America: Imagine the World Without Her

.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new political documentary is a blockbuster expose of the why so many in our nation view America as an evil empire bringing death and destruction to the world.

He asks the profound question: “If America had never existed, what would the world look like?”

Is our nation deserving of destruction as the America Haters on the ultra-left declare.

Should America’s oppressive institutions be dismantled and remade as a more “fair and equitable” society? Is American history a story of theft, oppression, imperialism, military expansionism and greed, or has the American story been purposely distorted?

 Is America evil?.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Dinesh D’Souza offers up 5 accusations against America which the opponents from within use to attack this nation.

Accusations:

1. American was stolen from the Native Americans via genocide.

2. The Western states of America was stolen from Mexico.

3. America was built on the backs of black slaves.

4. America has and is a military oppressor to the rest of the world.

5. Capitalism has stolen wealth from the poor.

  .landed on some Caribbean Islands. Columbus never set foot on the actual North American continent. Columbus was not responsible for what the Spanish Conquistadors did later. He was commissioned by the Queen of Spain to establish trade with India. The flat earth nonsense is a recent myth. Everybody knew from antiquity that the earth was a globe, they just didn’t know how big of a globe it was. Marco Polo, had traveled to the orient, Alexander the Great conquered all the lands to India, so the Europeans knew how far India was by land going east. They miscalculated the size of the earth and how far India was going west across the ocean.
Chinese? Of course not, genocide is an intentional act of aggression. The Nazi Holocaust was genocide. The Rwandan mass slaughter of 500,000 + Tutsi by the Hutu during a 100 day period was genocide. The slaughter 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks is genocide. Mass exterminations of entire people groups have littered the history of mankind. The demise of the Native Indian population between 1500 and 1900 was not genocide. It was a terrible unintentional accident of biology.war on Mexico. In the meantime two more Mexican attacks had been made across the Rio Grande at Palo Alto (May 8) and Resaca de la Palma (May 9), and both had been repulsed..
 procured some intelligence relative to the point. . . . From these I shall select the following striking instances: While I was in employ on board one of the slave ships, a Negro informed me that being one evening invited to drink with some of the black traders, upon his going away, they attempted to seize him. As he was very active, he evaded their design, and got out of their hands. He was, however, prevented from effecting his escape by a large dog, which laid hold of him, and compelled him to submit. These creatures are kept by many of the traders for that purpose; and being trained to the inhuman sport, they appear to be much pleased with it.”  Dr. Alexander Falconbridge served as the surgeon aboard a number of slave ships that plied their trade between the West African coast and the Caribbean in the late 1700s. 3
enemies repay us. Did we rape and take natural resources from these conquered peoples. No actually we rebuilt Europe, with the Marshal Plan and we put Japan back on its feet so that it might become one of the world’s powerhouse economies.the world’s 11th most economically prosperous nation. So how much wealth have we netted from defending S. Korea from the N. Korean and Chinese communist aggression? None, in fact we are still spending millions providing 36,000 U.S. troops along the DMZ to guarantee their security. How dumb is that? America the worlds military bully, as the left claims, not taking the wealth of S. Korea as the Spanish, the British, the Portuguese and the Dutch did with their conquered territories. Weird.yths circulated by Bush haters is the idea that the Iraq campaign was launched as a way to enrich the Halliburton Corporation. For one thing, the notion that Halliburton is rolling in the profits in Iraq is ludicrous………………….. The non-partisan site FactCheck.org has looked into these allegations and found them to be utterly baseless. Their detailed factual analysis, supported by newly released Cheney financial documents, concludes that the “implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.” 7t which we as consumers made a freewill decision to buy. We chose to take some of our wealth and trade for his software. He didn’t steal anything. We willingly traded a small part of our wealth for something we wanted from Bill. Nobody held a gun to our head at the computer store. Nobody coerced people into buying Model T’s  from Henry Ford in such quantitiesthat he become a multimillionaire. He was smart enough to figure out a way to mass produce cars on a production line fast and efficiently enough to accumulate more wealth than the car company down the street that made one car at a time.

Rebuttal #1:.American was stolen from the Native Americans via genocide.

.

Columbus has been the recent whipping boy of the left. His crime is discovering this continent and some dust ups with some of the natives that the Spanish sailors had when they 

When the Anglo Europeans began arriving they found not a unified nation of native inhabitants, but tribes of diverse nomadic people groups. The tribes has no fixed boundaries, they had distinct languages, traditions, religions, and societal structures. These Indian nation warred against each other, took land from each other and were basically primitive hunter gatherers who did nothing to enhance their environment. Most Indians tribes had no agriculture, no industry, no forms of transportation (they had no horses and were so backward they had not even invented the wheel).

Some of the Indians in central and South America did farm and were familiar with irrigation, but they were also involve in human sacrifice and cutting the hearts out of live humans to appease their pagan gods. There are vast disparities on the numbers of Native Americans living in North America at the time of the first European settlers. Estimates as high as 10 million in what would become the contiguous United States might be a close number. By the end of the 1900’s that number had dwindled to about 250,000. Was this reduction the result of genocide as discredited race peddler Professor Ward Churchill claims, or something else?The truth is that the culprit was the natural result of biological warfare. Not a warfare brought intentionally by the white settlers, but warfare by the bugs themselves. The white man unintentionally brought disease from Europe with him.

“The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease; in several cases, entire tribes were rendered extinct. Other killers included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. Although syphilis was apparently native to parts of the Western hemisphere, it, too, was probably introduced into North America by Europeans.” “up to 90 percent of the reduction in Indian population was the result of disease”  1

As D’Souza correctly states, 1/3 of Europe had been destroyed by these same diseases in the plagues that ravished Western Europe only 2 centuries earlier and these diseases came from the orient. Shall we call the Black Plague a genocidal evil act against the west from the

As the whites moved onto the N. American continent there began a clash of two cultures which we have seen played out elsewhere throughout history. A nomad society is displaced by an agricultural and then an industrial society. Hunting lands become farmlands, farmlands give way to industry and cities. It happens, get over it.So did the white man steal the land that rightfully belonged to the Indians? We can answer that question with a question. Who did the Indians steal the land from originally? Yeah, other Indians who stole it from other Indians who stole it from other Indians and so on and so forth. So if we were to return the land to the Indians, which Indians. Indians are not one homogenous group. The Sioux, who took it from the Cheyenne, who took it from the Blackfeet, who killed the Arapaho to get it?

We could play that musical chairs game with every nation in the world. Who really owns Bulgaria or Uzbekistan? Your guess is as good as mine.

Rebuttal #2.

America stole the western  United States from Mexico.

The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.

At the time of the war, Mexico had a highly unstable government. The federal constitution of 1824 had been abrogated in 1835 and replaced by a centralized dictatorship. Two diametrically opposed factions had arisen: the Federalists, who supported a constitutional democracy; and the Centralists, who supported an autocratic government under a monarch or dictator. Various clashing parties of Centralists were in control of the government from 1835 to December 1844. During that time numerous rebellions and insurgencies occurred within Mexican territory, including the temporary disaffection of California and the Texas Revolution, which resulted in the independence (1836) of Texas.

In December 1844 a coalition of moderates and Federalists forced the dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna into exile and installed Jose Joaquin Herrera as acting president of Mexico. The victory was a short-lived, uneasy one. Although Santa Anna himself was in Cuba, other Centralists began planning the overthrow of Herrera, and the U.S. annexation of Texas in 1845 provided them with a jingoistic cause.

On Apr. 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a detachment of American dragoons commanded by Capt. Seth B. Thornton. Taylor’s report of this ambush reached President Polk on the evening of May 9, a Saturday. On Monday, May 11, Polk presented his war message to Congress, and on Wednesday, May 13, over the vigorous opposition of the abolitionists, the U.S. Congress voted to declare

The decisive campaign of the war was Scott’s advance from Veracruz to Mexico City. Scott’s expedition began at a staging area at the mouth of the Rio Grande in February 1847. He assembled an army of approximately 12,000, which was transported by sea to a beach about 5 km (3 mi) south of Veracruz. Landing on March 10-11, it had surrounded the city by March 15. A combined naval and land attack began on March 22. Heavy shelling from navy guns forced the almost impregnable town to surrender on March 28.

The final battle for Mexico City took place at the fortified hill of Chapultepec. American artillery bombardment on September 12 was followed the next day by an infantry assault. The citadel was heroically defended by cadets from the Mexican Military College, but they were forced to surrender before noon. American troops entered Mexico City that afternoon, and shortly after midnight Santa Anna evacuated his troops. The war was over. In just over five months, Winfield Scott had done what many had considered impossible.  2

The acquisition of the western States was a mixed bag as with most human interactions. As white settlers began to move into areas that the Mexicans had taken from the Native Indians, tensions between the two cultures grew. Mexico was a political, social and economic mess as it is today. Corruption and lawlessness ran rampant throughout the land. The Texas thing became a political football for both sides. The Alamo massacre and the crushing defeat of Santa Ana and the Mexican army by Sam Houston was a hot button issue for both nations. Forces within the American government were pushing the “manifest destiny” idea, while forces within Mexico were using the fear of U. S. expansion to rally support for another change of Mexican government. Washington had made several offers to purchase the western territories but was rebuffed by Mexico. Once things blew up after the Mexican army attacked American troops, all bets were off. The superior American military crushed the Mexican military in a series of defeats ending up taking Mexico City and in effect conquering and controlling Mexico. Other U.S forces moved into the western states and established American rule.

The Spanish had taken the west from the Indians. The French took Mexico from the Spanish, the Mexicans had taken the area from the French and now the U.S. had taken the entire west as well as Mexico from the Mexicans. The question should be, why did not America just keep the whole enchilada. Why did they withdraw back to the present border and give Mexico back to the Mexicans?

Maybe because we are the good guys?  Maybe America is not the evil tyrant that some would claim. Our intention was not to steal land from Mexico. Our intention was to put an end to border disputes and violence on both sides as well as establish some stability for the whites who had been settling in the western states for decades.

D’Souza suggests and I agree that many Mexicans might be better off if the U.S. had stayed in possession of Mexico. I think the proof is in the pudding. I don’t see 12 million Americans sneaking across the border into Mexico to make a better life for themselves. Enough said.

Rebuttal #3.

America was built on the backs of black slaves.

No, in reality slavery damaged America and stunted the growth of half the nation. Slavery is evil. Period. It is evil because it restricts the universal God given desire for freedom. For any philosophy to actually work in the real world, it must comport with how humans are constructed. Slavery is stupid.

Denish D’ Souza cites Alexis de Tocqueville standing on the border between the northern free states and the southern slave states. He sees two worlds. He looks north and he sees a vibrant industrious people full of ingenuity, optimism and efficiency. He looks south a sees laziness, status quo, inefficiency, and stagnation. Slavery is evil because it violates the fundamental Christian concept that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, of life, liberty, and happiness. Slavery is theft, it steals the our labor (life), steals our economic choices (liberty) and our ability to achieve our goals (happiness). No advanced society can operate to its fullest with slavery at its core because it promotes laziness and inefficiency. Just from a pragmatic perspective, slaves do not work as hard as free, self motivated people. Slave masters become lazy and unmotivated to innovate. Slavery promotes economic stagnation.

Slavery did not start in the southern American states. Slavery has existed since the beginning. Powerful men have dominated less powerful men and forced them into servitude throughout history. Egypt had slaves, Rome had slaves and that great Wall in China was not built by trade unionists. The European feudal system was a form of slavery. Islamic nations have slavery, India had slavery, ancient Israel had a form of slavery and black Africa sold slave to the world.

The labor-intensive agriculture of the New World demanded a large workforce. Crops such as sugar cane, tobacco and cotton required an unlimited and inexpensive supply of strong backs to assure timely production for the European market. Slaves from Africa offered the solution. The slave trade between Western Africa and the America’s reached its peak in the mid-18th century when it is estimated that over 80,000 Africans annually crossed the Atlantic to spend the rest of their lives in chains. Of those who survived the voyage, the final destination of approximately 40% was the Caribbean Islands. Thirty-eight percent ended up in Brazil, 17% in Spanish America and 6% in the United States.

Young boys wait to be loaded aboard a slave ship It was a lucrative business. A slave purchased on the African coast for the equivalent of 14 English pounds in bartered goods in 1760 could sell for 45 pounds in the American market.

A slave’s journey to a life of servitude often began in the interior of Africa with his or her capture as a prize of war, as tribute given by a weak tribal state to a more powerful one, or by outright kidnapping by local traders. European slave traders rarely ventured beyond Africa’s coastal regions. The African interior was riddled with disease, the natives were often hostile and the land uncharted. The Europeans preferred to stay in the coastal region and have the natives bring the slaves to them.

“There is great reason to believe, that most of the Negroes shipped off from the coast of Africa, are kidnapped. But the extreme care taken by the black traders to prevent the Europeans from gaining any intelligence of their modes of proceeding; the great distance inland from whence the Negroes are brought; and our ignorance of their language (with which, very frequently, the black traders themselves are equally unacquainted), prevent our obtaining such information on this head as we could wish. I have, however, by means of occasional inquiries, made through interpreters,

The myth that slavery in America was totally white on black crime is perpetuated on the low information liberals. Slavery in America was a human on human crime, with black as indicted co-conspirators.

D’Souza brings out the fact that white Irish were brought to this continent in chains as indentured servants, just a step above slavery. The white slaves were forced to serve for a specific period of time and then freed, but many black slaves were freed by their owners as well.

Also the film “America” brings out the never mentioned fact of over 3000 black slave owners in the south. Blacks who bought and sold fellow blacks and became rich off the work of their brothers is never mentioned by Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Wonder why?

Free black slave owners resided in states as north as New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slave owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane. The majority of black masters had not been slaves themselves. Yet, the ranks of black slave masters were diverse: some acquired slaves as soon as they had accumulated enough capital after their own freedom, others received slaves with their own freedom from their white masters, and others had been free for several generations. 4

The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. 5

Many have suggested that white America owes reparations to the present black population. Even if that were justified, how would that even work? Yes my ancestors owned hundreds of slaves on their plantations in Alabama, but they lost everything after the Civil War. How could the exact identities of the injured parties be verified and who would actually pay who. I never owned slaves, nor did my father or his father own slaves.

When it comes to reparation are the blacks of America going to reimburse white America for the 300,000 white soldiers from the North who gave their lives during the War Between the States to fix the slave issue? What is the worth of 300,000 young lives.

Our nation has had to undergo several midcourse adjustments during our 238 year history. The Emancipation Proclamation, the right for women to vote, and the civil rights movement have attempted to right past wrongs. All we can do at this time is make as many changes as possible to not repeat the same mistakes as in the past and move on. You can’t unscramble scrambled eggs.

Rebuttal #4:

America has and is a military oppressor to the rest of the world

Has the American military run roughshod over the world. No the U.S. armed forces protect our national interests and the nation interests of free people all over the world.

It was the American military which turned the tide in WWI. The 116, 000 doughboys who gave their lives in the trenches of Europe defeating the Kaiser demanded nothing from the Europeans. Did we gain any colonies or material benefit? No not really.

WWII, Germany and Japan attacked us. 400,000 American lives later and how did our

Wait I thought imperialist conquering nations, took stuff from the vanquished peoples and enriched themselves, not stay after victory, repair the damage and make them whole again with no profit to ourselves. Oh wait this doesn’t fit the liberal hate America narrative. Better ignore this stuff and focus on Hiroshima and the fire bombings of Dresden.

Korea, 36,000 more American lives. Wow we really profited by that one. Now like Germany and Japan they are one of our major economic competitors, not a vassal state as one would expect from a tyrant. North Korea is a massive communist prison camp, one the most repressive and horrible place on earth, where people are imprisoned and executed for owning a bible. South Korea by contrast is the home of 14 million Christian, who have founded 300 schools and 40 institutions of higher learning. The South is an economic powerhouse which sells goods and products to the world. By 1995 S. Korea had become 

58,000 more U.S. dead in Vietnam.  Yeah like we went into Vietnam to steal their rice? Our purpose was to allow the Vietnamese to stay free from communist aggression. Vietnam is a third world country and will continue to be as long as it is under the heel of the institutionalized economic slavery of Marxism.

Why do we spend billions defending people who are unable to defend themselves from evil aggressors?

Americans instinctively believe in freedom and we don’t like bullies. From children playing on the school yard we instantly bristle when we see the big kid terrorizing a little guy. We get our noses bloodied but we have to go try to defend the little underdog. It’s who we are.

Bosnia………………..when do we get our check repaying us for our military blood and treasure after Tito fell and Yugoslavia blew up and the age old hatred and oppression between people groups who had been forced to live together by the communists manifested itself in war. The check is in the mail……………………..right.

Iraq surely this was all about oil and not about WMD’s. We went there to take their oil, right?

How soon we forget that Saddam invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of taking their oil. He was the bully on the middle east block and was determined to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons so he could dominate the region and eventually control the world oil supply. The oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Iran were ripe for the picking if he could get his WMD house in order. If he had been allowed to continue unabated the U.S. price of gasoline would be $20 per gallon, gas lines at stations would miles long and ours and the world economy would have crashed.

“If oil were a major factor for prosecuting war in Iraq, it stands to reason the United States would be getting substantial amounts of it. It may come as a shock to Greenwald as well as a number of other Americans, but with regard to importing oil, the overwhelming percentage of our imported oil does not come from the Middle East. Canada and Latin America provide the United States with 34.7 percent of our imported oil. Africa provides another 10.3 percent. The entire Persian Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia at 8.1 percent, provides us with a total of 12.9 percent of our imported oil.

If America went to war in Iraq mostly for oil, it would stand to reason that we would maintain a stranglehold on both their supply and production. Ten years after the war began, China has emerged as one of the main beneficiaries of a relatively stable Iraqi government and a country that, after two decades, is poised to become the world’s third largest oil exporter. Trade between Iraq and China has doubled almost 34 times, soaring from $517 million in 2002, to $17.5 billion by the end of last year. If current trends continue, it will replace the U.S. as Iraq’s largest trading partner.”6

Yeah but didn’t Dick Chaney fabricate the whole WMD story so he could reap billions for himself and his Halliburton Corp.?

The Cheney-Halliburton Myth.  One of the most disgusting and ridiculous m

Ha’aretz has revived the mystery surrounding the inability to find weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in Iraq, the most commonly cited justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and one of the most embarrassing episodes for the United States. Satellite photos of a suspicious site in Syria are providing new support for the reporting of a Syrian journalist who briefly rocked the world with his reporting that Iraq’s WMD had been sent to three sites in Syria just before the invasion commenced.

The newspaper reveals that a 200 square-kilometer area in northwestern Syria has been photographed by satellites at the request of a Western intelligence agency at least 16 times, the most recent being taken in January. The site is near Masyaf, and it has at least five installations and hidden paths leading underneath the mountains. This supports the reporting of Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who said in 2004 that his sources confirmed that Saddam Hussein’s WMDs were in Syria. 8

Rebuttal #5.

5. Capitalism has stolen wealth from the poor..

We often hear the politicians on the left speaking about the need to redistribute the wealth and the inherent unfairness of the free market capitalism. Wealthy people are view as thieves who have gained their wealth by stealing it from others, namely the poor.

This myth is based on a profound misunderstanding of how economics work.

Wealth is not a finite quantity. It doesn’t work that way.

WEALTH. The classic definition in economics:

All material things produced by labor for the satisfaction of human desires and having exchange value.

This means that wealth must have all of these characteristics:

1.Wealth is material. Human qualities such as skill and mental acumen are not material, hence cannot be classified as wealth. Wealth can be used to purchase the skill and expertise of others.

2.Wealth is produced by labor. Land possesses all the essentials of wealth but one — it is not a product of labor, therefore it is not wealth. Wealth can be used to purchase land.

3.Wealth is capable of satisfying human desire. Money is not wealth; it is a medium of exchange whereby wealth can be acquired. Nor are shares of stock, bonds or other securities classifiable as wealth. They are but the evidences of ownership. None of these satisfy desire directly; if they are destroyed, the sum total of wealth is not decreased.

4.Wealth has exchange value.

As mentioned previous wealth is not a finite thing. There is not only X amount of wealth in America. Wealth is determined by human effort.

Many people are under the illusion that if a person becomes wealthy, and there is only a finite amount of wealth, that persons increased wealth must mean that somebody else now has less wealth. ie. there are only 10 marbles and I end up with 9 marbles, this would be unfair since the marbles should be distributed evenly. I should get 5 and you 5?

Fortunately the American economy is not 10 marbles, it is an unlimited amount of marbles which are created based on our labor and the value of that labor is based on us and our abilities and talents.

So how does this play out in the real world and what does this mean to the theory of the 1% ers as thieves who have stolen from us the other 99%?

It means that Bill Gates who became a billionaire software developer did not steal from the rest of us. In reality his creativity and hard work resulted in him having a produc

Are Bill Gates or Henry Ford evil?

Of course not. Just smart.

President Obama tells us there should be a limit to how much money a man should make and that if we go past that limit this is unfair to the rest of us.

What should be the limit to wealth. Maybe $637,489 is fair and $637,490 is unfair?

Will you acquiring only $637,489 make me feel better than $637,490?

Are we starting to get the picture here? As Denish brings out brilliantly in his film America, the real problem with socialistic income redistribution is that it is based on envy. Envy is a very ugly and destructive human emotion.

As a young man I looked at wealthy successful men and said, I want to be like that.

Now so many look at the wealthy and successful and declare, “they should not have what they have, it should be taken from them and given to us.”

Margaret Thatcher hit the nail on the head while debating one of her socialist opponents in Parliament

“What the Honorable Gentleman is saying, is that he’d rather the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich.”

This desire to see the rich pulled down to the level of the poor is the evil.

It’s like the high school girl who thinks to herself, “I wish all the pretty girls would have their faces messed up so I don’t feel so ugly”.

So often we hear to accusation that the rich people are “greedy”. Is it greedy to work hard and benefit from the fruits of your labor? I think not.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”  Adam Smith.This nation was built on the hard work of capitalists who got up before the sun came up and closed the shop long after the sun went down. They were not 9 to 5ers. They saw the opportunity to advance themselves and jumped on it..

“Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work”.  Thomas A. Edison

Yes ask Mr. Edison who found 3000 ways not to make the electric light bulb before he discovered the right way. Was he in the inventors union complete with healthcare benefits and overtime pay? If he had been we would still be lighting the kerosene lamps. Edison lived the American dream and became wealthy and should not be the object of envy from couch potatoes.

The liberal socialists scream for the government to guarantee success to all equally and the politicians get elected promising this Utopian fantasy.

Karl Marx advocated “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Take from those whose abilities allow them to get more and give to those whose abilities are limited. That is a fine altruistic theory as long as it is voluntary. It’s when the government imposes its version of fairness on the rest of us that the problems develop.

When the farmers in Russian didn’t want to give up their land so the government could share it with others, Stalin in the spirit of fairness had them shot by the millions..

Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Again Maggie Thatcher gets it, “The problem with socialism is the they always run out of other people’s money.”

To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.

.“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”  ~Dr Seuss

.To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

“The answer to America’s problem is not more government. The problem is the government.”

Capitalism has brought America the greatest wealth in human history and made this nation the envy of the world.

As Denish D’Souza’s friend in India who wishes to legally immigrate to America says, “I want to live in a nation where the poor people are fat”

The government needs to back off and let our capitalistic economic engine work as it was designed.

What are the methods used by the left to a subvert our nation and cause hatred of America? Saul Alinsky wrote the “bible” for the attack on America. He was the model for community organizing and attacking America from the inside.

Another tactic of the radical left is to rewrite history. Howard Zinn the communist writer has influenced the left and reinterpreted history to paint America as evil.

.1. Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?http://hnn.us/article/7302

2.The Mexican War   http://www.lone-star.net/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm

3. Slave Trade: the African Connection, ca 1788http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slavetrade.htm

4. Free Black Slaveowners in South Carolinahttp://www.uwec.edu/geography/ivogeler/w188/south/charles/charles3.htm

5. DIXIE’S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNER By Robert M. Groomshttp://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

6.   The War For Oil Myth   http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-war-for-oil-myth/

7. http://hereticallibrarian.blogspot.com/2004/10/cheney-halliburton-myth.html

8. Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

.

 .

.

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material asprovided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.