Crush the Libertarian Menace -- Vote For Republican Candidates in 2010

For 30 years I've heard from Libertarians, that the problem in American politics is our two party system. Libertarians have a lengthy track record so far as failed attempts at becoming a viable 3rd party are concerned. But they've never managed more than the margin of error in votes cast for their presidential candidates. They haven't fared much better in congressional races. So what's the problem? Well for starters, it's their belief that they alone possess a monopoly on truth, justice and liberty. Libertarians have been con'd into believing the Libertarian Party's ideal for America is better than the one created by the founders. That so many Libertarians presume they have the intellect and wisdom to, as their oft discussed first order of business, rewrite our nation's constitution and cure it's "defects" just staggers the imagination. Much like our NOTUS -- Barack Obama -- their arrogance knows few if any limits.

I admit, at first glance there are some points of agreement between conservatives and the Libertarian Party's updated platform; however, that document is more a masterpiece of ambiguity than a reflection of intellect and wisdom. For instance, while the Libertarian platform holds that every human being has a right to life, that same platform is against proscribing the taking of such life by abortion. On recreational drug use, prostitution and pornography the platform makes clear it's none of the government's business what people choose to do with their own bodies. Yet they completely ignore the statistical data which makes clear the damage proliferation of drugs like pot and cocaine -- both considered "recreational" by Libertarians -- as well as prostitution and pornography have done to the social fabric of our nation. In the Netherlands they're trying to find ways of UN-doing the damage done by decades of their laissez faire social policy. On that score, Libertarians have more in common with Obama and the rest of the French leaning radical left than with mainstream conservative Americans.

And apparently Libertarians accept corruption from their own candidates even as they point fingers at everyone else. Rationalizations abound for Ron Paul's abhorrent behavior in congress. Which demonstrates just how delusional Libertarians can be. Ron Paul has long been the face of their party. And Ron Paul who ran as a Republican because he couldn't have gotten elected sanitation superintendent as a Libertarian, figured out how to scam the system by voting “NO” on appropriations bills he knew would pass with or without his vote. The scam is this. Good ol' RP loads the bill with millions and millions of earmarked dollars for projects in his district. He then vote's against the bill so he can say he's a fiscal conservative in press releases and campaign materials. Then – and here's the real diabolical part – he concocts a cover story in case he gets caught with his hands in our pocket books. He says it's a political necessity to use earmarks because they are the only way to assure that money appropriated by congress gets spent responsibly; as, of course, Ron Paul determines best.

I live in Minnesota and I don't want money taken from me or my family and friends for projects the Federal government has no business funding in the first place -- be they in Texas or anywhere else. Ron Paul is a slick insider same as the rest of 'em. Of course he defends his ear marks, but consider more than a few words once spoken to Davy Crockett by Horatio Bunce while Crockett, then a member of the United States Congress, was on the campaign trail. Bunce had this to say regarding an appropriation bill of $20,000 to benefit the widow of a once distinguished Naval Officer :

"It is not the amount that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity...

The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, you have violated the constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country. For when congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people... I cannot vote for you."

Are appropriations for pet projects back home in Texas any different Mr. Paul?

Libertarians share much in common with Liberals and Democrats, they cling to rigid idealism, and both purport to have the blueprint for a more perfect society; a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote and with the stakes as high as they are now there are no votes to waste. Forget the Libertarian or any other 3rd party in 2010. If there is to be a third party, it will emerge from the grass roots and it will not be Libertarian. Until such occurs, vote for the best candidates your local Republican party can muster. Work to get the best people into the running by participating in the caucus and primary systems. Work at the local level to get credible candidates into the process. It won't happen in one election cycle, it will take many. In the interim vote for the most conservative candidates the republican party of your State puts forward. The immediate goal is to defeat the Obama machine and the Marxists now at the helm. Over time we can and will weed the pseudo-conservatives out.

The Mark of the Beast

As foretold by the revelation of John, no one will buy or sell save that he/she has the Mark of the Beast upon the hand or forehead. The so called "health-care" bill, the new euphemism for Marxist/Fascist State, mandates that you shall buy and you shall sell health-care coverage in that market place. It gives one no choice. To be sure, the idea of forcing the average Joe to accept the "Mark" 'tis of Satanic origins. I've discussed the "mark of the beast" topic many times with Christian friends and have discovered that the Beast's Mark upon the forehead or hand is not physical it's allegorical, a type of metaphor, wherein the forehead represents heart or mind and hand represents actions, deeds or works. Hence, evidence of the Beast's Mark is in what you say, think and do. If, for instance, you make a conscious choice to participate in and legitimize government health-care coverage, against the constitutional limitations on such intrusive government regulation of your life, then you've accepted the Mark in your heart and/or mind. Likewise, if you seek to legislate government health care coverage or attempt to coerce or entice others into doing so, then you've bourne the Mark upon your hand -- by your actions.

Mandatory health care coverage is nothing more than a means to force government regulation upon your free will, under the guise of being a right. Very serpent-like. A right is something for which we have the free will to exercise or not. I have the right to spend my money as I see fit. The fact that I might need a house to live in and have the means by which to make mortgage payments, doesn't give the government a right to force me into buying a house, does it? The fact that I could end up homeless and in some manner burden the rest of the population doesn't give the government the right to force me into buying public subsidized housing, does it?

Even in cases of the most reprehensible nature, our Supreme Court has upheld the notion so eloquently articulated by John Locke that, "Every man has a property in his own person. This, nobody has a right to but himself." Locke goes on to state that “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." The idea being that life, liberty and property preceded government and that governments are formed for the protection thereof. Perhaps Ayn Rand in contemporary parlance best stated Locke's ideal when she wrote: "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work andkeep the results, which means: the right of property."

The government can not tell us when, where or how to spend our money under threat of punishment, fines or imprisonment. If it can, then the blood and treasure spent in creating our Constitution wasn't worth the ink nor the parchment it was written on in the first place. Health-care coverage is all part of the Obama administration's effort to destroy our private sector capitalist economy in order to replace it with a neoMarxist political economy. Here's my paraphrase of how Marx put it : In order to unbind the working class from the shackles of individual private property rights, the working class must by world-wide socialist revolution seize political power. It must then deprive the capitalist classes of their individual property and place all means of productivity into collective ownership (that means government). Once the foundations of material property ownership are destroyed, (capitalism and natural rights), all citizens will be equal owners of production and equal participants in its benefits. Yeah right. How well has that worked -- NOT -- EVER.

#1 New Year's Resolution: Remove Democrats From Power

On December 16th 2009, Barack Obama amended executive order 12425 abridging the Reagan Administration Order which -- while recognizing INTERPOL (international police agency) as a public international organization -- had limited INTERPOL's privileges and immunities within the United States. Until Dec 16th 2009, INTERPOL did not have full immunity from U.S. laws. They were subject to search and seizure of their premises and assets, subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and subject while operating in the United States to our criminal rules of procedure. All that has changed.

Barack Obama has, with the stroke of his executive pen, elevated INTERPOL above U.S. law and above our own law enforcement agencies, in effect subjugating our sovereignty and immunity to the whim of foreign courts. Currently, the inferences being made are that "war criminals" as determined in the Hague, Netherlands, by the "World Court" and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are now subject to arrest and apprehension without U.S. protection and due process of law. The names of Dick Cheney and George Bush are being mentioned. However, any one of us, any U.S. Citizen found in violation of an international law or agreement could in theory be apprehended and hauled before the World Court, ICC or any other foreign court, without due process protection of (U.S.) law.

Some might say, as if this isn't bad enough in and of itself, that only our political leaders and military would be subject to such arrest. I don't want our soldiers apprehended and brought before a foreign court, do you? Can you imagine the legislation we'll be subjected to as our elected representatives attempt to avoid violating international laws? What about those among us, individuals or small businesses, who might be found guilty of violating international Environmental laws; or the international rights of the child laws; or hate speech violations such as got radio talk host Michael Savage banned from Britain? The list goes on.

In addition to its role as the de facto enforcement agency of the world court and ICC, INTERPOL works WITH foreign governments to help them arrest individuals found in violation of their laws but that are residing beyond their borders. The Obama amendment and abridgment of the Reagan executive order allows INTERPOL and thus foreign powers to sidestep U.S. and State law. They can now reach into the heart of our nation and snatch up anyone deemed guilty of crime by foreign courts. The Obama amendment holds that all INTERPOL assets, files, investigative tools and so on are "inviolable". The term "assets" can include some of the following: agents, cars, weapons, offices, airplanes, helicopters, boats or ships... really it includes all gathered intelligence as well as people and hardware of any kind deployed by the agency to accomplish its law enforcement objective.

I doubt the Obama Administration can produce a rational and reasoned answer to the question "why was executive order 12425 amended in this way?" It's time at the conservative grass roots level to do ALL that is necessary and sufficient to win the congress back completely and strip these looney Marxist democrats of their power.

My blog post

Cloward-Piven the Radicals Behind Obama's Agenda

Originally Posted on TownHall.com by AfterShock on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:38:33 PM

Actually, what's happening to our capitalist economy and to our representative democracy, the present neo-Marxist assault, has been underway since the early stages of the twentieth century. Notwithstanding, the extreme radical politics we're witnessing today -- the attempt to destroy capitalism and individual liberty in favor of Marxist style collectivism -- has been the not so subtle policy objective of extremists within the Democrat party since the election of Bill and Hill in 1992. I, for one, was absolutely sure Bill and Hillary Clinton would be the one's to crash our economy with socialist health-care, huge deficits, and taxes reset to pre-Reagan levels. In so doing they'd have created an economic crisis that would have us all begging for mercy - their mercy, and their Utopian agenda. I was wrong. The American people were having none of the Clinton agenda back then and the Democrats suffered defeats in mid term elections that stunned their party faithful. So much so in fact, it appeared to most observers that Democrats had been cast from majority status as far into the future as the mind's eye could imagine. Nonetheless, our ever prepared to look a gift-horse in the mouth republicans, especially those of the Bush, McCain, Graham, Specter variety, have blown the royal-flush-opportunity we'd been given -- in spades.

Not only did elected Republicans fail to uphold the "conservative" ideological basis of the Republican party platform; they all but assured that a vast cross section of middle-of-the-road Americans would conclude there to be no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans whatsoever. And today we're paying the price for that disconnect from middle America so very dearly. As a result our posterity, should the Democrats and assorted Marxist/Leninist radicals calling the shots succeed where the Clinton's failed, will be reading an historical account of America's transformation into neo-communism (created from whole cloth of course) which extols the virtue of the American communist revolution. All, of course, while painting the darkest possible picture of the blasphemers (that would be us) who attempted to preserve capitalism and free enterprise as the means by which Americans could and should exercise their God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Today I read an article posted online at American Thinker, by James Simpson regarding the Cloward-Piven strategy of coup d'etat which linked me to an article he had written 14 months prior. @ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Simpson's prior article titled 'Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis' makes the Obama administration's radical hard-left-Marxist agenda all too clear. And as I said in a prior post, the damage Obama is able to do to our Republic remains to be seen. But damage, in fact mortally wounding, is precisely the policy under way by this administration. Read, if ye can stomach it, as follows:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

The following excerpt by David Horowitz enunciates Cloward-Plevin as THE strategem deployed to destroy our economy, obliterate free market capitalsim, and bring on economic collapse:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

The following sourced articles were also referenced

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

• The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
• The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
• The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

In his most recent article on American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html James Simpson connects all the dots, here's just a small sampling regarding the radicals Obama can be tied to:

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.

The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran "organizer" Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.

____________________________________________

Compare the foregoing to my post of Sept. 24th, 2009 on brane smasher blog at townhall.com, the following excerpts were originally published by the Socialist Labor Party in 1925. My post "Our Marxist in Chief" Connects Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to this current state of affairs:

http://branesmasher.blogtownhall.com/2009/09/24/our_marxist_in_chief,_an_historic_perspective.thtml

Please take note: The radical nexus to Columbia University and City College of New York is key to understanding the Khruschev admontion that America would be destroyed from within. Again, as reported in my post "Our Marxist in Chief" (linked above) -- Julius Rosenberg infamous traitor executed for espionage with his wife Ethel in 1953, attended City College of New York same said as City University. There are NO coincidences in this attack on America. Here are the roots of the Rosenberg's treachery as first published in the Weekly People August 1, 1925 titled "The Workers Party [USSR] vs The Socialist Labor Party [USA]" by Joseph Brandon (republished in 1926 as Arm & Hammer pamphlet #8) read as follows:

Russia's Problem and Ours: In Russia the problem was not to take the industries but to create them. In America the problem is the reverse. We do not have to create the industries, what we must do is to take them. The easiest task the Russians had, the seizing of power, is the hardest nut we have to crack, and the thing that is no task for us at all is what is puzzling the Russians night and day, all these years. When the working class seizes power in America it controls all that is necessary to run production on socialized lines. A dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary, the workers being in a majority. There will not even be a rule of the proletariat because the act of socializing the industries automatically abolishes all classes and therefore the proletariat as a class ceases to be.

Organization Must Preceed Revolution: Obviously the workers cannot wait until the Social Revolution has stepped upon the scene and then organize. Tactics therefore dictate the organization of the working class today, under capitalism, into an organization whose primary purpose is to seize the industries and act as the framework of the new social order. Just as the chick develops in the shell before the world as a distinct creature, so the future society must be built up under capitalism. And just as the fully developed chick breaks the shell of its egg, so the shell of capitalism will never be broken until the organization of future society is developed to the point where it is able to function. Does it not follow logically that the working class must organize today, under capitalism, in order to achieve its emancipation?

Ignorance Extends to Politics: The Workers Party wants a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it argues that the large mass of workers will never become Socialist and will have to be led by an intelligent [elitist] minority. So it is willing to unite with any movement of workers, no matter how wrong this may be, in order that they will have some masses to lead. This is called a united front. (blogger's note: the American Socialist Labor Party rejected this tactic)

How to "Bore" and How to Build: The SLP says, “Bore from within but bore to a purpose.” The purpose of working inside the trade unions is to destroy the bulwark of capitalism and establish bulwarks of Socialism, the industrial union.

The Revolutionary Organization: The SLP correctly holds that the political party must be a party of no compromise (blogger's note - does this remind anyone of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the radical Dems?). The SLP mission is to point the way to the goal and it refuses to leave the main road to follow the small bypaths that lead into the swamp of reformism. Its skirts are clean. The banner of Socialism is held high, uncorrupted, and not dragged down into the mire of petty bourgeois reform. Capitalism cannot be reformed. It must be overthrown.

The Real Power of Labor: Here in America we have a right to come out openly and agitate for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a workers’ republic. If we did not have this opportunity then no alternative would be open for us but to advocate a violent overthrow of capitalism...

Which brings us to The Cloward-Piven Strategy of "Orchestrated Crisis". Keeping in mind that Democrats at least as far back as FDR have used the strategy of creating crises for which they conveniently offer up the only possible solution that will get "mainstream" media attention, is #1 in their play-book. Is it a coincidence that Obama attended Columbia University, the same radicalized university that churned out the likes of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven? or, that Piven and Julius Rosenberg, though not contemporaries, were both alumni of City College of New York? Is it any wonder there are no available academic records regarding Obama's time at Columbia? And let us not forget Rahm Emmanuel, Obama chief of staff, who said in the context of this current economic disaster, that a crisis is an opportunity to do that which might otherwise be impossible.

Our republic is threatened more seriously today than if Nikita Khruschev had succeeded in placing and making operational those nuclear warheads atop their Cuban based ballistic missiles in 1962. Yet in the 60's, Mutually Assured Destruction was a formidible deterrent to Soviet threats. The only deterrent we have in this day and age against the neo-communist revolution now under way, is the American people. If 'we the people' succeed by election, public pressure and whatever other means necessary to put down this attack on our American republic, then the conspirators in Obama's attempted coup d'etat should be arrested, tried and convicted for the crime of high treason. If we fail, if our elections are tampered with, or if they simply never occur due to some new crisis, it will be Game-Over for the America we once knew and loved.

I'm thankful that we're still able to discuss these issues openly, I wonder how long that liberty will last. It's up to each of us to determine how long, we know what the obamanation intends.

Our Marxist in Chief, An Historic Perspective

Posted by AfterShock on Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:39:38 AM

It remains to be seen just how much damage to our nation Barrack Obama will get away with over the next 38 months. The damage he's done thus far is considerable, but as of September 23, 2009, it truly defy's description. His appearance before the UN Security Council left most conservatives and a good many centrists, speechless. And at no time in my 56 years has any president or high ranking administration member ever acted in such an anti American and disgracefull manner as has President Barrack Obama. Yet, the coming of a Barrack Obama and of worker/labor social justice organizations like STORM, ACORN and The Apollo Project were predicted some 45 years earlier by the profit and soviet premier, Nikita Khruschev. Khruschev stated then that "Revolutionaries are the locomotives of history"; and he prophesied that "[we] will not bury you with a shovel, your own working class will bury you." He boasted many times that the USSR wouldn't need to fire a shot, that we were being conquered from within. In communist Russia the working class was represented as the communist labor party. There were many American labor-union ties to the communist labor party throughout the 20th century. Radicals to say the least.

The very month and year I was born, June 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for treason. Accused of passing microfilm secrets -- which included the Manhatten project -- to the Soviets. But why, they were both born Americans. What led them to commit such a crime against their country? Thirty four years prior to their execution by electric chair, in 1919, the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) was founded. According to the CPUSA's bio, for approximately the first half of the century primarily in the 1920's, 30's and 40's, the CPUSA was "the largest and most influential communist party in the U.S"., playing a "prominent role" in the U.S. labor movement, as well as "founding most of the country's major industrial unions". They were also known for pursuing racial discrimination cases in workplaces and city communities. Also in 1919, the Socialist Labor Party another communist affiliate was formed; then came the Communist Labor Party of America. All three shared similar objectives but with varying degrees of aggressiveness; The Rosenbergs had connections to all three. By 1931 a young and impressionable -- 12 year old -- Julius Rosenberg had become a member of the Young Communist League, a sort of youth program of the CPUSA designed to indoctrinate would be communists. Though all three organizations are well documented, the following excerpts from the Socialist Labor Party are all too familiar when compared with radical community organizers of today:

The Workers Party [In USSR] vs. The Socialist Labor Party [in America] by Joseph Brandon

Published Aug 1, 1925 in the Weekly People. (reprinted 1925 as the Arm & Hammer pamphlet No. 8)

full text at http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1925/0801-brandon-wpavsslp.pdf

Russia’s Problem and Ours.

In Russia the problem was not to take the industries but to create them. In America the problem is the reverse. We do not have to create the industries, what we must do is to take them. The easiest task the Russians had, the seizing of power, is the hardest nut we have to crack, and the thing that is no task for us at all is what is puzzling the Russians night and day, all these years. When the working class seizes power in America it controls all that is necessary to run production on socialized lines. A dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary, the workers being in a majority. There will not even be a rule of the proletariat because the act of socializing the industries automatically abolishes all classes and therefore the proletariat as a class ceases to be.

Organization Must Preceed Revolution.

Obviously the workers cannot wait until the Social Revolution has stepped upon the scene and then organize. Tactics therefore dictate the organization of the working class today, under capitalism, into an organization whose primary purpose is to seize the industries and act as the framework of the new social order. Just as the chick develops in the shell before the world as a distinct creature, so the future society must be built up under capitalism. And just as the fully developed chick breaks the shell of its egg, so the shell of capitalism will never be broken until the organization of future society is developed to the point where it is able to function. Does it not follow logically that the working class must organize today, under capitalism, in order to achieve its emancipation?

Ignorance Extends to Politics

The Workers Party wants a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it argues that the large mass of workers will never become Socialist and will have to be led by an intelligent [elitist] minority. So it is willing to unite with any movement of workers, no matter how wrong this may be, in order that they will have some masses to lead. This is called a united front. (blogger's note: the American Socialist Labor Party rejected this tactic)

How to “Bore” and How to Build.

The SLP says, “Bore from within but bore to a purpose.” The purpose of working inside the trade unions is to destroy the bulwark of capitalism and establish bulwarks of Socialism, the industrial union.

The Revolutionary Organization.

The SLP correctly holds that the political party must be a party of no compromise (blogger's note - does this remind anyone of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the radical Dems?). The SLP mission is to point the way to the goal and it refuses to leave the main road to follow the small bypaths that lead into the swamp of reformism. Its skirts are clean. The banner of Socialism is held high, uncorrupted, and not dragged down into the mire of petty bourgeois reform. Capitalism cannot be reformed. It must be overthrown.

The Real Power of Labor.

Here in America we have a right to come out openly and agitate for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a workers’ republic. If we did not have this opportunity then no alternative would be open for us but to advocate a violent overthrow of capitalism...

It was of course the great depression; injustice, poverty, hunger, jobless and homelessness were rampant. By 1932 Julius Rosenberg had become a radicalized activist and threw his support into a racially charged case know as the Scottsboro Boys, in defense of nine homeless black teenagers accused, tried and convicted of raping two homeless white women in a freight train boxcar. Thereafter, Rosenberg became a full member of the Communist Party of America -- the CPA.

In 1931 at age 16 already two years graduated from high school, Ethel Greenglass took a job with the National New York Shipping Company. Not long after she became a political activist and union organizer. Greenglass had grown up dirt poor, her family was destitute - the working poor underclass. She heard often from her Russian father the plight of the worker and the evils of a capitalist society. Inevitably she was drawn to the far left cause of worker's rights. In 1935 she organized a strike against her employer and was fired for her lack of loyalty. The communist party of the United States was heavily involved in union organizing and Ethel Greenglass had endeared herself to them with her efforts (against her employer and as an activist) to that point. In 1934 at only 16 years old, Julius Rosenberg also by then a high school graduate entered City College of New York. Continuing his prior activism against racial discrimination, Julius took an interest in far left radical politics both on and off campus. Though they had known each other previously through association with the Communist Party, in 1935 on New Year's Eve, the now twenty year old Ethel Greenglass, and 17 year old Julius Rosenberg met again at a union organized party where Ethel had been asked to entertain. This time 'round the two radicalized revolutionaries hit it off and four years later, 1939, Julius and Ethel were married.

WWII: after the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing US participation in World War II, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg fearing retribution during a time of world war, went underground with their communist affiliation.

Nonetheless, the Rosenbergs remained radical activists. In 1943 Julius who had become a member of the United States Signal Corp., was approached by a Soviet KGB officer/recruiter -- Alexander Feklisov -- and asked to spy for the Soviet Union. Meanwhile Ethel Rosenberg's younger brother, David Greenglass, had been assigned to work on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos NM. Having accepted the assignment to spy, Julius Rosenberg set about convincing brother in-law David Greenglass to help pass classified information to the Soviets. Though history has since attempted to repaint the Rosenbergs as penny ante even sympathetic players in the affair, the fact remains that within a year of receiving intelligence provided by the Rosenbergs, the Soviets had an A-Bomb of their own.

To the Rosenbergs, America was a decadent capitalistic society that used people for the profit of rich industrialists. They viewed communism under Stalin as preferable, buying in to the worker/laborer propaganda of the time. They believed the perfect Marxist world could be created here without a dictator. Too bad neither of them were afforded the privilege to live their lives in the USSR, maybe they'd have realized how fortunate they were back in the US of A.

The parallels between radicalized youth from the 1920's and 30's and the process by which they, particularly the Rosenbergs, became radicalized as compared to American youth of the 60's and 70's, are compelling and too prevalent. Poor even destitute kids are enticed to get involved with radical activist organizations very similar to those the Rosenbergs associated with. Organizations, I might add, which have thoroughly infiltrated our political system. The difference is, the radicals of this era no longer feel the need to act "underground". They're in full view, openly taunting us with a brazen agenda to subvert the political process and constitutional system of self governance we've known for over 200 years

Today's radical community organizers are working to fundamentally change America into a neofascist socialist state, one among many intended to form a new world order, just as -- if you've truly been listening -- our President has been articulating to the rest of the world. Is it possible that we have in Barrack and Michelle Obama, the same devout anti-American radicals that were once embodied as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? The Obama Administration is selling out capitalism, the locomotive that drives America, just as readily as the Rosenbergs did some 65 years ago. History has been repeating itself in just about every conceivable way since the 1920's. The only thing the radical left has learned is how to better infiltrate industry, education and politics. Come to think of it, what else is there?

We all say "God Bless America" from time to time (unless your name happens to be Rev. Wright or Pfleger) but how much longer will the America for which we've so often asked God's blessing, exist?