A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
July 23, 2000 #191
by: Doug Fiedor
E-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2000 by Doug Fiedor, all rights reserved
This text may be copied and distributed freely
but only in its entirety, and with no changes
Previous Editions at:
How attractive would it be, personally, if you never had to pay State taxes again? Yeah, no State income tax, no State sales tax, no more fees for licenses and permits . . . all that stuff. That would probably boost the economy of your state considerably, wouldn't it.
Oh . . . let's throw in university costs, too. The accounting expert tells us that there would be plenty of money available to pay for the kids to go to university.
We couldn't pull this off in the largest states or the ones that allow all those illegal aliens to squat, of course. But, those of us living out here in fly-over country would have a very sweet deal if we had a central government that cared at all about the average American people.
Remember, back in 1978, when Jimmy Carter almost won the Nobel Peace Prize (Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, got it instead) for making Egypt and Israel stop fighting? Well, no one exactly "won" a Peace Prize. It was actually purchased with our tax money. That is, Carter paid Egypt and Israel to stop fighting. They did. And a Nobel was awarded.
The bill to the American taxpayers is now approaching one-hundred billion dollars and we're still paying. Sure, that's not much in the scheme of things -- it only equates to a little less that a thousand bucks per American taxpayer.
So, OK, what did you get for your thousand bucks? That's the point, you know -- a return on investment.
Maybe this could be better put another way: If we took that one-hundred billion bucks and invested it very safely, the interest alone would be enough to cover the annual budgets of four small or two or three medium sized states . . . perpetually. And, incidentally, pay all the university costs for residents, too.
But, alas, we gave the money away. That's what Democrats do: They give our money away.
Now, fast forward from Carter to Clinton. Different players, same game. And, times have changed, so now they are talking about some significant bucks. The numbers floated last week vary from $50-billion to $200- billion, and that's just for starters.
To be sure, we've got the money. They'll just borrow it from the Social Security fund, as the Democrats have been doing for three decades to balance the budget. The one true reason there is no money in the Social Security fund is that Democrats pilfered it to give away. They needed it to buy votes so they could stay in power.
Anyway, the question is not where the money is coming from. Better questions are: Do we really want to do that? What's in it for us? Is it more important to us to make people over there even more comfortable, or shall we be more concerned with lowering our own taxes and securing the future of our children?
The media knows of these considerations but does not dare ask the questions. They can't. You see, Israel receives about a four-billion dollars -- nearly a thousand bucks per Israeli resident -- allowance (and other considerations worth nearly that much) from us every year and uses at least one-hundred-million bucks of that annually to lobby Congress and interfere in our elections. That buys a lot of media adds. So, those working on Capitol Hill and in the national media have to be rather careful what they say.
The Israeli lobby is the largest lobby in Washington and provides quite a lot of jobs in that town.
And, yeah, your tax dollars fund that, too. We do not know, yet, who will get paid how much from this round of talks. But, we can be sure the bill will be measured in tens of billions of American dollars. And, we can also be sure that the American people will be stuck paying that bill.
So, about your taxes. . . . .
Back in 1959, there was a meeting hall on our university campus that was free to be used by any group wishing to schedule itself at least two weeks in advance. And, at least three evenings a week, there seemed to be either a far right or a far left group holding an open meeting there.
Probably in interest of full disclosure, I should also mention that we were students back then. Broke students. And they always had free sodas, sandwiches and cookies at the meetings. Therefore, a number of us attended a lot of free meetings so as to chow down on the free food.
One big laugh those of us from the Polish/Russian/ Slovak community had amongst ourselves was that a few people there who looked like students were actually FBI agents. We knew why they were there and they understood why we were there.
It's hard to tell which of these political groups took themselves most seriously. But, my friends had the most fun discussing the issues of the day with the socialists (real communists were not allowed in those days). It seemed, to us, anyway, that we had to jerk them around quite a bit before they caught on we were playing with them. But, to their credit, they never kicked us out.
By the middle 1960s, these socialists got their stuff together and I again ran into a few of them pretending to be hippies. Actually, they were instigating hippies into action. It showed, too, because hippy lore themes like "down with the establishment" were first used by those very same socialists a decade earlier.
Thirty years later, the socialists had improved their propaganda techniques significantly. They also have branched out enough to include inciting Blacks, Hispanics, feminists, unions, the handicapped, and environmental groups.
That, in itself, would be very interesting at first glance because the core of the socialist party is made up primarily of a group of rather wealthy and healthy White guys. It would be interesting, that is, if one did not know what these people are up to. In simple terms, they are inciting all of the above mentioned groups, not because they want these groups as members (they do not), but because they want these groups to cause mass disruption. Their goal is to defame our Constitutional way of government.
Now we see that the socialists even infiltrated the government worker's unions. While researching material for a Republican candidate for Congress, I notice that the Detroit chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) held a major weekend meeting on June 24 and 25 at the downtown American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) hall. I always said that most Council 25 AFSCME people act like a bunch of socialists. But, for some reason, the fact that they actually hold Socialist Party meetings at that union hall surprised even me. <http://kincaid.simplenet.com/dsa/>
But, that's not all. A look around the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) commissions web page verifies they are well entrenched in many sectors of American life. In fact, much of the liberalism that sounds like socialism is, in fact, instigated by the DSA. <http://www.dsausa.org/commissions/index.html>
They state publicly that: "Our effort is to contribute to building a grassroots, democratic left organization, united around anti-corporate, egalitarian, social justice politics. We seek to unite trade unionists, feminists, people of color, gays and lesbians, and other radicals around a common agenda. We believe that only a multi-racial organization, and only multi-racial coalitions can create a new, progressive majority in our nation."
However, if one digs into their training material just a little, it is soon found that such (above) liberal rhetoric is little more than the propaganda used to attract the uninformed (and, to them, throwaway) masses. It is a ploy, a method of getting the uninformed masses to disrupt the establishment. For instance, from 1991:
"[T]he composition of our membership and methods of political work are already oriented toward building an organization of the educated middle class, and not a mass organization. If, by the year 2000, we recruit every leftist teacher, bureaucrat, lawyer, organizer and otherwise college-educated person we will do a lot more for socialism than if we spend the decade trying to recruit rank-and-filers and the poor. Ironically, only by accepting that we are not a potential mass organization, but rather a vanguard of intelligentsia aspiring to help lead mass organizations, can we democratically relate to actual mass organizations. Just because we have unique strengths to offer the process of social change doesn't necessitate a top-down or "Fabian" approach to social change. We might think of this as a democratic re-appropriation of Leninism." <http://www.dsausa.org/archive/index.html>
That is exactly what we have seen. They have caused great changes throughout our American life these past years. And, unless we are ready to do a major housecleaning very, very soon, they will have won.
Note: This is the last of three articles written a couple years ago on socialism and Congress. It is republished here again because it fits in with information we should all consider before we vote in November.
Links have been updated.
As most Heads Up readers know, we believe in calling things what they are, in plain English, and in such a way that there is no doubt in what we mean. So we haven't been using words like duplicitous, deceitful and devious when describing the Democrats in Congress. Instead, when they act like socialists (as do some Republicans), socialists is what we call them.
There is a very good reason for this socialist tag, too. We are far from being alone in this assessment. Specifically, we find the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in total agreement.
First, though, a little information on the DSA. Here's a few excerpts taken directly from the DSA (http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html) web page:
"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.
"At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism -- a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society." . . .
"We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships." . . .
"To advance the cause of socialism, DSA has established the Center for Democratic Values. (http://www.igc.org/cdv/index.html) The Center for Democratic Values is a network of intellectuals committed to bringing progressive ideas on society, the economy, and government into mainstream discussions. CDV produces letters to the editor, op-eds, pamphlets, and books."
So there you have it. Social-democrats "building progressive movements for social change" by "establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics," and through supporting "democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources."
How does this fit in with Congress and the Democratic Party? Easy. The only outwardly avowed socialist in Congress is Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont. However, Sanders is also the chairman of a Congressional group calling itself the Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus, incidentally, aligns itself with the Democratic Socialists of America, and the DSA aligns itself with the Progressive Caucus. Interestingly enough, the Congressional membership list can be found at:
<http://www.netprogress.org/legis/index.htm> (or enter from
the DSA home page and follow the links), or go to:
Meanwhile, back to the DSA web page:
"The Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up of 58 members of the House. The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge (http://www.netprogress.org), to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics."
In truth, there are well over 100 Democrats in the House (and a few Republicans who act like it) who subscribe to all of these socialist world economy and world government programs -- those programs designed to allow the chosen elite complete control over the peasant- citizens.
What we see today as corruption in government was brought about simply because these people, as a group, feel that any means to their end is acceptable. This includes, of course, taking campaign funds from foreign Communists as well as passing some very obnoxious people-control laws.
These groups (and Members of Congress) are, in turn, politically aligned with Socialists International (http://www.dsausa.org/si/si.html), which is based in London: http://www.dsausa.org/si/si.html
"The Socialist International is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labour parties. It is the oldest and largest international political association in the world, currently comprising more than 120 parties and organizations from all continents.
"The Socialist International, whose origins go back to 1864, has existed in its present form since 1951 when it was re-established at the Frankfurt congress.
"The International provides its members with a forum for political action, policy discussion, dialogue and exchange. Its statements and decisions advise member organizations and the international community of consensus views within the global family of socialist, social democratic and labour parties and organizations."
Most of these groups may be publicly quiet, but they are very, very active in the political background. And -- check out the web pages -- generally, they all support exactly the same agenda. That socialist agenda, by the way, has made up the bulk of the Democratic Party's official platform for nearly two decades.
Last but not least: For more information, on just how neatly the socialist's activities blend in with the U.S. Democratic Party (and the AFL-CIO), be sure to check the Social Democrats, USA web page. That is also very enlightening. Find their web page at: <http://www.socialdemocrats.org>.
[The leadership organization of these socialist groups is, of course, Socialist International. Readers interested in where the United Nations gets so many of its wacky socialist/communist ideas might want to check out the Socialist International web page at: <http://www.socialistinternational.org>. Because, there is a plan afoot coming down from those with a far higher pay grade than anyone at the UN.]
We Constitutionalists would do well to copy some of their organizational framework.
Folks are complaining that government took God out of public life, but they fear trying to do anything about it. Much of our common language is now censored and it probably will not be long before calling someone a derogatory name will be a federal felony. Now, instead of yelling at someone or punching them in the nose to let off steam, the overly distraught shoot. Today, instead of teaching kids patriotism and American history in school, parents stand by and allow their kids to be taught feel good antics and the joys of foreign cultures by socialist leaning public school teachers. American patriotism is somehow painted in a bad light.
Many Americans rant and rave about these and other changes. But, they fear taking action. Instead, they go to the polls and vote for the very people responsible for instituting these changes: The socialist Democrats.
Certainly, there are also a number of Republicans in government who are just barely on the good side of being pure socialists, and we will start weeding them out shortly. Right now, let's just talk about those Members of Congress who actually attend socialist meetings.
Because, over the past two years, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and its arm, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have begun to brag outwardly that they all have the same goals. What the DSA admits, but the Progressive Caucus has not outwardly disclosed yet, is that the socialist goal includes the downfall of our Constitutional form of government. Which means, there are Members of Congress whose goal is the downfall of our way of government.
With the help of House Minority leader Dick Gephardt, Progressive Caucus socialists pepper all major House committees and many of them are up for major committee chairmanships if the Democrats take over the House.
For instance, picture that idiot from Detroit, John Conyers, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee or Henry Waxman (D-CA) as chairman of the Committee on Government reform. Anyone watching the hearings these past few years knows both of them are useless.
Progressive Caucus socialist Charlie Rangel (D-NY) would get the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and Maxine Waters (D-CA) would chair the subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. What new fiscal hell would they initiate?
Barney Frank (D-Mass), whose friend and roommate ran a homosexual outcall prostitution service out of Frank's home, would chair the Housing and Community Opportunity subcommittee. But wait! Major Owens -- famous for his many one hour diatribes about how so many thousands of slaves were tossed overboard when the slave ships were bringing them here that the sharks still today follow the ships' path looking for more -- would chair the Workforce Protection subcommittee.
Or, picture Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) as chair of the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee and Jerry Nadler chairing the Commercial Law subcommittee. Talk about confusion!
The fact is, there are 58 members of the Progressive Caucus in the House. That is, there are 57 Democratic-socialists and one independent-socialist in the House who outwardly align themselves with the domestic arm of the Socialist International. And, those are just the ones who go to meetings.
Out of all names mentioned above, probably Barney Frank is the only one who sometimes acts like he knows what he is doing. Ask any of the others a pertinent question about a piece of legislation -- even when they say they sponsored it -- and all one is apt to get is a blank stare followed by a bunch of babble.
So . . . now, who is going to pull which lever at the poll next November?
Note: Doug tells it like it really is -- Frank and honest.
Forest Glen Durland
You are encouraged to read author Doug Fiedor's newsletters.
His newsletters are passed along to many.
Newsletters are on this web site at
(This is Forest in northern California)
Back to the Heads Up Contents Page
Go to the Heads Up Index
Back to the Money Is Unreal Contents Page
Back to the uhuh home page
** uhuh **
The President said he is reducing taxes.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com