy theory but a fact that Populism wherever it is found thought history is usually bad and the opposite policy of the Tea Party and Conservatives. You may also find the demagoguery from the left accusing the Tea Party as a Populist movement.

There is also the Egalitarian side of Populism, the equality of income and wealth typically associated with Labor or Workers unions. There are well defined lines describing the separation of private sector unions from government sector unions with the government sector having extremes of left and right. There is also a thin line that separates the original intent of unions for worker safety and prosperity, and the exploitation of economic and social interests. Government is a force, they forcefully take your taxes, there is no freedom in this matter either you pay your taxes or go to jail, and they have the power to take what they want. Collective bargaining by the government few is not a right because it takes the rights and freedom of others by force, it is by definition the opposite of a god given right and liberty. Private sector and government sector Labor or Workers unions are very different in this nature and cannot be treated the same. It seems politicians and labor unions are playing their role as champions of a greater cause use Populist rhetoric by calling it a right, this is a lie. The original intent of our framework of government was that our government was only supposed to protect our god given rights and not be the owner and provider of our rights. Clearly, our government has grown beyond its original scope in this, but the Populist rhetoric closed the eyes to the burden of those actions. Government union members are handing over their god given rights to the government in a “Mob Rule” and mob mentality, shifting of the narrative toward the Populist opinion and dismissing natural law and reasoning. This is tyranny when government owns our rights but some passively accept it because of the collective good it provides them. The burden of these actions is the likely corruption of power, as history has shown all too true. The original scope of our government was supposed to prevent this from happening and now we teeter on the extremes causing social and economic instability. We can only walk this thin tightrope for so long because it is natural law that we eventually fall, history has shown there is no safety net in this and our fall will be extreme left or right. The extreme left and right of Labor or Workers unions where they have been corrupted with power is the Social Democratic Labour Party, Bolshevism and the National Socialist Workers Party or Nazism wherein they eliminate all other unions and become a single Party, a pure democracy.

The Populist typically displays the Populist rhetoric of the day, this could be under the guise of any brand and what they are branded must not be that easily dismissed but scrutinized. Often the branding comes from the Populist and this is typically in the form of demagoguery, class warfare, shifting of the narrative, and dismissal of facts, history, natural law and reasoning. Sometimes the branding merits further scrutinizing as in being branded a “flip-flop” as in “flip-flop Mitt Romney.” Typically, the Populist rhetoric is contrary in substantial action, say one thing and do another, or go mushy and compromise. Sometimes the Populist will skew the popularity of an adversary in to Populism to cause confusion and division. The only way to protect our selves from this Populism is to step back for a moment and think about it, do not get caught up in the Populism, engage brain before opening mouth and beware the Populist.