Saturday, August 27, 2005

The Company You Keep

We are all judged by the company we keep. Rightly or wrongly it is a fact of life. Let's list the company that Conservatives and Liberals keep to get a prospective on how perception is reality.

We should ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Why are most Christians Conservatives?
2. Why are most Socialists Liberals?
3. Why are most Atheists Liberals?
4. Why is Larry Flint a Liberal?
5. Why did China and the U.S. Communist Party want Kerry to win?
6. Why did Osama Bin Laden want Kerry to win?

And last but not least ask yourselves which of the following goals by the Communist Party are favored by Liberals? (see Communist Manifesto )

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Point 5 is of course the Federal Reserve.
Point 6 is of course the FCC and the Department of Transportation.
Point 10 is to have people think that the world owes them an education and a living. Next it will owe them a house and a car, both necessities to get by. You begin to think that you can get something for nothing. It is “free.”

That is why Vouchers are so important; we can promote competition in schools, all the while making it more evident that the education is not “free.”

Let's be continually aware of which people want to destroy our way of life and how they are winning converts right here at home by gaining support for their goals.

Communism has not gone away. It is alive and well right here in our own back yard. It's little brother is called Socialism, (Communism without a gun to your head), and it has won the hearts of many liberals. If your a liberal and don't believe it, then ask yourself why your goals are so closely aligned with theirs.

Now, I have many liberal friends and they are mostly good hearted people, many don't support Socialism, at least not knowingly, they are sincere in their positions, all I ask is for those who oppose Conservatism, to please examine the goals of those who want to destroy our way of life. (Socialists and Wahabists)


At 10:46 PM, Blogger Tex said...

Nice blog, adding it to my bookmark and my link list (if you do not mind). An interesting book that may interest you in respect to the Law is "The Institutes of Biblical Law" by Rousas John Rushdoony. It's written in 1973 but has many of the same points you make in your blogs and links. I'll have to look for the books you recommend. Have a nice day.


At 2:59 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

It's not just liberals who are in favor of communist goals. The Bush Administration is benefiting quite a bit from these homegrown communist institutions.

Why did energy companies get massive tax breaks and "incentives" in the recent energy bill? A real capitalist would abhor such state interference in business.

Why did the notion of "national security" deny Unocal shareholders the right to decide whether to sell to the highest bidder?

Why did Halliburton/KBR get no-bid contracts for work in Iraq? Isn't capitalism all about competition?

The U.S. Supreme Court (which is in no way "liberal") recently held that the State can confiscate private property if the local government wants to use the land to build a Wal-Mart.

Subsidies for farmers.

How about the Dept. of Homeland Security and their right to inspect our library and medical records?

These are great examples of Republican love for communism.

At 5:36 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

intellectual insurgent:

You seem to be very well informed in most cases, so you are welcome here anytime. I love a good debate and like a challenge.

I will address your points later tonight, but I will start with the easiest one.

The Supreme Court is made up of 9 Judges.

3 are Conservative (Scalia - 69
Thomas - 57 Rehnquist - 81)

4 are Liberal ( Ginsburg - 72
Stevens - 85 Souter - 66 Breyer - 67 )

2 are Moderates (swing votes) - ( O' Conner - 75 Kennedy - 69 )

On the Confiscation of property, no conservative I know liked that one.

But the reason the Libs are all up in arms over Roberts is because they would be loosing a swing vote for a conseritave vote. That would make it 4 to 4 with only 1 swing vote left and Stevens is 85 years old and what if Bush can replace him with another Conservative?


At 5:37 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Thanks for the kind words, I will check out that book.


At 9:39 PM, Blogger Tex said...

Why did Halliburton/KBR get no-bid contracts for work in Iraq? Isn't capitalism all about competition?

Because Halliburton is the only company around that does that kind of work.

At 8:14 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


1. " energy companies get massive tax breaks" - I don't like a managed economy either. I don't think many conservatives agree with "tweeking" the free market machine either.

2. "sell to the highest bidder" - I agree with this one, only because it would be selling to a Communist Country that could use it against us. We don't sell many of our most advanced weapons to them either.

3. "no-bid contracts" - I believe tex is right on this one. Nobody else has the ability to do the job, and I am not sure any others wanted it even if they did.

4. "Subsidies for farmers" - Congress in general, not just (r) on this one. And you are right that it is wrong to play with the free market.

5. " inspect our library and medical records?" - that one doesn't bother me near as much as the ability of the Feds to sign their own search warrants. There is about 5% of the Patriot Act that I don't like.

You picked some valid concerns of mine, but in some cases, it's just Congress being Congress.

"We have the best people in Washington that money can buy." - Will Rogers Jr.


At 8:41 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

It is Congress just being Congress, but it is Republican controlled. My only point is that your post was trying to blame it all on "liberals" when "conservatives" follow and support many of the same principles.

By the way, I just got back from China and it is not communist by any stretch of the imagination. It is far more capitalist than the U.S. at this point. And, I go back to free market principles and say that Unocal shareholders should have had the right to decide whether to sell their private property (shares) to someone else.

Halliburton isn't the only company that does that kind of work. Fluor-Daniels is another heavy hitter and wasn't even invited to the table.

You have to admit that there are plenty of so-called
"conservatives" who support "communist" principles. The facts are there.

At 11:54 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


China is Communist, of that there is no arguing as far as their goal to take over the world and force everone to live under a totalitarian regime.

Do they tinker with Capitalism? Yes.

They still have a managed economy as opposed to a free market one.

They have seen what a "glimmer" of capitalism can do for a dictatorship.

But don't hold your breath for another Tiananmen Square rally for freedom.


At 11:55 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Yes, I admit there are some conservatives who still support some "communistic" principals.

We're working on them though.



At 12:03 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


“Halliburton has been working with the United States government since the 1940s,” said one executive who supplied documents and requested anonymity. “But because Vice President Dick Cheney used to run the firm everyone automatically assumes that he had something to do with the government contracts we now get.”

People and Governments usually rely on people/companies they are familiar with especailly ones that they know can get the job done.

The reason the government gave for awarding them the contract was that they were the only ones who could respond quickly enough, but I am also sure that their are "favorites" in any relationship that is multi-faceted.

Fair enough?


At 12:50 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Not fair enough. People and governments usually shop services to get the best deal. Especially when they are spending someone else's money (yes, my tax dollars). Capitalism and the free market are about encouraging fresh competitors. Favortism and the old boy's network is a sympton of fascism and a controlled economy. That is not an attribute of "freedom."

The U.S. also has a controlled economy - it's called the Federal Reserve. It's called the "national security" rubric.

Why the paranoia about China taking over the world? The same could be said for the U.S.

At 4:15 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Why the fear of Communism taking over the world?

Ever read the "Communist Manifesto?"

The one thing that the Communists and the Wahabists have in common is they are for a one world government, (with them at the head of coarse.)

I know some would say that there are others that have that goal, but if there are others out there, at least they aren't bold enough to state it emphatically in public documents.

In this post you will see that I agree with your comment about the Federal Reserve, it was one of the Manifesto's goals to see that every country has a central bank in control by the state.

No argument there.

I am for Capitalism and the Free Market, not for the "Good old boy" network. I am working with other republicans to try to change that.


At 5:03 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

I have read the Communist Manifesto. I took a Marxism class as part of my political science degree in college.

China is not communist. Listen to all the complaints from American communists/protectionists about the fact that the Chinese don't have the same types of "regulations" of industry that America does and that the regulations put American companies at a disadvantage.

The answer of these pioneers of American industry? They "lobby" (i.e. corruptly bribe) political officials to slap tariffs (another anti-market tool) on foreign goods or to limit the amount of a good that can be imported to the U.S. So, we, the consumers pay more for a foreign good because American companies are overregulated.

On the same note, if Toyota makes a better car, too f'ing bad for Ford. Let Ford figure out how to compete - not punish the consumer financially for choosing the better quality product by making me pay a tariff. That is communism in action and it is protected by politicians across the spectrum.

Which country is more capitalist and more communist?

The Project For A New American Century is a think-tank made up of many high-ranking members of the Administration and has laid out the framework of American dominance of the world. Does it matter if they couch their goals in Orwellian speak? They use b.s. rhetoric about a "free" world.

At 5:53 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Here are excerpts from a BBC article today:

"Politicians and trade groups have complained that should the growth in Chinese textile exports not be slowed, then US producers stand to lose business and millions of jobs." [Because they can't compete in an open and free market]

"The Bush administration has already imposed quotas on imports of knitted shirts, cotton trousers and underwear. It is considering similar restrictions on wool trousers, dressing gowns, bras and sweaters." [Looks like Bush & his homies are a bunch of commies - they certainly aren't on the right side of your spectrum]

At 6:10 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

I am for free trade and agree that "protectionism" is bad.

Your statemnet about Toyota agaist Ford sounds like you quoted something I said about 20 years ago and would still say today.

I think the 8 years I studied Economics brought me a whole new concept for "free trade." All the while the "professors" were trying to push "Keynesian" Economics at me, and me pushing back with Friedman we wound up in many dog-fights. I think I won my share. It's hard to beat logical truth. :)

Why does the world always refer to them as "Communist China." Are they all wrong?

Doesn't Mao's Politburo (sp?) still exist in China?

Don't they still have the biggest Welfare system in the world, (as far as numbers of cradle to grave unemployed?)


At 6:17 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


It is mainly the Labor Unions that push for protectionism. The Managers want to ship the labor overseas so they can better compete.

Which party has Labor Unions? Dems.


At 6:58 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

People call China "communist" because the so-called communists are still in government. If you look at the economy, however, it is not communist. It's not 100% capitalist, but then again, the U.S. isn't either. Mao would roll in his grave if he was alive right now. :-)

Agreed on the labor unions. I used to practice employment law on the employer side and I was sickened by the stranglehold they have on business. Now I work studio-side in the entertainment industry and we are constantly dealing with unions. I have no objection to workers protecting their rights, but denying other people the right to work because they don't join your gang is atrocious.

At 9:49 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

It seems we have more in common than we don't.


I knew that China was dabbling in Capitalism, but still choose to call them Communists becasue it is still the leaders ideology.

They still believe like Russia did when it started dabbling in Capitalism, that until the whole world is Communistic, it will never work. That is why they will continue to seek to conquer the rest of the nations so then they can have "pure" communism.

They don't hide this goal even today.

Also, watch and see if Russia doesn't revert back to a dictatorship and back towards semi-communism.


At 1:06 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

I don't think they are trying to make the world communist. I think they are trying to get rich and see vast opportunities in their nations.

Chinese culture is very obsessed with saving face. I think they don't change the name of the party because that would be a shameful admission that they were wrong all along about communism, which would cause all the political leaders to "lose face." The face thing is a tough cultural thing to conquer. Saving face is a facet of oriental (meaning eastern, incl. Arabs, Indians, Asians, etc.) culture that hinders cultural evolution.

Motorola had to create the 6 Sigma quality-cntrol system to alleviate the difficulty of doing business with people who are scared to tell you something is broken because they don't want to lose face.

If you get the chance to peruse my blog, you can read my reflections on China, Mongolia and Russia (all former communist countries).

At 3:25 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


I think it is hard for those who have been a party to the kind of power the leaders in China have seen to just be interested in the profit motive.

As J.D. Rockafeller (sp?) once said: "After you have more than enough money, your next logical goal is power."

I am convinced that they want to have power more than money.

Part of my belief is because of my religious convictions and the prophecies about China and their goals.


At 3:26 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


I don't know if that quote I gave is word for word, but it is the best I can remember from 20 years ago when I first read it.


At 6:25 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

The quote you cited is best applied to the Bush Administration and many of its supporters.

At 7:59 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Just curious but you seem to be against Bush and Kerry, am I correct?


At 10:39 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Yes, you are correct. I think they were both AWFUL choices, which goes back to my point about having a viable third party.


Post a Comment

<< Home