Does Barack Obama Understand Capitalism?

It's a serious question.

Is President Barack Obama using big government to destroy the capitalist system from within, or because he believes it works?

Those of the conspiratorial mindset appear to believe the former is true. Those who view Obama as an ideologue appear to believe the latter.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the "stimulus package," was arguably modeled after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's public works programs, in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act that he signed into law. Yet, it was based on hiring unskilled minority workers with the intention of simply getting the projects done as quickly as possible.

It also had a massive appeal for power-hungry bureaucrats - all the pork money can buy.

Most of the stimulus projects were assigned to blue states as a way of generating handsome paybacks for Obama's biggest supporters. Yet, the red states have shown more signs of economic recovery in spite of this massive "effort."

Then, we have the health care bill.

While the die-hard capitalist believes those who are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions may seek refuge from family, churches, and private charities, Obama has rejected those solutions in favor of another massive government overhaul.

This is in spite of the fact that our federal Medicaid laws prohibited hospitals from denying such an individual for emergency treatment, prior to the push for ObamaCare.

Yet, the newly-created Recovery Independent Advisory Panel has driven Medicare into social darwinism like never before. This time, it's in the name of cutting costs.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said that the GOP plan meant "die quickly," the shock value took liberal hypocrisy to new heights.

The generations of Americans that paid the most in taxes will soon be denied the very same obligations that their lives have depended on. While health care is now being touted as "a right, not a privilege," those who are no longer able-bodied are being robbed out of the care they invested into and planned their lives around by the power-grabbers and their coughers.

While unspoken words urge the elderly to get off their hospital beds and back into the workforce, those who occupy that workforce were promised lower premiums on their health insurance. Yet, according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services, this very same administration now concedes that they hoodwinked the American people.

Promises were made, made, made, and the American people were betrayed, betrayed, betrayed.

And a dear price will be paid, paid, paid.

But does Barack Obama understand capitalism?

The Case For Chuck Baldwin

Republicans and Democrats have a lot more in common than you might think. The commonalities are not limited to lobbyists, special interests, and kissing babies at a photo op. They rely on the ignorant masses to decide who is the lesser of two evils. The "lesser evil" is often the candidate most successful at keeping third-party contenders off the ballot.

Meet Chuck Baldwin, the presidential candidate representing the Constitution Party. He is an accomplished pastor, an alternative media personality, and a former Republican. Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to help elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. After helping the GOP register nearly 50,000 conservative Christian voters, he left the party.

In 2004, Baldwin ran as Michael Peroutka's running mate for the Constitution Party in the presidential election.

This year, Chuck Baldwin won the endorsements of The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi and Congressman Ron Paul.

As a young political party, the Constitution Party has been relatively successful - it's the third largest in registered voters. Such success is due to conservatives who remain dissatisfied with unprincipled Republicans.

What about John McCain?

What about him.

He is still the same John McCain who wants to grant amnesty to illegals, sign a Kyoto treaty, and occupy Iraq for an unpredictible amount of time. A globalist with a mind of his own, if you ask me.

What about Sarah Palin?

Get to know her a little better.

She not only advocated a windfall profits tax as Governor of Alaska, but raised taxes on middle-class families and supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," until it costed her political points.

Neoconservatives who granted her immediate status as a political messiah may want to think twice about her record. It seems as though neoconservatives haven't bothered to compare her to Barack Obama, who also became an instant political celebrity as soon as he gained national attention.

I'm not doubting her as a moderate conservative. I am simply pointing out that she is not the arch-conservative that alternative media outlets tried to portray her as.

Chuck Baldwin's platform by far outwits John McCain's experience as a globalist in the Senate, and here's why.

On economics, a Chuck Baldwin presidency would repeal the 16th Amendment to stop abusive taxation, ditch the Federal Reserve to stop rapid inflation, and ignite a Made in America Movement.

Instead of the neoconservative "Fair Tax" proposal that would end the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, Baldwin would not only end the IRS and the income tax, but reinstitute a tariff-based economy. Why is that a good idea? First of all, the Fair Tax plan risks having not only a new national sales tax that would reduce consumer activity, but the income tax could be reinstated the same way it was introduced: class warfare. A tariff-based economy allows Americans to keep their pay checks and to slow down global competition in the markets. Once this country let go of that policy, which was recommended by the Founding Fathers, Brand America was traded in for cheap labor in far-off countries.

Instead of a downright frightening, McCain-approved bailout bill for Wall Street, Chuck Baldwin would take the advice of Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and George Washington by fighting the fiat system and limiting the power of international bankers in government.

His own input on the issue:

If George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama had any honesty and integrity, they would approach the current banking malady in much the same way that President Andrew Jackson did. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

On the issue of border security, Chuck Baldwin refuses to kneel to any bill that would legitimize the spread of illegal immigration. As a matter of fact, Baldwin is the only presidential candidate who is serious about bringing an end to our illegal immigration crisis. Instead of signing an amnesty bill to grant citizenship for those who refused to wait in line as John McCain and Barack Obama would, Baldwin would give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents, not the lawbreakers.

He pledges, "The first day Chuck Baldwin is in office as President is the last day Ramos and Compean spend in jail!"

The Inevitable Maverick

Time has come and gone for Republican voters to cast their ballots for their favorite presidential candidates, and John McCain appears to be the inevitable nominee. In order to win the presidency, "The Maverick" must win back his credibility with the conservative base.

John McCain has lived an honorable life, and his life story should serve as an inspiration to every American, right, left, and center.

One small problem, many conservatives say: he's not Ronald Reagan. Every "Reagan-or-else" conservative who stayed home is getting what they deserve for doing so. They had their chance. Had they supported Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, they would find themselves in a better position. These self-declared hardcore conservatives who will vote for McCain will do so reluctantly in 2008, and he must prove his leadership during his first term, or he will be starved at the polls in 2012.

As of now, many conservatives believe that by sitting out in 2008, history will repeat itself as it was in the days of Jimmy Carter if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are to take over the White House. This is a childish assumption of economic ruin to a dystopian proportion. To make matters worse, they fail to see that it took much more than Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were perhaps the weakest Republican presidents in the late 20th century, whose policies offered little recovery from Lyndon Johnson's disasterous "War on Poverty." Even by 1976, the GOP wasn't ready for Ronald Reagan, and the struggle for economic freedom had begun shortly after the Kennedy assassination.

John McCain is not a "liberal." His platform is compatible with the basic tenets of conservatism, and are the mere party line of Thatcher's modern-day Conservative Party in Great Britain.
While John McCain and mainline conservatives have many substantive disagreements, his McCain's positives by far outweigh his negatives. He appears to be open, honest, and sincere about his positions and intentions. If conservatives are strong and firm enough in their areas of agreement with McCain, they will support him on key issues, such as terror, taxes, and judges.

Still considering a third party vote?

If you did not like Ron Paul, you will not like the third party alternatives. There is no clear and fundamental difference between Ron Paul, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party on the issues of foreign policy and homeland security. Both want immediate withdrawl from Iraq and removal of a long list of Bush's anti-terror policies with no suggestions for alternatives.

The Constitution Party is strictly non-intervention, uncompromising on gay rights (they've even taken shots at James Dobson), as absolutist as they come on abortion, in favor of protectionist trade policy, and silent on the War on Terror.

The Libertarian Party is Ron Paul on steroids. They only seem to view policy issues through an economic lense, which can be defined as anarcho-capitalist in their general worldview. That might explain why they support unfettered abortion rights, homosexual marriage, legalized prostitution, state-sponsored gambling, recreational drug use, and open borders. These policies are further to the left than the vast majority of the Democratic Party claims to be, although they may appeal to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Although John McCain has not been known to market religion in the Senate, he understands the culture war between secular progressives and traditionalists. He has made a tireless effort to make amends with religious voters and should be forgiven for his past transgressions against Jerry Falwell and the religious right. The last thing even a conservative should expect to see is John McCain appointing an activist judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

John McCain has been unwavering in the War on Terror, and the success of the troop surge is largely due to his leadership, attentiveness, and commanding capabilities. He's had the most military credentials out of any candidate who participated in the race. His campaign has focused on a sympathetic approach to the needs of veterans, past and present.

Many conservatives would concede these points, but point out that he is a staunch opponent of waterboarding. Waterboarding may be an overrated tactic, and the GOP should respect McCain's moral opposition - as a former POW himself - if he can propose a viable alternative.

On economic issues, McCain has given up largely on class warfare and has pledged to continue his efforts to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts initially, but it's conceivable to believe that he has changed his position upon witnessing the creation of millions of new jobs and companies expanding their businesses in the States. In addition to the tax cuts, McCain has exhibited the principle of fiscal restraint in Congress, as opposed to many big-spending "neoconservatives" in the Senate.

The issue of illegal immigration is most controversial of all. At his recent speech at the CPAC convention, many conservatives in the audience booed his very mentioning of the topic. He responded by pledging to secure the border before opening the debate on a path to citizenship. Should he become president, his feet will be held to the fire by border advocates who are fed up with President Bush's self-centered approach to the issue. Conservatives should not rule out McCain's promise to improve border security so quickly. He is aware of the growing concern over the issue, especially after the massive protest following "McCain-Kennedy." Neither Obama or Clinton would be forced to hear their base out on the issue, and have no political incentive to do so. Instead, they have every incentive to pander to voters, illegally or not.

What this election will come down to is the differences that remain between McCain and the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats have made a huge mistake by backing inexperienced, divisive, and far-left candidates who represent a congressional majority with an embarrassing 11% public approval rating. This Congress, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, was not given the majority vote to retreat from Iraq, but to change course and enact a more promising strategy. Clinton and Obama have the same far-left positions on moral issues and national defense that gave John Kerry a humiliating defeat in 2004. Voters don't want to hear about "change" for the sake of change. They want to know how the candidates would leave the White House better than they found it.

A Bureaucrat With a Mental Case

I don't know where to begin on John Edwards. He has got to be embarrassed at least half the time he makes the headlines. And we're talking the Goliath Media. From his kneejerk obsession with class warfare to his trip to Wal-mart to buy his son a Playstation 3, to his 28,200-square-foot home and $400 haircuts, he has proven himself to be a man of excess.

His latest stunt is almost minor in comparison, but it may potentially effect all Americans.

According to NewsMax, John Edwards' proposals could cost American tax payers $1 trillion. If successfully enacted, this could be the largest shopping spree in American history.

While many Democrats have proposed tax cuts for the middle-class, John Edwards makes no such promise. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Edwards defended his plan to hijack the middle-class for the common good.

"I think for me, as opposed to the additional tax relief for the middle class, what's more important is to give them relief from the extraordinary cost of health care, from gasoline prices, the things that they spend money on every single day that are escalating dramatically."

His proposal for health care alone is projected to cost between $90-$120 billion a year. Employers would be forced to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The federal government would then pay the tap for low-income Americans. Edwards would fund his plan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. According to the Laffer Curve, tax cuts pay for themselves by generating more government revenue in the long term as a result of allowing Americans to keep a higher percentage of their paycheck. A tax increase on the wealthy may help generate government revenue in the short-term, at the risk of numerous long-term consequences, including less job creation in the private sector, a decrease of economic activity, and reductions in employee benefits. Ergo, an increased progressive income tax and a requirement for employers to provide coverage would be an illogical contradiction.

Like many hardliners in his party, his goal is not only to fight poverty, but to end it as we know it. His War on Poverty will cost an annual $15 billion-$20 billion. Reagan once famously said, "Some years ago the United States declared war on poverty, and poverty won." At the end of the day, Reagan was right. During the Reagan era, so-called "decade of greed", private charity doubled. Social programs are well-intended, but they have historically benefitted middle-class social workers far more than the poor.

Other high-ticket items on the annual Edwards shopping list include a $13 billion energy fund, $5 billion for foreign aid, and a $1 billion rural recovery plan. He has also hinted federal assistance for college tuition, a border security plan, and federal funding for stem cell research. The costs have yet to be projected. Current figures estimate that John Edwards has already made $125 billion worth of annual proposals.

In addition to his enormous budget, Edwards has a few setbacks in his personal life. His wife is not expected to live for another ten years, although she has publicly approved of Edwards' decision to run for office.

On a far less serious matter, his hair has made headlines across the globe. The media couldn't help but succomb to the sensationalism of his whopping $400 haircuts. So that's where all the Coulter Cash went. In addition to his Antoinettesque lifestyle, bloggers have had field days with this YouTube video:

Bush Breaks Loose to Raise Malaria Awareness

In the White House Rose Garden, President Bush joined his wife to attend a ceremony to recognize Malaria Awareness Day.

There, he joined the KanKouran West African dance company at the end of the ceremony.



While Bush’s drumbeat isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, it’s nice to see the lighter side of Washington every so often.

There has been tremendous progress in fighting malaria since DDT was reintroduced by the World Health Organization. According to South African national health spokesman Charity Bhengu, malaria cases have dropped by 65% and malaria deaths dropped by 73% within the country.

Although fervent environmentalists pushed for a ban on DDT in the 1970s - arguing that it was harmful and cancerous to children – the plusses outweighed its minuses, paving way for its reintroduction.

In the President’s speech, Bush announced that 500,000 insecticide-laced bed nets would be sent to Zambia and Uganda. The bed nets are about $10 in retail value, and have been a proven means of prevention for the disease. US officials believe the current two-year-old anti-malaria program has already helped an estimated 11 million Africans.

President Bush ensured America’s commitment to combat malaria.

"On this special day, we renew our commitment to lead the world toward an urgent goal, and that is to turn the tide against malaria in Africa, and around the globe."

The plan strives to cut the mortality rate in half.

What Would a Centrist Platform Look Like?

I figured I'd find out.

So here, we've rounded up half a dozen party outcasts - Tim Roemer, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Arlen Specter. Their worldviews have astounding similarities - strong support for tax cuts, health coverage, free trade, capital punishment, and military spending - among other general agreements.

On The Issues is a generally reliable source of information, although their dichotomy is a little faulty. My previous "mass project" had more thorough analysis on political philosophies. In any event, I took into account all the major positions of the Selected Six, and used the dominant outcome to determine the "party line."

In taking the PoliticsMatch Quiz, I answered according to the platform. The results were interesting. Here is the graph of the party line.

Strikingly similar to our last Republican-led Congress: favorable to tax cuts, but otherwise heavy on spending and government, socially moderate, and pro-military. Overall, aligned with the majority of Americans.


Click on the pictures to enlarge.

Personal Issues:

Favorable to:

• Sexual Orientation Protected by Civil Rights Law
• School Prayer
• Capital Punishment
• "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws
• Anti-drug Legislation
• Allowing Churches to Provide Welfare Services
• Educational Choice

Opposed to:

• Abortion as a Woman's Right
• Absolute Right to Gun Ownership

Economic Issues:

Favorable to:

• Affirmative Action
• More Federal Health Coverage
• Privatized Social Security
• Reducing Use of Coal and Oil
• Tax Cuts
• Immigration
• Expanding Free Trade

Opposed to:

• Non-Applicable

Military Issues

Favorable to:

• More Spending On Armed Forces

Opposed to:

• Seeking UN Approval for Military Action

I Accept This Rudy For All His Faults

There's plenty to be said about America's Mayor, and given his current popularity, much will be said. Given his diversified worldview, few disagree that there is a Rudy for everyone.

Because this presidential election will ultimately make way for America's path in the War on Terror, there may never be a better time for Rudy Giuliani to receive the nomination. The Democrats are likely to champion the "anti-war" position - no protection under the Patriot Act, immediate retreat from Iraq - while Giuliani remains a consistent but civil advocate for getting the job done at home and abroad. While many conservatives find him weak on domestic policies, few can deny that he has the necessary will to protect all Americans, whether serving in the military, or living amongst the civilian population.

The Democrats' biggest problem: when Americans think of 9/11, they think of Rudy Giuliani.

He dealt with the issue firsthand, and his leadership and charisma were vital in restoring not only New Yorkers, but America's ability to get on with their lives. As of now, no contending Democrat has a public image of confidence and security that Giuliani has. The same can be said just as easily about Giuliani's Republican contenders.

As of yet, there is no Republican candidate who can compete with Rudy Giuliani on the most important issue of our time - Radical Islam. While he masterminded the troop surge in Iraq, Arizona's Senator John McCain has lost credibility with conservative voters on many domestic policies. Although to the contrary, Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachussetts, has morphed into a solid conservative over the last few years, he has established himself as a flip-flopper in doing so. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is a strong social conservative, but he is weak on border security. While I leave many second tier candidates unnamed, I have my reasons: they won't get the nomination. The only potential and viable alternative to Rudy Giuliani at this point is former Senator Fred Thompson, and he might not even run for office.

Indeed, Giuliani's resume as Mayor of New York City is impressive for many Americans. Prior to Mayor, he served as Associate Attorney General under Ronald Reagan in 1981. In 1983, he became United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Under Giuliani as Mayor, overall crime decreased by 56%, and murder by 66%, making New York City the safest large city in the country according to the FBI. Not a bad record for a nation that is weary of crime and terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

His economic performance was met with the same successes. When Giuliani first took office, one in seven New Yorkers were on welfare. Welfare rolls were reduced by 60% as a result of a welfare-to-work initiative, or "workfare," for buzzword's sake. In addition, 23 city taxes were either reduced or eliminated, turning a $2.3 billion budget deficit into an enormous surplus. As a result, 423,000 private sector jobs were created in his two terms as Mayor, and tourism grew to an all-time high.

In response to his leadership, Giuliani has won enormous praise from former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, now serving as Senior Policy Advisor for Giuliani's campaign. In an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes writes:

"He set out to restore fiscal discipline to the 'ungovernable city' – and achieved results that Reagan Republicans can applaud."

Rudy has also received praise from columnist George F. Will, who has criticized the Bush Administration as too optimistic about the War in Iraq. He says of Giuliani:

"His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."

Other endorsements include neolibertarian comedian and talk show host Dennis Miller, Michigan state Rep. Jack Brandenburg, and former U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas Richard Blankenship.

Rudy's biggest problem: his ornery conservative base. While many applaud his accomplishments as Mayor of New York City, as well as his contagious tranquility on 9/11, the domestic issues have hurt Giuliani the most. He supports legalized abortion, although he now oppposes partial-birth abortion. He has praised both John Roberts and Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court...

"I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that."

...while delivering a bothersome complement for the radical ex-ACLU General Counsel turned Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [John Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category. I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person."

Other criticisms include gun control, illegal immigration, and a "Kerry-esque" stance on homosexuality. Yet in spite of a handful of liberal positions, Giuliani is most loathed for attending a Gay Pride event in drag. However, if he manages to keep his Dukakis moments to a minimum, he will maintain his popularity as America's Mayor, rather than the "Drag Queen of New York."

Social conservatives find these domestic policies comparable to Bill Clinton. They are also comparable to Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher, who both advocated expanded rights for homosexuals and legalized abortion. Yet today, many conservatives continue to revive them as heroes who stood up to their enemies, as well as the establishment, in times of great moral conflict.

Social conservatism will be remembered for 2004, when "moral values" defined the re-election of President Bush, in spite of harsh criticism for the Iraq War. Predictably, the social conservative movement has since lost ground, as Congress was soft on the positions that mattered most to the American public. Consider the mid-term elections in 2006.

The Grand Old Party made every effort to repeat its prior successes with a brilliantly crafted catchphrase: "San Francisco Values." Considering the indictments leading up to the election, real (Mark Foley) or fake (Tom DeLay), even the most religious voters weren't swayed into voting straight GOP. It didn't matter that William Jefferson had nearly $100,000 found in his freezer, or that Harry Reid accepted illegal bribes from the boxing industry, because the GOP did not fight back. Now, we have Speaker Pelosi, and we don't know what to do with her.

Domestic issues aside, neither Rudy's Republican or Democratic opponents can compete with the leadership we saw on 9/11. Rudy Giuliani has the charisma to unite America that his contenders lack. Barack Obama has a sense of civility, but his lack of experience in any given area will be difficult to overcome. Hillary Clinton is effortlessly exposable as a partisan panderer. John Edwards hasn't reinvented himself, and is still obsessed with "The Two Americas."

While "San Francisco Values" was a slick cliche for a while, it has been worn out to exhaustion. It's time to mature as American citizens and focus on the number one issue of our time. The Presidential Election of 2008 will remain crucial, and our direction in the War on Terror will be determined once and for all.

The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in 1868, and various zoning, school & property taxes. Zoning ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury. Also the Bureau of Land Management. Today, the governments at all levels have "allodial" title to all property and permit those who have paid for those properties to have possession in exchange for a property tax. Owners are actually renters.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The Corporate Tax Act of 1909. A misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933. The Social Security Act of 1936, and various State "income" taxes, hovering around 47% in direct taxation: Federal Income Tax (28%); Social Security/Medicare (15%); State Tax (2.5%); County Tax (1 %); and local tax (1%).

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

The Federal & State Estate Tax of 1916; or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transferring property after death and gift before death. Inheritance taxes are up to %50 - after paying a lifetime of taxes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 in 1986. Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" in the 1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill. Or, the IRS confiscation of property without due process, and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws. The DEA and other enforcement departments have actually implemented quota systems on the value confiscated.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve Bank, the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation. The system was nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Federal Radio Commission in 1927, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Civil Aeronautics Act and Interstate Commerce Commission, both established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration in 1958, becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966. Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. Internet censorship, and warrantless monitoring of communications. There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL. Driver's licenses and vehicle licenses control the highways at the state level.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. The Desert Entry Act, The Department of Agriculture of 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations. Incentives for some industries, excessive taxation on others. Regulation of minutia on a grand scale.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

The first labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. The Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - effectively the equal liability of all to labor, and assorted unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and Executive order 11000. Forced unionization; regulatory control of market pricing. The Equal Rights Amendment - women do equal work that men do including the military, and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

The Planning Reorganization act of 1949, zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. Subsidized creation of networks of utility services to build vast amounts in locations. Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates."

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.

Taxation for 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books. The Department of Education, the NEA and outcome-based "education."

San Francisco Celebrates Diversity Again

First it was tax-funded sex changes. Then it was illegal same-sex marriage licenses. Today, San Francisco has adopted the way of the future - the honeymoons of homosexuality being celebrated in your very living room. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has endorsed an effort towards Colt Studio Day, in honor of the industry of sodomist pornography's contributions to economic development. In other words, a "Gay Porn Day" has been declared for February 23 throughout San Francisco.

The proclamation was drafted by Neighborhood Services staffers after it was revealed that state Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) had issued similar proposals. Leno, who attended the Colt Studio's anniversary took the opportunity to thank them for producing images that helped him develop as a gay man. It takes a village to raise a man-child, indeed.

Here is what Leno had to say:

"The owners of the studio are taxpaying, law-abiding San Francisco employers who promote safe sex."

And since they pay taxes so generously, they will get tax-funded publicity for all the goodness their films bring to the city. The decision was predictably rejected by Bill O'Reilly.

"There is not another city in the country that has ever had a ‘gay porn day,' And you wonder why San Francisco values is mocked and your city is mocked and it’s looked upon as a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah."

Leno the Lawman didn't think too hard to fight back.

“With a war out of control and the planet’s temperature rising, I would have hoped Bill O’Reilly had more pressing issues to discuss. Clearly, with his viewership currently plummeting, he thinks denigrating gay male entertainment will be his lifeline.

Funny. We're in "a war out of control" and he can't find much better to do than make a golden calf out of homosexual pornography.

Interesting he would mention climate change as well. More and more scientists are coming forward to predict another cooling period. In addition, Mars among other planets have been going through a warming period as well. I guess we're responsible for the entire solar system's demise, right, Mr. Gore?

Evidently, it doesn't take much outside of being a sexually unorthodox porn addict to run the show in San Francisco. Ever wonder what they'll come up with next?

Romney/Tancredo for 2008?

While the mainstream and the alternative media are in frenzy over - I won’t even mention her name – the remainder of this year’s Conservative Political Action Committee convention was widely ignored by the former and the latter.

Not Surprisingly, Mitt Romney led the polls for the nomination with 21% of the vote, with Rudy Giuliani coming in at a considerably distant second, with 17%.

“It’s an honor to be here in high heels, walking backwards,” Romney joked. On serious matters, he touched on the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill that seeks to abridge free speech in the last quarters of an election cycle.

Romney concluded, "To me, a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake. It is the people who are sovereign in America, not a few folks in black robes. Judges add things that aren't in the Constitution, and they take away things that are in the Constitution. In that regard, they let the campaign finance lobby take away First Amendment rights. If I'm president, I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold."

Later, he vowed to cap spending, something we haven’t seen much of from Republicans these days.

“If I am elected President, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus 1 percent. That alone will save $300 billion over 10 years.” He continues, “It's time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I've done that in business, I've done that in the Olympics, and I've done that in Massachusetts.”

Romney’s experience in a high government position has been tried, and although he has “flip-flopped” on key social issues, they have all come in favor in promoting conservative values in the bluest of the blue states, Massachusetts.

How real are his convictions? Time will tell.

But for now, we know that Romney was formerly pro-choice, due to a death in his family as a result of an illegal abortion. His pro-life conversion became known when he vetoed an embryo farming initiative.

He has since defined himself as a solid conservative on many social issues.

Romney has distinguished himself by speaking out on illegal immigration. The Boston Herald reported his opposition to citizenship for illegal aliens.

”I do not believe amnesty is the right course for the 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants who are living here. It didn’t work in the 1980s; it’s not going to work in the 2000s either,” he argues.

In December 2006, he reached a deal with state troopers, allowing them to arrest immigrants who illegally reside in Massachusetts.

Many conservatives have been frustrated with President Bush’s soft positions on the border, leaving the gate clear for a possible Romney/Tancredo ticket for 2008.

Tancredo has an admirable “straight-shooter” approach that is rarely seen in the political arena. In a fiery speech, he criticized “compassionate conservatism” as a movement that has expanded government to unholy boundaries, with the Prescription D plan and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Although he lacks in governing experience, a calling to serve as Vice President would abundantly serve his future as a presidential candidate.

None of These Taxes Existed 100 Years Ago

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Cokehead Comedian Party Officially Takes Over Congress

As you can tell, I haven't got around to adding much of anything on Social Surgery for a while. In part, this is because my new job has given me very little free time, and also, because I've grown tired of what it has become.

As the title may suggest, I, your doctor, will no longer prescribe my patients with sugar to make the medicine go down. You will enjoy shock therapy a lot more. If you grow weary of my disregard for the Fairness Doctrine, you can always check out Bill O'Reilly's No Spine Zone. After all, results may vary.

So how about that Cokehead Comedian Party?

On the first day as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi managed to turn Congress into a day care center, proclaiming that this Congress will be "about the children." If she is implying rights for children to abort each other, then I certainly see her point.

Unless of course she referred to the other way the Democrats have been known to use hangers - by collectivization of wealth in exchange for an explosion of welfare programs that produce the exact opposite of its stated intentions, creating a lazy society of deadbeats that leech off anyone who makes an honest living. Already, there have been talks of tax hikes before the “first hundred hours” of the Great Leap Forward.

So it may help if I give you some history behind the “first hundred hours.” The term is a reference to a promise Franklin Roosevelt made to combat the Great Depression during his “first hundred days” as president. Little were you taught, FDR went on to fight unemployment like none other – by primarily drafting the unemployed into World War II.

After giving us a masculine bicep flex, the Wicked Witch of the West went on to further recognize the “arrogant white male” with a sinister comment about going “from the kitchen to Congress.” Anyone who knows the difference between Nancy Pelosi and apple pie knows all too well that she has lived a privileged life from the get-go. She was born into a political family, as the daughter and sister of mayors in Baltimore.

The congressional circus is expected to be followed by tampering with a robust economy with a massive minimum wage hike, and more importantly, blockage of a much-needed troop increase in Iraq. The sheeple may not have voted for cut and run, but a more effective strategy in Iraq. Sadly, it looks as though cut and run is not “off the table.”

As the president prepares to unveil his new plan for Iraq, he should expect plenty of resistance from the defeatists. Joe Biden and Harry Reid have predictably rushed to judgement against a troop increase. Why, you ask? Because they want to lose the war. But rather than show their true colors, they hide behind such decorated slogans as “phased redeployment”

In other words, put down your guns and surrender, but only after enough American troops get killed.

Democrats Take Over the House

Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. Secretary Rumsfeld has resigned. And the Democrats are celebrating.

Pelosi has promised to put ethics and bipartisanship ahead of everything. She has also stated that immediate withdrawal and impeachment are “off the table.” The Democrats have been meeting with President Bush to set the new course for Iraq. And that’s really all you need to know.

Why did the Republican Party lose?

Instead of advocating moral values, they were convicted of scandals. Rather than practicing fiscal restraint, they built a bridge to nowhere. Instead of fighting crime, they supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Most notably, instead of staying the course in Iraq, President Bush had suggested that we need a new plan. That’s why conservatives stayed home.

Libertarian voters have been frustrated with the expansion of government on socio-economic policy, whether it was the Gravina Island Bridge, prescription drugs for seniors, or the expansion of homeland security that apparently harms our civil liberties. While the Bush Administration has been relatively soft on same-sex marriage and abortion on demand, they have been consistent, nonetheless.

Independent voters were convinced that neither party had a plan for the most important issue of the election. Democrats effectively denied plans to “cut and run”, while Republicans had suddenly abandoned the current policy in Iraq. Because Republicans did not outline their agenda for Iraq swiftly before Election Day, it was apparent that Republicans showed an admission to the public that they confessed to what the Democrats had been hinting for years. Instead of running on a bad plan, Republicans decided to run with no plan.

Where else did the right go wrong?

Bush has tried tirelessly to fit the mold of Ronald Reagan. In search of his “Evil Empire” moment, he offered the “Axis of Evil” – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - all of which had been in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Not long after came the invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam’s development of biological weapons.

In retrospect, it was foolish to provoke too many enemies at one time. The timeline of events sent the wrong message. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – stop pursuing nukes. Then came the invasion of Iraq. Iran and North Korea, while in pursuit of nuclear weapons for years, felt the urgency to speed up their nuclear programs to act as a deterrent to the United States. As a result, Israel is in greater danger.

I maintain that going after Saddam was the right thing to do. Iraqi liberation had long been an American policy, rather than a Bush policy. Take, for example, the Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, which calls for the United States to “establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.”

In greater detail, “It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.”

Around this time period, Clinton’s foreign policy was especially hawkish. The question remains – what stopped Clinton from invading Iraq? It may have been, ironically enough, that he didn’t want to take any more heat for the increasing of gas prices. It may have also been his recognition of world government, or more specifically, the United Nations as the final authority. It may have even a potential bait-piece for the Republicans to suggest that Clinton was looking for ways to distract attention away from the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

The argument that emphasizes the fact that the United States sided with Hussein during the war with Iran is self-defeated for many reasons. We were never allies with Iran, that’s number one. And second, we accept in our history that we fought alongside of Joseph Stalin and the Red Army, which also became an enemy and a threat to the United States.

But Republicans have failed to address all of that. In fact, very few Americans realize that the Iraqi Liberation Act exists. As a result, the War in Iraq became a losing issue.

So what are the Democrats planning to do about Iraq? Now that they are back in power, they have no reason to be angry. Many conservatives are skeptical of their promise to work with a president who has opened himself to new ideas. He has appointed Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and is ready to take Iraq into a new direction. Only time will tell how long the Bush-Pelosi coalition will last.

Top Down Government

This guide is a circular map to emphasize on the size of government, and mainstream left-right dichotomy done right. Most maps are flawed in one way or another. The World's Smallest Political Quiz emphasizes on socio-economic viewpoints, but doesn't touch much on foreign policy. It's not bad if you have never taken a political quiz before, and will give you a rough idea of where you stand.

Politopia is deeply flawed because "left-wing" is determined by "more personal freedoms", which would make gun control, eminent domain, affirmative action, and hate-crime legislation conservative principles, when in fact, they are the opposite.

Anyways, I spent way too much time on this guide. At least it's seasonally appropriate.




1. The Individualist

Michael Badnarik

The government’s sole purpose is to protect private citizens. You oppose the government’s involvement when it comes to social and fiscal policies. While you believe in the capitalist system, civil liberties are the solution to overcoming social inequality. You oppose world government, and believe that the United States should withdrawal from the UN. Free speech is threatened both by hate crime legislation and the FCC. As a strong advocate for individual freedoms, you oppose the state’s involvement on alternative lifestyles, gun control and affirmative action, while you support abortion and private property rights. You want to legalize prostitution, gambling, and recreational drug use. The influence of religion should not belong in government.

You would enjoy reading:

Why Government Doesn't Work
By Harry Browne



2. The Civil Libertarian

Howard Dean

You stand out because you speak your mind. Basic civil rights are still being fought against the government’s legislation on individual rights. You favor unlimited free speech, the right to bear arms, and the absolute right to individual privacy. You are the NRA’s favorite left-winger. Religion is permissible, but religious groups should not influence government. To appease your base, you may participate in a little bit of "class warfare," although you are moderately pro-business. You believe that the expansions in homeland security have resulted in abuses of power that threaten our civil liberties. We are in Iraq right now because Democrats did what they thought was popular, by authorizing it. The ACLU is necessary in order to protect the constitutional rights of private citizens.

You would enjoy reading:

Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
by Michelle Goldberg



3. The Capitalist

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Cutting taxes and reducing government spending is the top priority. An individualist at heart, you believe civil liberties should be celebrated. However, you are willing to appease your base by permitting capital punishment and moderately legislating against socially liberal policies, like partial-birth abortion. You believe that illegal immigration hurts the economy, and that high taxes cause unemployment. To solve our addiction to foreign oil, you favor the expansion of oil refineries and drilling within the United States. You believe in free-market environmentalism. Since there is no easy solution to poverty, you believe in the free distribution of wealth.

You would enjoy reading:

Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity
By John Stossel



4. The Anarchist

Michael Albert

As an opponent of authority, you want to overthrow as much government as possible. Concerned about abuses of power, your primary cause is suppressing the government’s institutions of death, be it war or capital punishment. Gun violence can be a hot button issue, but you believe that gun control is generally ineffective. You oppose world government, but you are also skeptical of organized religion.

The Anarcho-capitalist

While capitalism has its evils, you believe that the good outweighs the bad. Unlike the majority on the left, you believe the economy works best in a low-tax environment.

The Anarcho-socialist

Because capitalism is exploitive, you are a market abolitionist, and believe that workers, not entrepreneurs, should manage the economy.

You would enjoy reading:

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
By Noam Chomsky



5. The Compassionate Conservative

Mitt Romney

Although you hold socially conservative values near and dear to your heart, you seek to find common ground and compromise. You believe that abortion usually has two victims - mother and child. While you won’t flaunt your religious denomination, you will make efforts to maintain your appeal to the conservative base. There's no compromise on rights for terrorists. Therefore, you support most interrogation methods that are being used on enemy combatants. Illegal immigration is a national security issue. You believe that liberal economics have hurt the poor more than they have helped them.

You would enjoy reading:

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America
By Bernard Goldberg



6. The Egalitarian

Ted Kennedy

Your policies drive the progressive base more often then they drive you. Whether it’s judicial nominees, tax cuts, or the invasion of Iraq, you’re the first to speak out. Although you benefit from both, you would rather be caught hugging a tree than a barrel of oil. Without you, senatorial term limits would be a less partisan issue. You are a warrior for the working class, favoring higher wages and safer working conditions. You are committed to bridge the gap between the rich and poor. All people should be treated equally, even those who are accused of heinous crimes. Open immigration is a civil rights issue. You believe that government intervention is necessary to overcome social inequality.

You would enjoy reading:

The Truth: With Jokes
By Al Franken



7. The Majoritarian

Bill Clinton

Most of your positions are based on your core political philosophy, while others are based on public opinion. You won’t compromise on corporate welfare or women’s rights, but you support the death penalty and school choice. It is fundamentally important that we cooperate with the rest of the world. Fair trade will help totalitarian nations become more democratic. While the polls help you position yourself to represent the majority, you might appoint a strong abortion rights advocate from the ACLU on the Supreme Court. While gay rights are a favored cause, you may endorse a Defense of Marriage Act. You are more hawkish than your average progressive, but you believe that the UN is obligated to prevent wars, and should not be overruled.

You would enjoy reading:

The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock And How To Break It
By Stanley B. Greenberg



8. The Fiscal Conservative

Rudy Giuliani

Free enterprise and strong national defense define your loyalty to the conservative movement. You won’t shy away from endorsing strong conservatives as long as they have experience with fiscal policy. To a fair degree, you bridge the gap with thoughtful rhetoric towards those on either side of the aisle, and shy away from mudslinging. Your positions on social issues potentially abandon your conservative base. Favoring gun control, abortion rights, welfare assistance for illegal immigrants, and a Kerry-esque stance on the definition of marriage, you appear as an ardent social liberal. You may not get the endorsement from the NRA or the Christian Coalition. But to those who value national unity over social policy, you win their hearts.

You would enjoy reading:

Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons
By Tim Russert



9. The Traditionalist

Rick Santorum

As a social conservative, you hold nothing back in your political dialogue. While you favor tax cuts, you want to block legislation that promotes the recognition of the sexually unorthodox. Opponents raise their eyebrows when you define state-sponsored Jihad as you see it – Islamic fascism. Because you speak your mind, your favor for debt relief to third world countries goes widely unnoticed by your political rivals. You are driven by your conservative base to increase border security.

You would enjoy reading:

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
By Ann Coulter



10. The Environmentalist

Al Gore

Global warming is the hot-button issue. As a defender of Mother Earth, you are the last person who would buy paper plates at Wal-Mart. You believe that because mankind is careless in nature, it should be governed on all aspects of government, from individual matters to fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts for the wealthy are unjust to the working class. A New Dealer at heart, you have great faith in the power of government. Whether it’s obscenity, gun ownership, or sexually unorthodox behavior, you have an obligation to intervene. You appeal to social conservatives and religious minorities because you support capital punishment and the definition of marriage. You have also opposed partial-birth abortion. While such policies haven’t been predominately adopted by the environmental movement, you are a friend to the ecosystem first and foremost.

You would enjoy reading:

The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity
By James Lovelock



11. The Theoconservative

Jerry Falwell

Everywhere you look, religious freedom is being attacked. Hate crime legislation, chaotic homosexual activists, and the removal of God from the political arena have called you to take a stand for what you believe in. You are threatened by Islamic terrorism, as you cite Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 to justify your support for the war in Iraq. Fiscal policy is hardly an issue. You endorse the Defense of Marriage Act and lobby against Roe v. Wade religiously. You believe the ACLU is a threat to the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

You would enjoy reading:

Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Christ In A Postmodern World
by David F. Wells



12. The Marxist

Susan Sontag

Throughout history, the dominant white race has destroyed Mother Nature and evoked poverty through imperialist injustices. Because Americans had originally taken land through senseless violence, you believe that 9/11 was not an act of cowardice. Religion should be removed from public life. Because marriage is considered a religious institution, you want it abolished. There has never been a true communist nation, because present-day China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union have turned to state capitalism, nationalism, militant domination rather than distributing goods and services for the common good.

You would enjoy reading:

Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism!
by Bob Avakian



13. The Isolationist

Pat Buchanan

Although you side with the right most of the time, you find yourself in your own world. The neoconservative movement has failed to represent conservatism in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon.

The Crunchy Conservative

While you believe the sexual revolution is destroying the moral fabric of society, you believe that modern conservatism is corrupted by a “capitalism first, conservatism second” mentality. Free markets are productive for society, but they are an imperfect art form, and therefore you favor beauty over efficiency. In other words, government intervention is necessary at times. You might call out GOP-brand conservatives for stereotypes on liberals who promote frugal living and conservation. True conservatism should benefit all forms of life, whether it’s human life, plant life, or animal life.

The Lookout

The two-party system deserves criticism for playing politics more often than they solve our problems. Capital punishment would not be necessary if we took away privileges for prisoners. While you support gun ownership, you also support gun control. You believe the mainstream media has a secular left-wing agenda. Affirmative action should be based on income level, rather than race. Tax cuts are generally good for the economy, and do not discriminate against the working class. There is evidence of support for global warming, although fossil fuels may not be the cause. You appeal to social conservatives and some New Dealer democrats.

The Paleoconservative

While you believe in a low-tax environment, you feel that the patriotic economy is dying because of outsourcing jobs overseas, and “insourcing” – such as guest worker programs. The Republican Party as we know it has given in to world government and open borders. The troops should be patrolling the borders as a measure of national security, rather than fighting in Iraq. At this point in time, we need to reinstate Teddy Roosevelt's "Americanization" policy in order to assimilate immigrants to American culture. At the risk of being perceived as a racist, you often cite how demographics have shaped domestic policy, for better or worse. You believe the “race card” is used as a form of left-wing racism. Native American tribes treated each other much the same way as the European settlers treated them. Occasionally, you favor environmental regulations.

You would enjoy reading:

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
by Michael Savage



14. The Fascist

Seth Tyrssen

The government should dictate all matters of public and private life with an iron fist. Adolf Hitler was not a real fascist. Authoritarianism, nationalism, and environmental protection are the foundations of modern fascist political theory. Religion is a business, and therefore should be stripped of its tax-free status. The best foreign policy is to stay at home. The War in Iraq was fought in the name of corporate interests. It is essential to protect our borders, as well as our natural resources. Immediate deportation for illegal immigrants is necessary to halt the problem. Support for Israel is a religious institution, and is therefore inapt. World government is acting as a monopoly, and the US needs to get out of the UN. First class universal health care is achievable in the long term by cutting foreign aid. To build a robust military, you oppose cuts on military spending.

You would enjoy reading:

One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism
by William Greider