Saturday, March 7, 2015

March 7, 2015

Cost of food 1970 http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70sfood.html

Cost of food 1920's

cost of food 1990's

THE LIBERTARIAN VIEW OF THE WAR OF 1812 Does this make Obama a libertarian?

FLIMSY BIO Not much here,but what can you expect?

Friday, March 6, 2015

March 6, 2015

THESE ARE PATRIOTS And now we are "led" by a grifter from who knows where. The shame of it all is almost unbearable.

SUCCINCT, AND TO THE POINT: As clear a statement of conservative values as one is apt to find ever.

SADLY, MSM IS TOTALLY CORRUPTED Hard to know where we go from here!

Monday, March 2, 2015

CHRONY CAPITALISM BY CLINTONS These people do not play by the rules. They are third world operatives.

THE VIRUS IS STILL WITH US Obama is a socialist pure and simple. He's no more a Christian than Putin and for that matter, any Jew is a Christian.

NOVEL PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIALISM

A Marxist View of the Democrats' Entitlement Economy

By Michael Bargo, Jr.

The one great characteristic of Marx’s theory of society is that it has is a great flaw, in that Marx only spoke about the private sector of the economy, he never talked about the public sector. But this oversight may be due to the fact that industrialized society was just beginning in the Western world when Marx wrote. He saw the new rise of capitalism/industrialism as having exploitive characteristics.
It is important to understand that Karl Marx never spoke of food stamps, welfare, and free health care as a remedy for the exploitation of the worker. He held that workers should unite together and run the government so that all are treated equally and no one class exploits the other; that the wages and benefits to workers should be fair and equitable. So when Democrats take the language of Marxism and use it to enable entitlement creation they are not following Marx’s theory of class society.
In the past eighty years Democrats chose to use the rhetoric of Marxism to construct an entitlement state. Since FDR the Democrat Party has also used its political power to expand government’s control of all aspects of life. This expansion has long outgrown its mission of reducing exploitation of workers and has created a new form of social exploitation. In short, Democrats have replaced Marx’s two classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, with two new, different classes based on government control of the economy and society. These two Democrat-created classes are the Democrat Bourgeoisie and the Entitlementariat.
To test if this Marxist view of the Democrats’ entitlement economy fits the economic and social facts, it is useful to review the social and economic status of the Democrat bourgeoisie and the entitlementariat.
The term entitlementariat is a good one, since those who are unfortunate enough to be members of this socio-economic class suffer the same abuses as proletarians under Marx’s notion of capitalism. One way to see if there is a fit is to simply exchange the word “Democrat” for capitalist and entitlementarian for proletarian in Marx’s work Das Capital. The term “Democrat power” can also be substituted for “wealth.” Since Democrats achieve power through wealth distribution, the term “entitlements” can be substituted for “capital.”
Marx wrote that under capitalism: “It follows therefore that in proportion as capital [entitlement] accumulates, the situation of the worker [entitlementarian] be his payment high or low, must grow worse… It [Democrat entitlements] makes an accumulation of misery a necessary condition, corresponding to the accumulation of wealth. [Democrat political power]… Accumulation of wealth [entitlements] at one pole is, therefore, at the same time the accumulation of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degradation as the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product as capital [Democrat power].
Marx spoke of the degradation of the proletariat under capitalism in terms that are identical to the degradation suffered by minority entitlementarians under Democrat rule in big cities: “…they distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a [Democrat political] machine, they destroy the actual content of his labour by turning it into a torment; they alienate from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process… they drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital [entitlements].” (Das Capital, Chapter 25, Part 4. “The General Law of capitalist Accumulation.”)
Democrats create highly segregated communities whose boundaries are defined by racism so that they could represent minority neighborhoods in elections. All racially segregated communities are under Democrat control and its residents suffer very high rates of poverty, single motherhood, crime, high dropout rates, high unemployment, zero economic growth, misery, and death. And the solutions Democrats always put forth to correct these social ills are always more community programs and entitlements. These programs only serve to expand their political control of the entitlementariat through dependency. The benefit the Democrat bourgoisie gets is political power. The racial segregation found in big cities is proof that the Democrat bourgeoisie creates and maintains the entitlementariat. Recently illegal immigration has been used to create anHispanic entitlementariat.
Through these tactics Democrats have moved the pendulum of exploitation away from the Marxist private sector back to the public sector. Like the Medieval power structure, Democrats base theirs on political boundaries which allows them to the electorate, and the more the electorate are forced to become members of the urban entitlementariat the more power Democrats have.
The entitlementariat may have replaced the proletariat but then one can ask if Marx’s bourgeoisie has been replaced by the Democrat Bourgeoisie. The answer is “yes” since Democrats, not Republicans, have created the entitlementariat and they have complete power over them. And just by coincidence they use this power to transfer the wealth of the nation to themselves through campaign contributors from public sector unions and accumulation of personal wealth.
Everywhere Democrat bourgeoisie are in power, the middle-class workers are exploited and subjugated, while those who are in poverty are forced into the entitlementariat. In Illinois, a prime example of a state dominated by Democrats, we can see what Democrats have done to transfer wealth away from the middle class in order to make themselves elite bourgeoisie and support the entitlementariat. Each household in Chicago now “owes” the Democrat bourgeoisie $88,000 for their pensions and bond debt. This amount increases weekly. And most of this debt was created through public pension funds that go only to members of the Democrat bourgeoisie. So middle-class workers have to subsidize the Democrat bourgeoisie’ retirement of leisure. Elite Democrat Bourgeoisie such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Clintons all earn millions through their government “service.”
Up to now, since America is a wealthy country, it was temporarily able to afford to subsidize the entitlementariat. But no longer. The money needed to sustain the entitlementariat is obtained from national debt which will, in the long run, result in the oppression of the working class.

Karl Marx, considered the founding figure in the rise of communism, divided all persons into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx said that the bourgeoisie control all the wealth, they own the factories and other means of economic production, and they exploit and abuse the proletariat to profit off of their productivity or surplus value.
In the U.S. political arena, the Democrat Party has used the language of Marx in the sense of stating, as Marx did, that workers should enjoy better pay, a decent standard of living, and good health care. They are the political party that understands the needs of workers, so they say in every campaign. They are the defenders of the rights of Marx’s proletariat.
The one great characteristic of Marx’s theory of society is that it has is a great flaw, in that Marx only spoke about the private sector of the economy, he never talked about the public sector. But this oversight may be due to the fact that industrialized society was just beginning in the Western world when Marx wrote. He saw the new rise of capitalism/industrialism as having exploitive characteristics.
It is important to understand that Karl Marx never spoke of food stamps, welfare, and free health care as a remedy for the exploitation of the worker. He held that workers should unite together and run the government so that all are treated equally and no one class exploits the other; that the wages and benefits to workers should be fair and equitable. So when Democrats take the language of Marxism and use it to enable entitlement creation they are not following Marx’s theory of class society.
In the past eighty years Democrats chose to use the rhetoric of Marxism to construct an entitlement state. Since FDR the Democrat Party has also used its political power to expand government’s control of all aspects of life. This expansion has long outgrown its mission of reducing exploitation of workers and has created a new form of social exploitation. In short, Democrats have replaced Marx’s two classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, with two new, different classes based on government control of the economy and society. These two Democrat-created classes are the Democrat Bourgeoisie and the Entitlementariat.
To test if this Marxist view of the Democrats’ entitlement economy fits the economic and social facts, it is useful to review the social and economic status of the Democrat bourgeoisie and the entitlementariat.
The term entitlementariat is a good one, since those who are unfortunate enough to be members of this socio-economic class suffer the same abuses as proletarians under Marx’s notion of capitalism. One way to see if there is a fit is to simply exchange the word “Democrat” for capitalist and entitlementarian for proletarian in Marx’s work Das Capital. The term “Democrat power” can also be substituted for “wealth.” Since Democrats achieve power through wealth distribution, the term “entitlements” can be substituted for “capital.”
Marx wrote that under capitalism: “It follows therefore that in proportion as capital [entitlement] accumulates, the situation of the worker [entitlementarian] be his payment high or low, must grow worse… It [Democrat entitlements] makes an accumulation of misery a necessary condition, corresponding to the accumulation of wealth. [Democrat political power]… Accumulation of wealth [entitlements] at one pole is, therefore, at the same time the accumulation of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degradation as the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product as capital [Democrat power].
Marx spoke of the degradation of the proletariat under capitalism in terms that are identical to the degradation suffered by minority entitlementarians under Democrat rule in big cities: “…they distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a [Democrat political] machine, they destroy the actual content of his labour by turning it into a torment; they alienate from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process… they drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital [entitlements].” (Das Capital, Chapter 25, Part 4. “The General Law of capitalist Accumulation.”)
Democrats create highly segregated communities whose boundaries are defined by racism so that they could represent minority neighborhoods in elections. All racially segregated communities are under Democrat control and its residents suffer very high rates of poverty, single motherhood, crime, high dropout rates, high unemployment, zero economic growth, misery, and death. And the solutions Democrats always put forth to correct these social ills are always more community programs and entitlements. These programs only serve to expand their political control of the entitlementariat through dependency. The benefit the Democrat bourgoisie gets is political power. The racial segregation found in big cities is proof that the Democrat bourgeoisie creates and maintains the entitlementariat. Recently illegal immigration has been used to create anHispanic entitlementariat.
Through these tactics Democrats have moved the pendulum of exploitation away from the Marxist private sector back to the public sector. Like the Medieval power structure, Democrats base theirs on political boundaries which allows them to the electorate, and the more the electorate are forced to become members of the urban entitlementariat the more power Democrats have.
The entitlementariat may have replaced the proletariat but then one can ask if Marx’s bourgeoisie has been replaced by the Democrat Bourgeoisie. The answer is “yes” since Democrats, not Republicans, have created the entitlementariat and they have complete power over them. And just by coincidence they use this power to transfer the wealth of the nation to themselves through campaign contributors from public sector unions and accumulation of personal wealth.
Everywhere Democrat bourgeoisie are in power, the middle-class workers are exploited and subjugated, while those who are in poverty are forced into the entitlementariat. In Illinois, a prime example of a state dominated by Democrats, we can see what Democrats have done to transfer wealth away from the middle class in order to make themselves elite bourgeoisie and support the entitlementariat. Each household in Chicago now “owes” the Democrat bourgeoisie $88,000 for their pensions and bond debt. This amount increases weekly. And most of this debt was created through public pension funds that go only to members of the Democrat bourgeoisie. So middle-class workers have to subsidize the Democrat bourgeoisie’ retirement of leisure. Elite Democrat Bourgeoisie such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Clintons all earn millions through their government “service.”
Up to now, since America is a wealthy country, it was temporarily able to afford to subsidize the entitlementariat. But no longer. The money needed to sustain the entitlementariat is obtained from national debt which will, in the long run, result in the oppression of the working class.