Ironically, Americans are known as freedom fighters, coming to the aid and rescue of many countries, freeing and securing them from tyranny. Presently, Americans find themselves fighting for their own freedom from tyranny under Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democrat-led Congress. The American people have been consistent and clear in their will: kill the ObamaCare bill.

We all agree that the Democrats are committing political suicide and a mauling is going to take place in November with the GOP gaining a significant number of seats in Congress–maybe even the long shot of a 2/3 majority to override any presidential vetoes and even impeach Obama and members of Congress. Goals, indeed.

Americans keep asking what is going on in this country because they just cannot grasp the tyranny the country is experiencing. Clearly, there is an underlying plan that is being [en]forced, against our will, because Obama knows this is be the last time in possibly a generation the progressive Democrats will have the power to execute the fall of America into a socialistic state–their ultimate goal. Maybe this is what Obama explained to Rep. Dennis Kucinich in private on Air Force One to cause him to switch his vote from no to yes.

There can be no other explanation for the Democrats’ irrational behavior other than the reality that they are one House vote from fulfilling the decades-long, gradual implementation of Fabian Socialism in America and total control over the American people through taxation and their health care.

Furthermore, it does appear that Obama’s agenda is all part of the Fabian plan and the legislative war Obama and Congress are waging against Americans in the name of “change” is most definitely symbolic of Fabian Socialism:

One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn’t advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book “The Road We Are Traveling” outlined the “tenets” the Fabians had in mind. It’s remarkable if you compare the plan written in 1942 to 2010. This article lays out the plan succinctly:

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

Furthermore, Obama is consistent in the Fabian goal of usurping congressional authority as well as state’s rights by shifting the power to the executive branch–look at the czars, EPA trying to enforce cap and trade, stealth legislating and writing bills, takeover of the census, and shifting of power to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as well as decimating the health insurance industry, medical innovation, and the US health system in total.

Sound all too familiar? Let’s go back to the Obama campaign and what was promised. He did tell Americans what he was going to do, but lied in the end when it came to that actual application.

We are watching the fall of America, by design, led by the Fabian Socialistic Obama administration. It’s interesting to point out the main symbol of Fabian Socialists–a “wolf wrapped in a sheep’s skin”. And an interesting quote from the Fabians is:

Fabianism feeds on capitalism, but excretes Communism.

Evidence of that claim is:

Now, another extremely important point of understanding of the Fabian Socialist can be found in a book by Colonel House called Philip Dru: Administrator. In this book Colonel House describes the political agenda of the Fabians in the implementation of the New World Order under the Administration of the Fabian Socialists. It is a very scary scenario and the strategies found in this book have been enacted, step by step, stage by stage, ever since it was written. Within it can be found the plan of having a small, select group of powerful insiders causing a depression which compels the country to elect a man who just happens to talk to the people in what is called “fireside chats” in which this newly elected president will introduce and launch a plan called “The New Era”. [now remember this book was written in 1912] From that point, these insiders [Fabians]control the government, control the banks and corporations, weaken the country to the point that there is a very real chance of society splitting in civil war, at which point a dictatorship is imposed on the justification of keeping the country together.

You can read more on the Fabians here and here. As you read, keep in mind some famous Fabians are Former British PM Tony Blair, current PM Gordon Brown, George Soros, Obama economist Jason Furman, and most notable, besides Obama, Peter Orzag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Take to heart that so many of Obama’s key advisors are graduates of the London School of Economics, which was founded by the Fabians–and is no coincidence.

Also, not a coincidence is the news that the US and UK may lose their AAA ratings. Does anyone think that this is part of the plan? And by the way, the Fabians founded the British Labour Party, which is the current majority party in England. That should explain why Obama snubs Brown; they are both vying for the title of the one who completes the New World Order.

Barack Obama is right. Our current economic system is untenable, unworkable and unsustainable. There can be little doubt he believes this and the courses of action he is prescribing for our nation remove all doubt. And he is right—we must change.  We must fundamentally transform this country.

The more I think about the country I’ve known since childhood, the more I’m not sure we can even be called capitalist. There is definitely a free-enterprise component to our economy, but our markets have not been really free for some time. My eyes have beenopened as of late and I believe the America we think we know is an illusion, an illusion that is about to be overtaken by reality.

America today is not the America our Founders envisioned. Although we profess to be a capitalist economy with a free-market, free-enterprise system, we have spent the last one-hundred years perverting that system through government intervention. With the start of the Progressive Movement in the early 1900s, the Federal Government began making “adjustments” to our economy, influencing supply and demand, redistributing wealth, enhancing or removing competitive advantages, mandating production methods, setting labor costs, influencing locations of factories, directing investment strategies, etc. Through regulation, legislation, taxation, subsidies, tax credits, labor relations rules and trade agreements, the politicians have learned to force the free-market wherever they want it to go.

Through tax credits and subsidies, Government can incentivize production in one area of our economy at the expense of another. If they want more corn than cotton, subsidies are allotted to make it happen. If they want to keep prices high to “help” farmers, they give them subsidies for acreage not planted, reducing supply and driving up prices.

If Government wants to reduce oil consumption, they tightened environmental regulations, restrict new exploration and raise taxes. If they do not want new nuclear power plants, they reject applications for construction permits or mandate an impossibly complex long-term and expensive environmental impact study. If Government wants you out of that SUV, they raise gas taxes or tax you directly for the “luxury” of a large vehicle. If they want to see corn used for fuel instead of food, they offer subsidies and tax credits to make unprofitable ethanol plants feasible, all the while driving up the price of food.

The Government created the real estate market bubble. When new home sales are desired, they offered tax credits to buyers. In the name of social justice, Government wanted to see the poor living in $200,000 homes, so they eased lending requirements, lowered interest rates and then directed Fannie and Freddie (two Government-sponsored enterprises) to buy up the bad mortgages. This drove up demand for homes, and with limited supply, prices sky-rocketed. Since prices were soaring, home builders raced to fill the void, building more homes at inflated prices, more than normal market forces could sustain. People mortgaged $400,000 cracker boxes and flipped them six weeks later for $500,000—but they were still cracker boxes. It was a Government-sponsored house of cards.

If the Government wants a forty year old man to make more money delivering pizzas (because there is honor in all work, right?) they force a higher minimum wage on employers, forcing them to pay more than the work is worth and passing the costs on to their customers. In the process, the high school kid loses the job he or she needs to save for college.

Did you know that many union labor rates are tied to multiples of the minimum wage? Did you know that not only does the guy delivering pizza get a raise, but the $30/hour union man may get a raise as well on his next contract? Who do you think pays for that raise?

If the Government doesn’t like the eating or drinking habits of its people, they put taxes on certain foods and drinks to keep you from buying them. Sugared-soft drink taxes are the new rage, while in some cities trans-fats are outlawed and salt is being considered for regulation.

When the Government wants the public to buy new cars, they subsidized the sale to the tune of $3500-4500 with taxpayers’ dollars.(Cash for Clunkers)

When the Government wants you driving a GM car, they call Toyota to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress and the Media on its accelerator problems, while GM quietly recalls 3 million vehicles for faulty power steering.

Today the Federal Government owns 30% of the land in the United States. This is a huge resource that the Government can deny to the public, or rent at what rates and for what purposes they deem fit. Large tracts of this land contain untapped natural gas and oil fields and the largest shale oil deposits in the world. I’m not just talking about national parks and military bases, either. The Feds own 95% of the land mass of
Nevada—trespassers will be prosecuted.

Finally, can anyone guess why medical costs are so high in this country? A key reason is the Government has pretty much, through regulation of the healthcare and health insurance industry, removed the relationship between the customer and the service provider. Most healthcare bills today are paid by third party insurance companies or the Government through Medicare and Medicaid. The patient doesn’t care what the cost of his treatment is as long as it’s covered by someone else. And of course, the insurance companies have to continue to jack up their rates to customers to cover the shortfalls paid to care providers by the Government.

The bottom line is the capitalist, free-market system in this country is an illusion. We are not yet socialists, just very marginal, corrupted capitalists. The price we pay for any given product is generally a result of either intentional, direct Government interference, or the indirect, unintentional consequences of Government ineptitude.

Next time you shop for groceries, or raid your local big-box retailer, or pump gas on the way to work, or pay your mortgage, or pay your utility bills, or buy insurance, or buy a car, or pick up a six pack of beer, a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of Coca Cola, consider why they cost what they do. I challenge you to find items the Government doesn’t regulate through some means. I’m sure there are some, but fewer than you think.

Every Government intrusion in the free market, every Government policy that limits or forces our choices, is a strike against our personal liberties. This is not about politics. It’s about control and both parties are culpable. This is about the role of Government in our lives. It’s about stopping the continual social-engineering, the loss of our freedoms and the redistribution of our earnings to others. We cannot just turn back the clock ten years, twenty years or even fifty. We’ve been on the wrong track for nearly 100 years.

We have to transform our nation into the vision of our Founders, with true free-enterprise and free-markets. We have to let companies compete and succeed or fail on their own merits. We’ve got to stop the radical expansion of Government. We have to let Americans be Americans, act like Americans, work like Americans, worship like Americans and live and die as Americans with full understanding we must face all the risks and uncertainties of life. We are a meritocracy and we will not succeed as a nation until we embrace that simple fact.

JC

www.jimclonts.com

House Democrats have been wandering away from the taxpayer funded hog trough on Healthcare Reform, finally realizing that they were being fattened up for next November’s Market.

No problem……… Obama is calling them back to the trough while slopping in fresh buckets of  billions of dollars for the government takeover of student aid loans without having to face a 60 vote cloture vote in the Senate:  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100312/D9EDAV381.html

I wonder what other buckets of slop he has ready if this won’t be enough: Cap & Trade?  Immigration Reform?  More taxes on top of more taxes?  Now’s the time to throw it all in since the Constitutional laws for the legislation process has been deemed to no longer be in effect for this President and his Democratic Congress……….. but then, people who did not rely on the MSM during the election, knew that the One believed that the US Constitution “represents the fundamental flaw of this country to this very day” http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165

Let’s face it, the One knows how to get them Dem’s snouts back into the trough.

I originally titled this “How Life Will Change…” but since I can’t yet see how the fight between Obama and the Congress is shaking out, and how Obama’s low, low intelligence quotient in dealing with governance in general is making the presence of Marxist handlers more plausible, I have to consider two alternate rails toward socialism…the hot-tub, Swedish type of Congress and the hard edged, get-even Marxism of the Obamailis. It’s still too early to know who will win. A year ago I said Obama would be a shoo-in in this contest. I know longer believe this.

But it’s been 14 months now and the recession appears to be deepening in the private sector. More and more people are losing their jobs, and because Obama has been unable to turn health care into the launching pad entitlement the Left desires, those who are losing their jobs are unable to keep their health insurance, private companies are unable to plan for their futures, and Obama is unable to move forward with the rest of his (their) plans. Quagmire. Everything now depends on health care.

But did you watch any sports these past 14 months? College football? Basketball? How about pro football? Golf?  From the looks of it, the stadiums and arenas were still filled, the tickets more expensive than ever, the sky-boxes brimming. And sports bars were filled as well. Some people are still living life large these days. What gives?

More specifically, which side will have to give? Will the down-trodden rise, or will the gala money-is-no-object set come crashing down?

The short answer is: the top has to drastically change, and fall. Only question is: How far, and how quickly?

I’ve written before of “fascist/socialist math”. When the private sector diminishes and the public sector expands, you need to understand one of the first rules of fascist/socialist math…the private sector produces money everyone can spend. The State class produces no wealth, but can produce money (by printing it)…only no one can spend it other that those in the State class. So, the economy as we know it is driven by private sector money (called “hard currency” here.) The socialist economy, as much as it tries not to, is driven inexorably toward funny-money.

The perfect balancing act, as Europe has tried for 60 years now, is to keep the private sector fat and plump, so that it will continue to create money (hard currency) which the state can use to finance itself. This is both the socialist and fascist vision (not a lot of difference between them really) versus communist outright ownership. I’m not a monetarist, so I can’t say when the totter teeters too much toward the state, so much that it must start printing its own money to satisfy its needs (we’re doing that now, called the “debt”), or when that teeter becomes well, like the Titanic, irreversibly nosed downward. There are several methods of measurement, and several ways for governments, depending on what their legislatures (and super-legislatures) will allow them to do, to bring about a correction when they see the totter teetering too far.

What I do know about is the blind, rapacious nature of the various state-sector bureaucracies, who, like drunks on a spree, cannot, will not, see the cliff they’re rushing toward in the red Porsche Roadster they stole from the hotel valet. Those guys I know about. Greece is a good example. So is California. So is eBay. So is CitiBank. So I also know about the feckless inability (the psychology of fecklessness is Bernie Chumm’s specialty) of their management class to stop them once they pass a certain fail-safe point. The internal financial politics of bureaucratic management have little or nothing to do with the national politics dealt with here on RedState. Still, they drive all politics in America, not just as the beneficiaries of state spending, but the source of the hunger for it.

The entire EU is built on the notion this bureaucratic balance can be maintained and managed.

It cannot.

So, what does this have to do with sports?

Under either kind of socialism in Amerika’s future, the question I’m asking really is: what will become of those folks who line up six Saturdays a year to tail gate at Cornhusker Stadium, or when all their friends come in for a three-day spree when the Sooners come to town?  Rivalry week comes once a year almost everywhere, and those barbecue and hot dog dances off the tailgates of SUV’s are played out in thousands of cities every fall.

But there’s this math no one’s paying attention to. And from it we can ask: will they still be coming in 10 years? 20? 30? Will there be anything to come to? Will there still be people who can pay $200 to a scalper to watch the Knicks and the Celtics? The NFL Playoffs? The Super Bowl? Daytona? March Madness? The Masters? The Open? Wimbledon? The British Open? The World Series?

If you’ve noticed, for-profit advertising and television have made sports a seamless year-long event in America, and a booming business for all the associated sponsors, including Big Beer, Big Auto, Big Pizza, plus the television networks and universities and their associations (NFL, NCAA, etc.). But there’s this math there no one is paying attention to, and namely that all these revenues are from the private sector, and that sector is shrinking, and is expected, at least by one form of socialism, to stay shrunk. It isn’t coming back. (That was always the plan.)

So how will all these really very delicate business connections fare under socialism? Will people still be able to pay the big bucks on an impulse Tuesday night, at the spur of the moment, to see the Knicks play the Celtics in the Garden? Either Garden?  Will the Garden even be open? Or had you forgotten who owns all those sports venues? For see, while sports is driven by the private sector, the place where sports is played is owned by some branch of the state. So we have to consider that relationship.

As for our side, the little people who only get to watch big games on big television, the die is cast; if socialism wins, the private sector will begin to slowly settle into a new level of mediocrity in terms of quality of life. And the state sector will grow even more in power, ranks and economic status. They will continue to visit sports events, but only to the extent the overall economy can sustain such fewer numbers. As the alums and diehard fans die off, and as the quality of the game diminishes, can all Nebraska’s state bureaucrats replace these people continue to fill Cornhusker Stadium? Will they want to? I doubt it.

It’s bad enough that those who should be sucking hind teat in a free market economy will be wielding the whip on this old wagon train, they will also have the power to push the wagon team over the cliff…if they lose control of the math.

In short, those fat-wallets at center court at the Staples Center will have to go. Those 40-yard line seats at the Superdome will also have to give it up…and all things pertaining thereto, as the lawyers say.

I can’t say how long it will take, since so far, it seems to be designed that our iconic eight-figure athletes will be the next-to-last to know they’ve also been dealt out of future hands of 7-card Socialist Hold ‘Em. (Hollywood will be last, so read up on UFA if you get a minute.) This is in part to maintain a sense of normalcy during this decline as people find a lot of security in turning on the TV and seeing essentially what they’ve seen the past thirty years. But if the dollar crashes, all bets are off as to speed and how “clean” this severing the people from their sports will be.

To understand this, there is this inescapable math of socialism I keep mentioning.

I have a picture here I want you to see, for from it you can discern all the equations you’ll need to be able to understand how sports can change in Amerika.

This is a photo of the Levski National Stadium in Sofia, Bulgaria, where they hold all their public events and all their giant sports festivals, and their soccer. This photo is from the opening day ceremonies in 1953. It holds just under 50,000. What you are looking at here is the entire assemblage of political and economic power in Bulgaria, roughly 20,000 people. The rest are wives (or favorite secretaries) and usually a few cadres of pom-pom girls you see at every Commie event, singing patriotic songs and dancing with swirling flags and streamers. They are all Party members, from the labor unions, from the large state industries, the military, the most prominent city and state governments, and of course, the national government and party headquarters just down the street.

Do the math. These people represent approximately one half of one per cent (.005) of the population, (about 5 million then), the top of the very top of the Communist Party, which itself made up probably 10% of the population. No one here bought a ticket. They never do. They received an invitation, which was a control-numbered ducat with their name handwritten on it. It was not transferable. They had to produce an ID to get in.

I’ve been to this stadium. There is no parking lot. People arrived by Black Maria limos, are let off, and then proceed in, something like the Academy Awards. Or they travel by bus or tram. There is not a single solitary ordinary worker, or little guy, (for whom the whole revolution was dedicated, and their tireless efforts are for) to be found in this assemblage. This you already know.

What you may not know is that this kind of event generates not one penny of income! It was paid for with Commie funny-money, i.e. inter-departmental transfers, which is what happens when you break that link between the “taxpayer” and the private sector (hard currency) and the costs of running government, as socialism in its various faces always seems to do.

Everyone else? The citizens? Well, in those days, whether it was an event honoring the October Revolution, or one of the really big futball matches between their best teams, Levski and CSKA, the people “had” to listen to it on mandated-state-radio, for nothing else was on the radio. TV came much later. It would be the 1980’s before people could afford one, and since many villagers still had no electricity when communism fell in 1991, just like it was when I was a kid, and television first came to our town, you still found people gathered around a store window watching futball on a little 15 inch screen, even in 1998.

I will tell you that this is not the picture most “hot-tub” socialists like Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and others have in mind for Amerika. They still see Sweden in their dreams…even as Sweden is beginning to sink into the sea of funny-money debt itself, as I write this. But there is still this inescapable logic in the math, not just about the funny money, but also the concentration of power in what would be approximately 1-1.5 million people in Amerika using these ratios.

Real money, “hard currency”, is created by the production of goods and services. As the national “hard currency”-private sector output diminishes, the state class’s own perquisites and salaries, especially as they rise, easily can become delinked from anything we actually know as money. This is as much a psychological as it is an accounting state of mind. Their money is just paper script. A coupon. All they know is the unquenchable thirst for it, and when denied, like a man wandering around in the desert, will take it in any form; from a tap, a plastic Evian bottle or a rusting 50-gallon drum with eggs hatching on the surface.

At some point, they simply pass that point of no-return. In the USSR at the time of the Fall, the official exchange rate for the Ruble against the dollar was 2,6:1, while, just off Arbot Street in Moscow, down a back alley, i could buy a wheelbarrow full for one nice crisp Franklin. Heavy one-Ruble Lenin coins were used by modelers as bases upon which to mount toy soldiers. The Soviets saw this as a very bad thing, because there was nothing in Moscow that anyone was supposed to be able to buy with a Franklin. Their economic system could not afford for hard currency to be in the hands of the people. This is why the Soviets criminalized the “free market” and the selling of services as if they were national acts of treason, felony crimes…hard currency that is created and spent outside the control of the national government can bring that government down. It did.

This is out and out communism, and we’re by no ways there…yet. I say “yet” because, while Lenin started with state-ownership at the outset, the better model for Europe, and possibly the US, is that unknown, invisible line will be crossed, where the teeter can no longer be corrected, and absolutism will then be the only governmental correction left available to the State. This is a very plausible track over say, 30-40 years if socialism succeeds in Amerika. Europe is closer, much closer, only when they go, we will already be powerless to stop our own train wreck.

My “stadium” model here is of a communism where the government owns the means of production, while authoritarians, fascists and Euro-socialists only want to control it. But the natural drift of the bureaucracies is toward that cliff where even the finest accounting and management practice (an oxymoron in socialist government anyway) can’t keep them from spending (on themselves) more than the hard currency (private) side of economy can produce, thus jumping over the cliff. The EU was designed to buy the nationalities of Europe a few more good years, but even that has hardly slowed down the pace.

Do your own math, and use the 5 million formula; i.e., 20,000 top ranking socialist “party members”, the New Privileged Class, per 5 million. That means only seven or eight of these Levski-sized stadiums should exist in California Pop: 37 million) to fill the needs of the Party powerfuls in that region. But they’ve already got the Rose Bowl (100,000) so a couple more spread around the state should suffice. The others? What about Bulldog Stadium at Fresno State (holds 30,000)? Good God, California alone has a gazillion of these. What will be done with them?

Well, they won’t be hosting rivalry week events for very long. You laugh. Environmentalists have their own idea what to do, and some will indeed be torn down and turned into llama pastures or some sort or renewable energy source. Maybe just a green zone. But most will simply be downsized to fit the newer missions of university athletics, which will be multi-purpose, non-contact intramural type sports. Some sports programs will be dropped altogether, only don’t expect a fan-poll as to which should stay and which should go. No matter how far down the totem pole soccer sits in sports esteem in America, you will see it grow in Amerika. And no matter how high you think pigskin football stands, you will most likely see it disappear over this 30 year period. Still other sports will return to regional sandlot adventures, much like baseball was in the 1890s, or in the POW camps in the Pacific.

And this will be easier to accomplish than you think, from top to bottom, for grade school kids dreaming of being a pro-linebacker, the dream will simply dry up, because all the money will have dried up. If there is no million dollar contract with the Pistons or the Colts down the road, they will simply do something else…and the state already has plans as to what that “something else” might be. In a short span of no more than 30 years kids will no longer dream those dreams of gridiron glory any longer. The Crimson Tide will be just a song title.

For you see, those 20,000 Party Members sitting in Levski stadium will be the sole source for sponsorship revenues for sports. They will replace Big Beer, Big Tostitos, and the like. They will be the sole pursers of sports in America. Those 20,000 people will decide the fate of ever other sports venue in their designated 5 million man territory, and whether it lives or dies. And those decisions will be based entirely on their own amusement, their own entertainment interests, and their own personal alliances.

So, what will become of Cornhusker stadium when there is no longer a large enough private hard-currency market to support that big game with Oklahoma? As the economy shrinks, advertising revenues will shrink (When labor…SEIU… becomes the sponsor of the Super Bowl, rest assured no hard currency will exchange hands), which mean the shares of those revenues passed out to NCAA schools will also shrink. Cash strapped fans will only be able to pay less, not more, for tickets, so either ticket prices drop, or another way to pay for the event has to be found. The university (the state class) itself will see its funding sources from the government turned into Commie funny money, having no real hard currency value (just like the ruble) and will simply be unwilling to fund these programs unless they can generate large sums of hard currency. With television and advertising gone (The Third and Vine Tony’s Pizza Cotton Bowl?) the only hard currency generated would be from hot dog sales.

The discriminating commie bureaucrat would simply shut the program down…not out of malice, but rather indifference and bureaucratic expedience…the same way they starved 3 million in Ukraine, and the same way they will employ the death panels under Obamacare. All will be very logical in their warped universe.

If you think this is far-fetched, it really isn’t simply because of the logic of the math. Whatever sports survive will find sponsorship from labor unions and state-owned or run industries, the ACORN Open…but only to the point that they can recoup their costs by filling that one stadium (with Party members who are using state funny-money to pay for their tickets, i.e, inter-departmental funds transfers, no real hard dollars involved, no street value). Ordinary people won’t be able to go…or probably want to. Forget about filling hundreds of stadiums every week.

When the state class becomes the principal attendees to sporting events, there is less and less hard currency involved, the expenses all paid for by inter-departmental transfers…which is why the communist states all had a two-tiered monetary system. The occasional scalper (nephew of the First Secretary) and the hot dog vendor will bring more hard currency to the event than ticket sales. And since the media will be inside the loop, those revenues too will be with socialist funny-money.

There may be a General Motors-sponsored event. Maybe the NBA finals. Or (gag me with a stick) the World Cup soccer championships. (I actually like soccer, but still…) But there won’t be a Ford-sponsored event by then. In fact, there probably won’t be a Ford, once they’ve finished off Toyota.

Go to Europe and count the national sports, the ones that can fill a stadium of 50,000 or more. Soccer. Formula One racing (6 times a year). Yanni or Andre Rieu can draw bigger crowds than basketball there. Reason? There isn’t that big a hard currency base. And there is the snob appeal of anything not proletarian. Amerikans in the state class like to emulate Euro-tastes, so see the entire sports industries which entail a fellow sitting down in front of a television with a slice of pizza in one hand and a Coors Light balancing on his belly to be a sight they’d just as soon be shed of. Does anyone besides me like Onslow of “Keeping of Appearances” on PBS.?

The culture of government will be (already are) antagonistic towards mass sporting events. I can see one of the big 3 sports in America surviving. Basketball, most likely, as it has a good following among females as well. Title IX. Baseball will in all likelihood return to the sandlot, and warmer regions of Amerika, and with all those stadiums already built, may take on a semi-pro aspect, with more and more Spanish surnames involved. Still, I doubt serious sponsorship. I can envision both football and auto racing disappearing altogether, but despite the general state-class antipathy for both, a more rational reason is they will simply be expensed out of existence. Football is the most exepensive of the sports to showcase. By 2040 Cornhusker Stadium won’t be able to afford its upkeep just to showcase 165 pound white quarterbacks throwing passes to 155 pound white wide receivers before a crowd of 15,000 die hard 65-year old alums, when the only local sponsors will be Mom and Dad’s Homestyle Cooking Restaurant, the only chain in Nebraska with more than 10 stores.

VB

I’ve put off writing this long enough.

Some weeks back while I was abroad St George posted a piece about Liberals “not of the Left” here at RS, which I’d written back in ‘07. As far back as I can remember I’ve sent off an annual ceremonial email to Rush Limbaugh for his misuse of this term, reminding him that not all liberals are “of the Left.” Oh, well. We all know what he means, in a general sort of a way, and I was merely expressing my distress that many “good liberals” would never come over to our side as long as he was painting them with such a broad leftish brush. Words mean things, and I’ve been quoted by so many others.

In 2009 enter the meteoric rise to national prominence of Glenn Beck, since he moved over to Fox, for he has grabbed hold of that “progressive” word in much the way Limbaugh has “liberal”, as a shibboleth that somehow sets him apart…in this case, from Limbaugh.

Therein lies a problem.

Even before CPAC, when it was announced that Beck would be giving the keynote, I told Bernie, If he hits a home run with his use, and misuse, of “progressive”, expect the fur to fly. He did, it has, and just as I predicted, from Beck’s fans, some of whom are just as loyal, and blindered, as Limbaugh’s.

Last week a lady called Rush (I get to listen to his show more often than Glenn’s) to lambaste him about  “going easy” on the Republican Party (who Glen infers are just as “progressive” as the Democrats). So, for a few days Rush dished it back in his inimitable way by having Snerdley blow a horn from to time to time to signal that he had to say something bad (gratuitously) about the GOP, thus mocking the Beck fans, for their pettiness. Get my drift, girls?

This is a staking out of turf, plain and simple, but it is getting perilously close to petty, a la Letterman and Leno. “The View” petty. It’s as if two gamblers were trying to set up competing high stakes poker tables at opposite ends of a cruise ship…losing sight that they were on the Titanic.

This is also childish, and if you have followed both as long as I have, you’ll know the potential danger that can arise here, over just two words, neither of which are correctly used. If Limbaugh’s and Beck’s armies start going at at it, and the Left is egging this on, imagine how the Tea Parties might be split.

Now inferentially, the logic of what Glenn Beck is teaching is that the GOP is “progressive”, just like the Democrats, and in George Corley Wallace’s words, “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between ‘em.” He isn’t preaching third party, but he’s getting close to it….all to satisfy a distinctive characteristic that is as much professional vanity as it is a misguided sense of scholarship. (If Beck had called progressives “socialists” then I wouldn’t be writing this.) But neither would he have his argument that the Republicans and Democrats are closer to one another than they really are. He would have lost his singular position. (I have other issues with the trail of Mr Beck’s logic.)

Now Limbaugh understands the score on this point. I agree with his argument. He believes that Conservatives have to take back the Republican Party, while Beck seems to be saying Conservatives need to learn and know, and understand who they are, become more centered, then bring whoever will agree with them over to their side. To hell with the parties. (If you’ve ever wondered how the Second Century Church ever split up so quickly, you’re seeing it here.)

Ironically, while I think Limbaugh’s right on the strategy, I believe Glenn Beck is the only public person who can make that strategy happen, except, if you’ve noticed, they’re not on the same page. Why? It’s all really about “biznez”, and those two damned words, and not the “Wahr”. The poker game trumps the seaworthiness of the ship.

So, this is where I get a little irate, and I go over and get my little Commie cap with the Red Star, and wonder how the Enemy might be seeing this turf war develop, and how they might want to help it along.

Now, I’m older than both those guys, and quite frankly am more experienced in many ways (other than broadcasting), e.g., I once shot a good stick of golf (better than Rush, around 8), and have been thrown out of more saloons than Beck, slept on a pool table, been to two state fairs, been drug through a bush backwards, and can tell a horse from a mule…which means I can for sure as hell tell a Republican from a Democrat, Mr Beck. In fact, both get on my nerves at times, but then again, I never liked Hawkeye Pierce, either, but watched that show anyway.

But see, that’s the test we all have to confront here everyday on RedState…having to dig deep to agree with someone we probably wouldn’t like if we knew them in real life. For you see, those two men are one-man armies that are indispensable to this fight, each in his own way. But much like Hamilton and Jefferson, they have to keep their respective “petty differences” and the sauciness of their devotees, at bay. Resume the fight after the war.

I just wish they were a two-man army instead.

For you see, in like manner as Limbaugh’s “liberals”, there have always been throughout modern history progressives, who also were “not of the Left”. Limbaugh uses “liberal” colloguially to express many things that are defined differently, but Beck attempts to use “progressivism” as a precisely-defined scholarly term to define many different things cultural having nothing to do with the political aspirations of “progressivism”, as if they were the same. In many ways, his misuse of the word is more dangerous, precisely because it leads one off into a direction of third party, or a non-party, and it omits the historical notion that the ground he claims for conservatism has already been staked out, a flag planted, and that banner is the Republican Party. The GOP is the natural home of liberty and conservatism. It’s our brand. Why go searching for a new plot of ground?

To put progressivism in the proper context of American history I suggest Mr Beck go back to the founding of the GOP in 1856 and the writings of even lesser known political philosophers such as George William Curtis, for it was their ideals that held sway in America from the Civil War forward to the beginning of intellectual progressivism around 1900-1910. And it was the risen “common man” who defined that era, especially amidst those great waves of foreign immigration. It was the “American Doctrine of Liberty”, and those teeming millions coming through Ellis Island, seeking to be free, more than the Founder’s vision, that confronted the progressive vision in 1900.

Besides, and I know I’m beating a dead horse here, why use “liberal” when you know there are liberals not of the Left, or use “progressive”, when you know there are progressives not of the Left…while you also know there are no socialists who are not of the Left, nor any Marxists, fascists, Nazis, Communists, also who are not of the Left?

For want of nail, the shoe was lost…..(Ben Franklin)

To be “of the Left” you have to have an added ingredient, a teaspoon, maybe, a tablespoon, I’m not sure, but that ingredient isn’t stupidity, or good intentions, or guilt. But simply being for “big government”, or adhering to a body of knowledge and political customs we here call big-city or up-east (blue state), or RINO, but which has been around since their grandfathers were in knee pants, does not make one a man of the Left. What it does is make one “not a conservative”. The Constitution itself does not paint its citizens with such bold, broad strokes. It understands you are “for it” and it understands you are “against it”. But most of all it understands the far larger group, “don’t know that much about it”. That was always the contest….educating them and bringing them over…and our side seems to be losing.

Using Mitch McConnell as a foil, I’m on record here as wanting him gone. Not just from GOP leadership, but the Senate. But I want him replaced by a conservative, not a “Louavul Leftie”. And since Blue Dogs have proved how well “conservative-to-moderate” Democrats are allowed to behave in Congress, I want him or her wearing a big R- in front of their name, not a D-. Sorry, Glenn, that’s how I see it. Even the Maine Blueberries are more apt to vote the Big R than Blue Dogs are the Little C.

Limbaugh knows McConnell, and likes him, and holds back his most strident language for people he genuinely doesn’t like, such as M’Cain. (Just because of an annual black-tie cigar smoke with Arnold every year, it’s taken Limbaugh longer than most to finally see through the fakery of California’s second most famous actor-governor. ) Limbaugh’s weakness is the politics of friendship…which only means he’s neither a Trotsky nor a Cromwell. He’s human. He still criticizes McConnell, but he is absolutely correct in drawing daily distinctions between the GOP, who are gelded big-government “moderates” (dare I use that word?) and the bulk of the Democrats, who, in one form or another, are dedicated “socialists, of the Left.”

Beck really doesn’t make those distinctions, and again, in order to stake out his own professional ground, seems to argue against these distinctions even being made.

But Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are indispensable to the conservative movement, and the conservative movement is just about all that stands between the greatest experiment in human freedom since the beginning of time, and abject tyranny. The stakes cannot get any higher. It’s from this observation that I make this little criticism.

I’m not a pedant or prig, but a pragmatist….and this is war in which we cannot go off spitting over lines drawn in the dirt. Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams overcame this, dammit! Limbaugh has staked out his turf as that of analyst. He’s the best there is. But he is also “planned for” by the Left. While I rely on his opinions about events, he really isn’t kicking the war forward, as Nimitz did, from the Solomons, to Tarawa, to Iwo Jima, and onward to Okinawa.

Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is un-planned for, (although he’s beginning to telegraph a little) and possibly the most important general in this war, short of Aragorn suddenly showing up after his walk through the Paths of the Dead. So far, he still seems to be able to stay a step ahead of the Left.

Three times now I have asked these guys to sit down and stake out “areas of responsibility” and sign some sort of mutual non-aggression pact. (Bad choice of words, huh?) Let Levine and Judge Napolitano draw up the papers. But they won’t, even though AH, TJ and JH did.

In my own garrulous way, I’ve just given you 2000 words of preface, just to say that we really need to make “socialism” and other words dirty again. If Limbaugh and Beck were more caring for their misuse of what have become very important words, we wouldn’t be talking about this sideshow….for as I write this…

…Recent polls show up to a third of the people aren’t too bothered by the word “socialist” or even by being called that name. But since polls also show that 80% of college students (and probably the media) would fail (below 60%) a standard 9th grade civics exam…it’s also clear most of them don’t know what that word “socialist” even means, or the implications of what it means. (Design or accident? Gimme a break.)

In other words, kids today, and for at least thirty years, haven’t been taught anything about the fundamental principles of our system of government; it history, its heroes, and its wonderfulness, and certainly nothing about the enemies of these things.

They aren’t being taught…which in sum, allows both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to pervert the language and possibly split the armies of conservatism…over a damned nail for a horseshoe.

Then consider that home schooling, while helping, isn’t helping enough, by a long shot. First, kids learn best when they share the wonderment of a thing with their peers. Just take your 8 year old to see E.T. alone, and take him with six or seven other kids, then observe the differences; in wonder, in passion, in enjoyment. Paul Revere’s Ride is no different. Washington’s crossing of the Delaware is no different.

Author’s message, Author’s message, Author’s message

We’re asking home-schoolers to consider having night courses for classrooms of 15-20 kids, in the 4th, 6th-7th grade, then again in the 11th-12th grade as information becomes more sophistication. This requires organization, it requires planning and it requires commitment.

We’ve written often about winning the politics, taking back the institutions, and the culture, but not necessarily in that order. Here you/we must take back the culture now, in the words of Latin smugglers, in the “informal economy” of ideas and education.

With the nation spiraling into Socialism, it raises a question concerning our children’s future. How do we educate them? For generations we have taught our kids capitalists values, concepts like hard work, self-discipline, self-reliance and the competitive spirit. We told them to study hard, work harder and make something of themselves. We told them no one is going to give them a living, much less respect, unless they earn it. Success comes from committing oneself completely to one’s goals, taking risks and successfully competing with one’s peers. We taught our kids they must build their own futures with their own hands and minds. We taught them that America is the land of opportunity. They can be anything they desire as long as they have the skills and ambition to match. If they should fail, they should pick themselves up, learn from their mistakes and try again. If they are going to play the game, they should play to win. Our economy was rooted in capitalism, so naturally we tried to instill in our young the virtues best suited to that economy, giving them the tools needed for success.

Today our country is being fundamentally transformed—not my words—the words of President Obama. More and more of the private sector is either being taken over by the Government, controlled by the Government or regulated to the point of insolvency. The message being delivered by the Obama Administration is to put aside personal ambition and sacrifice for the common good, the good of the nation. During commencement addresses across the land this past Spring, he and his wife encouraged graduates to forsake Wall Street, Big Business, personal ambition and material gain, for service through non-profit organizations, the medical industry and education. (Ironically, there was no mention of the service of the solider, policeman or fireman.)

By the end of the Obama Administration I think we can count on healthcare being run by the Government, a full one-sixth of our now-private sector economy. It appears that the energy and transportation sectors will fall under Government control as well when Cap and Trade goes into effect. These will join the housing, banking, mortgage and automotive industries, as well as education, under the auspices of Government control. Given the vast, future scope of the United States Government it seems obvious all job growth will be in Government Service. The largest employer in the world is the British Healthcare System, so with a population three times larger, you can bet who will have that title in a few short years.

I have been feeding my children a capitalist message for years, but I’m wondering if I’m killing their future by doing so. Perhaps I should be instructing them in the moral imperative that those who can must do for those who cannot, to each according to his needs from each according to his abilities. I’m setting my children up to suffer the burden of producing for those who do not produce. Perhaps I should be telling them that working in their own self-interest is immoral, selfish and greedy, that their primary concern should be contributing to the collective what they can and relying on the collective to meet their needs. Or, even better, I should tell them not worry about producing anything, because their needs will be met by the collective. Why study, why work hard if someone else will carry your load. Under this system they will not have to compete for their lot in life. They merely have to show need. Contributing the minimum required guarantees a return on investment. If what you produce is less than your needs, then the system is working for you. Besides, under a socialist/communist system needs trump all. It absolutely ensures all needs are met for every citizen, not wants, of course, but needs.

Recently in Detroit, sixty-five thousand citizens lined up to apply for public assistance through funds provided by the stimulus act. These funds will help people pay for mortgages, utility bills, food—whatever their needs. Those with the best application, the greatest needs, will get the cash. Could it be any fairer than that? Perhaps, I should be holding this up as an example to my kids of the kind of future they can expect and even embrace.

Let’s face it, our economic lexicon is going to change, and maybe it’s not so good for my kids to know the old terms like competition, success, investment, discipline, risk-taking, profit, loss, self-reliance, failure, bankruptcy or even charity. These words will do them no good when applying for a Government job in ten or twenty years. They will need to be able to stress the concepts of shared sacrifice, social and economic justice, redistribution of wealth, collective well-being and service to the State. They need to understand why achievers must be pushed aside so underachievers get their fair chance. They will need to be fluent in the language of socialism, using phrases like “it takes a village” and “for the good of society” and “sharing the wealth.” They will have to understand that their rights do not come from God, but from Man. And, of course, they must learn to serve and fear the State. Then, of course, they will have to adequately demonstrate their political purity, something I’m damaging for them right now.

What do you say, Comrades? Can’t we do this for the kids?

JC

www.jimclonts.com

President Obama has launched an all-out attack on the insurance companies in his new healthcare plan.  Unfortunately for Americans, the private insurance industry is the last thing standing between us and socialized medicine — and as a result, socialism.

In his first major legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — i.e. the stimulus bill — President Obama created a couple of agencies that might have raised some eyebrows if anyone in Washington had read the bill before voting on it.

One, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, is supposed to help facilitate the computerization of medical records.  One mandate of the Office, though, is to provide “appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”

The other, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, has a seemingly innocuous agenda:

SEC. 804. FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is hereby
established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative
Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Council’’).
(b) PURPOSE.—The Council shall foster optimum coordination
of comparative effectiveness and related health services research
conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies,
with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging
coordinated and complementary use of resources.
(c) DUTIES.—The Council shall—
(1) assist the offices and agencies of the Federal Government,
including the Departments of Health and Human Services,
Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments
or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of
comparative effectiveness and related health services research;
and
(2) advise the President and Congress on—
(A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs
of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal
Government; and
(B) organizational expenditures for comparative
effectiveness research

So, what is comparative effectiveness research?  It’s a framework for determining what works and what doesn’t, and leans heavily on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to allow policy-makers and those directly involved in healthcare to speak a common language.  Liken it to a hospital administrator trying to figure out if an uninsured patient will receive a procedure or not — the doctor explains the procedures needed, and the administrator figures out whether the benefit to the patient is worth the cost to the hospital.

In HTA, the predominant language spoken is Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY):

The QALY is based on the number of years of life that would be added by the intervention. Each year in perfect health is assigned the value of 1.0 down to a value of 0.0 for death. If the extra years would not be lived in full health, for example if the patient would lose a limb, or be blind or have to use a wheelchair, then the extra life-years are given a value between 0 and 1 to account for this.  The QALY is used in cost-utility analysis to calculate the ratio of cost to QALYs saved for a particular health care intervention. This is then used to allocate healthcare resources, with an intervention with a lower cost to QALY saved ratio being preferred over an intervention with a higher ratio. This method is controversial because it means that some people will not receive treatment as it is calculated that cost of the intervention is not warranted by the benefit to their quality of life. However, its supporters argue that since health care resources are inevitably limited, this method enables them to be allocated in the way that is approximately optimal for society, including most patients.

In short, if a liver transplant would give a patient an extra 30 years of life, it is considered a good use of an organ.  However, if the recipient is blind and in a wheelchair, his QALY might be reduced to 5 or 10 years.  A bureaucratic system provides “quantitative proof” that the liver should go to a more healthy candidate who won’t live as long, but will live a better quality of life.  That’s rationed healthcare at its best, and is surely where the United States is heading if and when we add 46 million uninsured Americans to the already overloaded healthcare system.

Now consider the areas that HTA covers:

Any intervention that may be used to promote health, to prevent, diagnose or treat disease or for rehabilitation or long-term care. This includes the pharmaceuticals, devices, procedures and organizational systems used in health care.

Finally, take a look at President Obama’s proposed healthcare plan.  Despite the fact that insurance companies have averaged only about a 4% return on investment over the past four years — in the bottom third of American industries — and is battling spiraling healthcare costs, Obama wants to set up a panel that will effectively cap or deny hikes in health insurance rates.  He wants insurance companies to be forced to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions; such plans cost insurers hundreds of millions of dollars every year.  Further, he is imposing large taxes and/or free-market restrictions on the exact same pharmaceutical and device-manufacturing companies that are “examined” under HTA.

The framework for universal healthcare was laid in the stimulus bill.  Government has access to your records and the records of people against whom you will compete, for lack of a better word, for rationed healthcare.  They are laying in place the QALY system to determine who will receive treatment and who will not.

The final brick in the implementation of Obama’s plan to socialize medicine is being blocked by those evil private insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers.  Once the government bankrupts these private sectors and jumps in with a “bailout,” they will have regulatory control over what medicines, devices, procedures, and care you receive.

(And in case anyone still wants to deny that Obama is a socialist, just read the  bottom of the second page of the letter he sent to Congress accompanying his FY2011 budget):

“In the aftermath of this crisis, what is clear is that we cannot simply go back to business as usual. We cannot go back to an economy that yielded cycle after cycle of speculative booms and painful busts.”

Obama is a Harvard-educated guy.  He knows that an economic cycle isn’t that May was good, but July was bad.

He’s talking about the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression, the stock market boom of the 50s, the 1973-1974 crash that saw stock values fall 48%, the great years under Reagan-Bush-Clinton, the stock crash after 9/11, the meteoric rise to the Dow peaking above 14,000 under Bush in 2007, and the precipitous decline after the bank bailouts and TARP.  He’s talking about long-term, generational cycles, and that it’s “clear” that we “cannot go back” to that kind of economy.

In other words, say goodbye to capitalism and hello to socialism.

Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine advised treating a disease of the patient holistically (as a whole; spiritually, mentally, emotionally and physically) not as a series of parts or as separate issues. Maintaining wellness is the primary goal with extreme measures as a last resort. You try not to cut out an appendix or a liver, etc., until you understand how they got dis-eased in the first place.

We should follow his advice while trying to solve the problem of healthcare or other issues of society. The patient is the economy (and We the People who make up the economy); healthcare is only an organ of the economy. The cancer that is eating at the economy and thus healthcare, housing, lost jobs and a host of other “diseased” economic organs must be treated.

This cancer is attacking the very basis of our society, government and economy; the Constitution and the Free Market Economy. One could make the case that Progressivism is the cancer (with the Federal Reserve Bank, the Progressive Income Tax and government interference in the Free Market, etc). But I believe the cancer is far more insidious. The cancer of Progressivism (Socialism) could never have taken hold if there were not a far more serious condition that allowed it to come into being in the first place.

America is a city set upon a hill; a light to lighten the nations; a bastion of freedom; a refuge for the oppressed. The basis for America’s greatness is her faith in the Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, from whom we derive our rights and freedom. The founders warned that the Constitution, and this experiment in freedom, would fail if the morals of the people failed.

We have forgotten who we are and I lay this responsibility at the feet of the clergy who have become “blind leaders of the blind”. We are the children of God created in his image and likeness. We are spiritual beings, souls, clothed with bodies of flesh that necessarily must be periodically shed as the soul grows in stature (or not). God placed his Unfed Threefold Flame within our hearts as his abiding Presence with us. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us and this Threefold Unfed Flame is the portal to the kingdom of God. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Harden not your hearts and let them not be troubled nor let them be afraid. Fear is a result of the disbelief in God; it hardens our hearts and cuts us off from God and his blessings and thus it brings troubles upon us. The kingdom of God will manifest on earth as it is in heaven when we each individually contact the kingdom of God within us and begin to express the God within us in our outer activities. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; because in reality we are ONE. We are one body of Christ and a portion of that Christ is allotted to each of us as a unique personality. That is why St Paul told us to “put on” that mind that was also in Christ Jesus. When we have become our Christ reality then the prophesy of Jesus (John 14:12) will come to pass and we will be able to do those things which Jesus did and greater things will we be able to do.

Abortion, pornography, child molestation, destruction of the family unit, drug abuse, a sense of entitlement, lack of responsibility, Progressivism, Socialism; these are not the disease but the symptoms of the disease. The darkness hated the light. There is only Christ or anti-Christ. If we are not expressing our Christ personality then we express the anti-Christ. Jesus rebuked Peter by saying: “Get thee behind me Satan” because at that moment Peter allowed himself to express the sentiment of Satan and not of Christ.

If we do not return to First Principles then getting rid of the FED, or enacting this or that Congressional “fix” will come to no avail because the disease is still there.

There are those among us who want us to fail. The book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. There are fallen angels among us and with them their anti-Christ robotic creation that Jesus called “the tares among the wheat”. By their fruits you will know them Jesus said. Only God (in and through us) can defeat them. I am here to help show you how. Please visit my blog at carltonnewman.blogspot.com.

I am, Carlton Newman, your brother in Christ.