2008 Political Crisis
Pseudo-Intellectual Elite Fad of Marxism looms over America and over Western Civilization.

Vic Biorseth Monday, October 13, 2008

The 2008 Political Crisis, much like the 2008 Financial Crisis, is quite unique in American history. We see them as two separate things. Most of us do not see them as related, and yet they are so intertwined as to be one and the same phenomenon.

The Economic Seeds of Disaster. As earlier elaborated in the 2008 Financial Crisis article, the Financial part of this now global crisis had its roots in the Great Depression era’s 1938 Franklin Delano Roosevelt creation, his Frankenstein Monster now known as Fannie Mae, more properly titled the Federal National Mortgage Association. Just as happened with all of FDR’s other horribly expensive “fixes” to the ongoing depression, Fannie Mae did nothing to help the economic situation, and only resulted in deepening America’s, and the world’s, Great Depression even further. All of FDR’s New Deal programs did that. None of FDR’s impractical economic programs made much sense, but Fannie Mae was particularly stupid. Or, perhaps, evil.

You can go to the 2008 Financial Crisis link to see the historical details of how Fannie Mae came into being, along with her monster brother, Freddie Mac; here let it just be stated that it was corrupt, and corrupting, from birth. It was a Socialist (Marxist) inspired patch to a free market “problem” that was not even a real problem to begin with. The market crash of Black Thursday, October 24, 1929, on Hoover’s watch, would have been just an insignificant blip on the historical radar if it had only been left alone. The market goes down, and the market goes up. That’s the nature of the free market; it self-adjusts, if left alone and allowed to do so. And ordinary people go about their daily business, completely oblivious to its antics.

But, by comparison, all government instituted, controlled and planned economic programs directly affect and even control the daily activities of everyone.

The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor changed everybody’s focus, including that of the whole government, to the perils and demands of World War II. That intense focus and major economic effort is what ended the Great Depression; not any of FDR’s New Deal programs. It was a threat to national existence itself that got the government’s attention away from socializing plans. The economic force of that great effort overpowered all of the negative influences of government central planning and got the economy going again; but it is important to note that the seeds – the “temporary” fixes of FDR – were all still in place, and still having their detrimental effects on natural, free market (and honest) economics.

The Political Seeds of Disaster. As earlier elaborated in the 2008 2nd Presidential Debate article, the political part of this global crisis had it’s most imperiling roots most solidly established in the same Great Depression era, although the pseudo-intellectual fad of Karl Marx’s Socialism was already infecting elitist thought in America much earlier than that.

You can go to the 2008 2nd Presidential Debate link to see the details of how

1. Democrat Barack Obama models his Socialist economic plan on that of FDR, with the probable intent of killing Capitalism, and, how

2. Republican John McCain’s economic plan mimics that of Obama, except in the details of how to accomplish the same thing.

McCain (like Bush) altruistically imagines or believes that he is fixing the market, rather than harming it. Both current candidates, and the sitting President, seek to interfere with the free market, rather than to free it from unnatural hindrances. The only real difference is that Obama is a died-in-the-wool Socialist who hates Capitalism and intends to destroy it.

The very thing that McCain keeps pushing as his greatest political attribute – his ability to reach across the aisle, to negotiate and to compromise – is what has made him into a wimp, on economics, on the free marketplace, on Capitalism, on morality, on religion, and on the American ideal.

If you think about it, compromising or negotiating a position between Socialism and Capitalism also entails an opposition to Democracy and to our Republic as constituted, because Socialism seeks to control the government process as well as the economic process. Some things simply cannot be compromised or negotiated. Some things are truly mutually exclusive. Many, perhaps most, competing arguments over substantive social/political/legal issues do not allow for shades of grey or areas of compromise, by their very nature.

To compromise on, say, the Pro-Life issue on one side would mean lessening the importance of life itself for one party, or it would mean increasing the importance of life itself for the other. From either side, it may be seen that life is either of immense importance, or of no real importance. There can be no grey area on this issue. There can be no other right recognized in the absence of the right to life itself. It is either of the greatest importance, or it is of no importance at all.

We the People are Mesmerized by it all, for the polls all show that we all believe Obama has the economic solution to the crisis, and we believe he therefore needs to be elected the next President of the United States of America. The rather lame theory that the current sitting government is totally responsible for the current economic condition and therefore the opposing Party should be favored is the single most important factor in this election. Go figure. Here’s the premise:

See? And, how do we, the masses, the lowly hoi polloi, manage to come to this ridiculous conclusion? It is hammered into our heads by all the spokesmen of the thoroughly Marxist Democrat Party, and by the thoroughly Marxist major media, which I refer to as the SLIMC, and by a thoroughly Marxist academia and school system, and by a thoroughly Marxist Show Biz, and by the thoroughly Marxist world of TV Celebritwits and their solid following of Celebritards.

Ever increasingly, the typical American citizen does not think seriously or critically about the important issues of our day. I have said elsewhere that relatively few of us really look into political topics in a substantive way; we are becoming glosser-overs of all topics political. We hear whatever we hear about it through the media, in sound-bite form, and we don’t worry about the details. The fact that whatever we see or hear or read has gone through Marxist censors, filters, spinners and propagandists is beyond us. Only the limited Marxist message that gets through the Marxist filter is internalized.

Everything McCain says about Obama’s relationships with Marxist terrorists and radicals is therefore written off as negative campaigning, because most of us are not hearing any reporting at all on the subject from via the SLIMC, and so we suspect that the charges are purely political and false. They are not.

Marxist Obama specifically, and the mostly Marxist Democrat Party generally, are literally in bed with organizations such as ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, La Raza and others. Therefore, the Democrat Party has never, and will never, even slightly criticize any of them, because they are the recipients of the benefits of the kickbacks and voter fraud and scandals that come out of them. They pay tax dollars to them, receive personal financial rewards from them and gain political power through them. Therefore, they defend them, and never even criticize them, let alone protest any of their illegal and fraudulent and lobbying practices.

Where is the truth? A long time ago, in a far distant galaxie, Barack Hussien Obama was the lead organizer of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago Illinois. Obama received his training from organizations connected to the Marxist Chicago-based “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. Other Obama mentors included ex-Jesuit Greg Galuzzo who headed the Gamaliel Foundation, which is the parent organization of the Developing Communities Project, and one Jerry Kellman, who was also trained by Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky’s Marxist philosophy is laid out in his two published books: Rules for Radicals, and Reveille for Radicals.

The main thrust and purpose of the Alinsky training, internalized by Obama, is to centralize power. Alinsky power comes in two flavors: money power, and people power. The demonized yet courted “rich,” referred to as The Haves, are the source of the money power, which is to be gathered from banks, businesses and institutions through methods ranging from psychological means involving guilt, on through threatening boycotts, demonstrations and bad publicity, and even including lobbying elected officials to get government monetary support. Money is power; the ends justify the means. The people power is to be gathered through manipulation and exploitation of the self-interest of the poor, who are referred to as the Have Nots. People are power; the ends justify the means.

Obama himself taught Alinsky’s “organizing methods” to the staff of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.) He personally ran their voter-fraud riddled 1992 voter-registration drive, and received ACORN’s endorsement for his state senate campaign.

All of these organizations – actually, a network of organizations – work closely with politicians like Obama and other Leftists and Leftist groups that exist to promote such things as revolution, abortion and homosexual rights. This is all spelled out by ACORN’s “People’s Platform” which opposes virtually everything in the American Judao-Christian Ethos. It has even infected Catholicism in America. Untold millions of Catholic dollars have been funneled to these thoroughly Marxist and purely political organizations through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)

Now, CCHD has funneled Catholic dollars to several Marxist political organizations, including Obama’s Developing Communities Project in Chicago in the 80s. CCHD is supposed to help the poor, not flagrantly Leftist radical political fronts. These organizations are purely political, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the poor, except to manipulate, use and exploit them for the purpose of gaining political power.

According to Stephanie Block in a September 28 article in the Wanderer, the U.S. Bishop’s organization CCHD continues to fund these Marxist political organizations, and has funded Obama and Obama-related groups, to the tune of millions. These include The Gamaliel Foundation and the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of community organizations, supported by CCHD grants. Catholics are told that these grants go to help the poor.

Here’s what the Catholic News Agency said about it in an Oct 8 article available at the EWTN News Item:

The Gamaliel Foundation itself receives about four to five percent of all CCHD grants each year, Block’s Wanderer article says, while the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation, a network of community organizations, itself receives about 16 percent of all annual CCHD grants.

ACORN itself receives about five percent of CCHD grants.

Though Catholics are told CCHD money goes to “help the poor,” Block charges that Alinskyian networks are political.

Block argues in her article that these networks “work closely with politicians - such as Obama - and other organizations that are fighting for abortion and homosexual ‘rights.’ ACORN's ‘People's Platform’ has nothing in common with Catholic social justice teaching and everything in common with socialism. Gamaliel and the Industrial Areas Foundation teach liberationism, a form of ‘Christianized’ socialism, among their members.”

She claims that Alinskyite organizations are ecumenical and include numerous Catholic parishes.

“The Catholics involved in the extensive trainings these networks offer are not catechized in Catholic principles of social activism or political analysis but in Marxist analysis and praxis. Their worldview is marred by visions of class struggle and perpetual revolution. They are systematically trained to renounce moral truth in favor of consensus-based ‘values’.”

Block believes that Catholics subject to such training “become confused about the comparative moral weight of the issues they encounter in the public arena” and also become confused about the authority of the Church, “imagining they can apply consensus-building strategies to doctrines and moral truth.”

“Ironically,” Block alleges, “they learned these confused ideas in their parishes, through Church-sponsored ‘educational’ programs such as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development's liberationist ‘Poverty and Faithjustice.’ Because of this confusion, Catholics, who ought to be a powerful, consistent voice for moral values in society, are fragmented and ineffective. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development bears much of the responsibility.”

Asked by CNA why Catholics have maintained their cooperation with Alinskyite groups, Block replied:

“I think liberal Catholics, both those at the CCHD's inception and those who continue to support CCHD, understanding what it really funds, have accepted the Marxist analysis of class antagonism, rather than the Catholic principle of interdependency among the various members of a society.”

What can I say? Is it any wonder that even Catholics are divided on such clear-cut doctrines as artificial contraception, let alone abortion?

Where is Obama coming from? Obviously, not from a strong Judao-Christian foundation, and not from any other recognized ground of being. Clearly not from our common American ethos. It is doubtful that he could publicly state a recognizable purpose for being.

He was born of a Moslem father and a Secular Humanist mother. His father died while he was young, and he was raised by his mother. Secular Humanism may be described, at best, as a vague embracing of the mortal sin of indifferentism, which says that it doesn’t matter so much what you believe so long as you believe in something; and at worst, as anti-Christian and anti-organized religion, which means that it must also be against itself, as a stated religious viewpoint shared by more than one person.

Part of his formative years were spent in a Moslem country; his formative education was partly Moslem, partly Catholic, supposedly neither religion was ever seriously considered by him. His advanced education was in the most elite Ivy League institutions, where it is next to impossible to find a professor who is not a Marxist ideologue. His supposed conversion to Christianity came about in the United Church of Christ in Chicago, a black church whose pastor was and is the notorious Jeremiah Wright, a virulent racist and a rabid anti-American. Wright regularly calls upon God to damn America, in shrieking diatribes from the pulpit, and he uniformly condemns white people in the same manner.

In his adult years, as an “organizer” Obama was and is associated with clearly Marxist groups, ideologies and personages, including the notorious Weatherman founder Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, who were and are completely willing to murder innocent Americans to further their Marxist cause. Obama denies the undeniable fact that they have been friends and associates for years, and that Ayers and Dohrn still remain unrepentant, and publicly state that they wish they had killed more people and done more damage to America. No one in their close circle of friends can deny knowing this.

Ayers typifies Maslow and Fromm’s revolutionary man as described in the Modernism Heresy page and the Marxism page, as follows:

The revolutionary is the man who has emancipated himself from ties of blood and soil, from his mother and his father, from special loyalties to state, class, race, party, or religion.

That, dear reader, is what our predominantly Marxist academia is trying to crank out of our universities. Is it any wonder Ayers is such a sociopath and anarchist, and that we seem to have so very many highly educated rebels without a cause among us? There is nothing left that revolutionary man is not alienated from.

All of Obama’s friends, associates and mentors are clearly identifiable as being, pick one, Marxists, anarchists, sociopaths, black racists, frauds, scandalous, crooked politicians, anti-American bigots, or some or all of the above. Barack Obama’s ground of being is foreign to us, and alien to all organized religion. It is entirely more likely that he is a revolutionary man as described above than that he is anything else, and as such, an academia-produced sociopath. He is not a good candidate for President.

Discerning Truth from amid lies. First, we need to recognize Truth when we see it. At question is the difference between Capitalism and Marxism. Those who have been moved to the Marxist side of the argument believe and feel that they are doing good, for the poor, and for the larger world. That this belief and feeling is incorrect is not as important as how strongly it is believed and felt. Critical Thinking needs to be applied.

When the old time Russian Bolshevik says The Party, and when the old time German National Socialist Worker says Der Staadt, the words are accompanied by a slight lowering of the voice, and slight nodding of the head, a slight glistening of the eye, as an expression of reverence to something bigger than any one of us or all of us. It is a reverence shown to the new God-State, revered by all bureaucrats as the highest call, and bureaucracy itself is seen as the highest calling. It is the new form of patriotism Biden is talking about. Bureaucracy is nearly synonymous with Socialism; indeed, Socialism is a pure bureaucracy. When God is driven out of anything, something will take His place, and that something will not be good. Real Marxists literally worship the cause.

Everything we are hearing through the main stream media, the SLIMC, is slanted toward Marxism, at the least. Likewise just about every public statement that comes out of the Democrat Party. Even some members who are World War II veterans are Marxists. Note how many of these veterans were adamantly opposed to the Korean war, and to the Vietnam war, because, unlike WWII, those two conflicts directly opposed Communism. These veterans served in WWII not so much to defend America as to defend Russian Communism against Nazism, which was at war with it. Russian Communism, or Stalinism, represented the best then existing great hope for a future Communist world.

Even Show Biz has been involved in this slanting of public views, for many, many years. One good example is the old movie Grapes of Wrath, starring died-in-the-wool Communist Henry Fonda. Now, I wouldn’t take anything away from his talent as an actor; he was truly great in that capacity. But watch the last, closing speech of that movie, which was a call to action for revolutionaries everywhere. Yes, he was a great actor, but in that speech, he was not acting; that came straight from his Communist heart. You can look at his evil spawn, Hanoi Jane Fonda, to see a younger version of the same sort of anti-American.

The SLIMC, of course, proves every day that their slant on the news is Marxist. Go to the Vietnam War page to see how they methodically and systematically reported Marxist propaganda as “news.” Cronkite, Rather, Brinkley, Jennings, Brokaw, Sawyer, Severied, Mudd, - all of them - every TV Talking Head, repeated the same tired old lies, as if reading from the same script. They sometimes seemed to be standing in line awaiting their turn to tell the same old scripted lie.

Go to the Regarding SLIMC Treatment of Truth article to see how our media demonizes the American auto industry in the minds of Americans. They tell flagrant lies and make up the news to suite their Marxist anti-American cause. Go to the Bush Lied People Died article to see how they flagrantly lied, as news reporters, to demonize President Bush in particular and Republicans in general.

The most popular talk radio shows are hosted by conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity; however, even with their vast audiences, the majority of American voters are not hearing them. The now most popular cable TV channel is Fox News, which comes pretty close to being conservative, or at least fair in their broadcasting. However, again, even though they enjoy the highest ratings, the majority of American voters are not watching them. Everyone else is getting their “news” and commentary from networks and newspapers and news magazines and Hollywood stars and rock stars that are, preponderantly Marxist. Their “sound-bite” education on the issues of our day teach them that all opponents of Obama are racists, that mention of anything other than the economy in the political race is a mere political distraction, and that the whole political race is based on race, and nothing more. The Left is winning this argument, because most people still do not look into issues in a substantive way.

The Political Landscape. As stated before, Obama models his economic plan on that of the Hoover/FDR New Deal era, which caused and deepened the worst depression in American history, and triggered and sustained a world-wide depression of epic proportions. Also, as stated before, the most fundamental question before us regards the difference between Marxism and free market Capitalism. The Marxist sees a poor man standing next to a rich man, and declares that situation to be unfair, i.e., not perfect. Seeking Utopian perfection, he determines to take something from one and give it to the other. This, of course, is not charity, which of its nature must be freely given. When it is not freely given, it is something other than charity. It is Socialist redistributionism pure and simple, and it marks the beginning of the end of the right to private property; the right of someone to own something.

The Bidens of the world see the sheep-like willingness of the rich man to go along with the redistributionist plan as a patriotic thing, in obedience and subservience to the Party, i.e., the God-State. The right to private property is a fundamental difference between Marxism and Capitalism. Another involves the Rule of Subsidiarity.

As described in the Pure Democracy page, the typical free man, operating in the framework of a representative government supporting free market Capitalism, operates more positively and productively than otherwise.

Pure Democracy, or Jeffersonian Democracy, as an ideal envisioned by the Founders. (Note that the following treatment is talking about an ideal situation and that so called Pure Democracy does not exist, and indeed, is quite impossible, unless tempered by some form of Republicanism. We cannot all be in charge of everything, and we cannot all vote on every tiny detail that comes up in life.) First and foremost, freedom of the individual demands and requires freedom of the open market place.

Free market Capitalism is an economic system that must be free of any planning or excessive controlling influence in order to properly operate.

A pure Democracy cooperating with a natural free market Capitalism is the economic and social system in which individuals are free to own the means of production and to maximize profits, and where an automatic price system determines resource allocation in accordance with supply and demand. The right of the individual to excel, or to improve himself or his condition is granted, along with all other individual rights, at the expense of one single individual right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else. The balance between the mutually exclusive ideals of individual liberty and total equality always favors individual liberty at the expense of total equality. (Constitutional and civil law guarantees equality before the law, but not equality of “outcome”, i.e., equality of income, housing, clothing, etc.)

The rule of subsidiarity, whose two main precepts are that everyone who is affected by an issue should be in the jurisdiction responsible for it, and that as few people as possible who are not affected by an issue should have jurisdiction or responsibility over it, says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a town should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all.

Subsidiarity operates best in a pure Democracy where government is limited. The opposing position in the culture war has the top level of government in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life.

Truly Democratic people should be given, or rather, allowed to assume, as much responsibility as they are willing and able to assume. The ideal situation under pure Democracy (in the Jeffersonian mode,) cooperating with a natural economy based on free market Capitalism follows:

• An individual citizen takes care of himself and his family.
• He farms, or finds work, or starts a business, as he wills.
• He pays his way, feeds, clothes, shelters and insures security to his family and educates his children to the best of his ability.
• When he encounters hardship to great to bear, whether draught, business failure, unemployment, accident or other disaster, he first seeks help from his family, friends and church; then charitable organizations, individuals and businesses.
• If he is still in need, he then goes to the township, and, if still lacking relief, moves his request up the hierarchy of county, state, and finally the federal government for relief.
• The federal government should be the last place to go for any such relief, not the first.
• Barring any such calamity, if the man is wise, frugal and not given to excess, he should be able in his lifetime to provide both for a comfortable retirement, and to leave his children at least as much, if not more, of an inheritance as his father left to him.
• If, for whatever reason, his retirement is not provided for, then the same hierarchy should be traversed - family, friends, church, etc., again, with the federal government as an absolute last resort.
• He should be willing and even anxious to take care of his parents and grand-parents in their dotage, and in a like manner his own children and grand-children should be a blessing to him in his old age.

That describes the ideal condition under pure Democracy. Many from the other side of the culture war call for personal liberty, or freedom, when what they really want is freedom to not have to do too much, or risk too much, or be responsible for too much, or suffer too many “liberty/responsibility” consequences; in other words, freedom to be lazy, and perhaps even freedom to be somewhat dependant. But true freedom is not for wimps, nor is it for the lazy; liberty has a price that is well worth paying at the individual level. Any person, left alone, will strive to improve his condition as best he can; nearly all will succeed; if they are left alone they will find a way. History repeatedly proves it.

This is where pure Democracy shines: very large numbers of people cannot improve their own condition without improving their larger environment. The greater the number of individuals striving for self-improvement, the greater will be the positive effect that this improvement will have on the entire economy.

Social “safety nets” need to exist at the lowest levels of government for the always very small number of people who cannot, as opposed to the always larger number of those who will not, be able to take care of themselves for whatever reason.

People free to improve their own condition are the only source of the creation of new wealth, and they are most free to do so under pure Democracy. Free people improving their own condition in life are what drive Adam Smith's "invisible hand of Capitalism." (Wealth Of nations.)

In a pure Democracy, increased population is seen as a blessing. Only free people generate new wealth; governments only spend it. Experience shows that people free to improve their own condition show initiative, become more independent, generate new wealth, and are seen by their government as “human capital” rather than mouths-to-feed.

Pure Socialism, as described in the Pure Socialism page, is seen as a a stepping-stone to Communist Utopia, as an ideal envisioned by Karl Marx. (Note that the following treatment is talking about an ideal situation and that so called Pure Socialism does not exist. Indeed, the most Socialist countries operate as sham Socialist states, and are in truth nearly pure dictatorships, with one dictator in charge of a vast bureaucracy, with the means of succession of government being some form of violence or political intrigue, whether public or hidden. The people are ruled, not necessarily represented.)

Pure Socialism involves a centrally planned economic system, which requires a government controlled population of workers to operate the system. Therefore Socialism is both an economic system and a government system. Socialism absolutely requires government control of all economic as well as political and public affairs.

Pure Socialism represents a completely planned economy, in which the means of production are collectively held, and in which state authorities rather than free market forces directly determine prices, output and production. Socialism is an economic and social system under which total equality of individuals is given preference over individual liberty, and under which all of the economic means of production, distribution and exchange are collectively owned.

The most important features of the planned economy are:

1. production targets for different segments of the economy,
2. rationing of certain commodities to determine demand for them,
3. price and wage fixing by the state, and
4. a conscripted labor market in which workers are assigned jobs by the state.

The right of the individual to excel, or to improve himself or his condition is denied, along with all other individual rights, in favor of one single individual right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else. The balance between the mutually exclusive ideals of individual liberty and total equality always favors total equality at the expense of individual liberty.

Pure Socialism cannot coexist with the honest popular elections of representative Democracy because no population would ever willingly (or knowingly) vote for the total loss of individual rights required to achieve pure Socialism; thus the biggest problem of Socialism is how to select the leadership. In practice, the Socialist method of selecting leaders has been by use of force. In pure Socialism, all power is vested in the central government, and, economically speaking, the government does everything, and the individual, nothing, other than what he is told.

The rule of subsidiarity, whose two main precepts are that everyone who is affected by an issue should be in the jurisdiction responsible for it, and that as few people as possible who are not affected by an issue should have jurisdiction or responsibility over it, says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a town should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all. This rule is antithetical and antagonistic to Socialism.

The rule of subsidiarity is denied under pure Socialism because the centrally planned economy requires the top level of government to be in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life. Low level and local matters are handled, in accordance with central planning, by various bureaucrats in the vast government bureaucracy that is required of Socialism.

The ideal Socialist situation follows:

• The government should provide me with an education comparable to that of everyone else.
• The government should provide me with housing comparable to everyone else’s housing.
• The government should provide all of the food and other necessities of life and make them available in the market place.
• The government should provide me with a job, and provide payment for the job that is equitable and comparable to that of everyone else.
• The government should provide me with subsistence payments during periods of unemployment, and this pay should be comparable to working wages.
• The government should provide me with decent health care.
• The government should provide all the tools, factories, raw materials, farm implements, etc., which are necessary to sustain society.
• The government should provide me with a decent retirement income, comparable to that of everyone else.
• The government should provide me with all that I need, from the cradle to the grave.
• The government should take care of me and make me feel secure, and not let my world change.

Such a situation is, of course, possible only under the fiercest form of totalitarianism imaginable, where the central government involves itself deeply in the most minute and mundane details of the private affairs of the individual citizen.

Majoritarianism must be replaced by absolute authoritarianism (to use the Orwellian Newspeak terms favored by America's pro-Socialist Left against them.) The majority cannot rule; everything must be centrally planned. Von Mises argued that a planned economy is not only wasteful, but must ultimately fail because it lacks the most efficient basis of resource allocation, which is a natural price system, and it cannot institute a price system without betraying and destroying its political principle.

On the bright side, since the government is the only employer, pays all salaries and holds all wealth and property, there are no taxes to worry about. Only work quotas.

Under pure Socialism, increased population presents a problem. Experience shows that men not free to improve their own condition show less initiative, become more dependant, are seen by their own government as “mouths to feed” rather than as human capital, who consume wealth rather than generate it.

What needs to be done. It seems pretty clear that what needs to be done in light of the current American and now world economic crisis is, we need to cut spending, cut taxes, and kill Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, beginning with turning off all new issuances of these “sub prime” mortgages at the spigot. No more loans to those who cannot qualify to pay them back. If you’re new to the topic or are unfamiliar with the root cause of it, then go to the 2008 Financial Crisis page, read it, and then go to the 2008 Presidential Debate 2 page, read it, and then continue reading here.

Hoover, FDR, Carter (and Obama, if we let him) have proved that significantly increasing federal taxes reduces federal revenue, because raising unemployment means fewer businesses and fewer workers make less money with which to pay taxes. Taxes go up, revenue goes down. History proves it.

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush have proved that significantly reducing federal taxes increases federal revenue, because rising numbers of businesses and workers make more money with which to pay taxes. Taxes go down, revenue goes up. History proves it.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-invented fraud havens that, by their very nature, never had and never will have any chance to make an honest profit of any kind. The sheer quantity of money running through them was enough to draw all the illegal schemers that have been associated with it from the very beginning. Again, I encourage you to visit the 2008 Financial Crisis page to just look at the history of these two government invented financial monstrosities. This is what is at the root of the entire world economic crisis that we find ourselves in right now.

Kindergarteners, and eventually pre-schoolers are destined to be taught sex education, meaning, exactly, the mechanics of safe fornication, protected sodomy, responsible promiscuity and discreet adultery. Obama and his supporters will claim that they only want to do this in the social interest of saving lives via early training in AIDS Awareness, despite the fact that five year olds do not need to be indoctrinated into the absolute myth of the HIV = AIDS = DEATH government invented hoax, being sustained by the Homo-Nazi Front in this country.

Will Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ever be shut down? No. There is no one in the American government with the wisdom and the guts required to do it, against the vociferous opposition of the whole Democrat Party and all other Marxists and beneficiaries of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just as Social Security is still with us draining our finances, and just as Social Education is still with us draining our finances, and just as Social Welfare, not for the few unfortunates, but for the many who are mythically “disenfranchised” is still with us and draining our finances, Fannie and Freddie will live on, home-ownership will become the next Social Entitlement for those who cannot or will not pay their own way, and we will lumber along, like lemmings, into eventual total Socialism. Obama seems destined to win this contest.

The limited voice of Truth is smothered in the huge sound of smooth lies of the SLIMC. May God help us all. It is so tiresome to not have a good candidate, and to continually be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Go and spend some time before the Blessed Sacrament and pray for America, and for discernment, wisdom and guts for our leaders. Prayer helps more than any of us know.