Why did Justice Ginsberg do this interview in the first place?

First, did she really think Egyptians would honor the opinion of a woman, an American, and a Jew? Isn’t that a hatred trifecta for Egypt’s vaunted Muslim Brotherhood as well as the “Arab Street”? Remember what happened to Lara Logan during the “Arab Spring” demonstrations? Why consent to an interview at all? Did she really think she’d reflect well on herself, the Supreme Court, or our country with this interview? It ended up being rather the opposite, I’d say.

Second, if Justice Ginsberg really must draw back that Wizard-of-Oz-like SCOTUS curtain, could she at least have shown a bit more respect and praise for the Constitution that she swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Evidently not.

Said Ginsberg to the Egyptians:

I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary … it really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.

Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.

Well, thank you, Madame Justice. I had no idea how inferior our Constitution was to Europe’s, Canada’s, and South Africa’s. And how noble and courageous you have been to suffer our dusty old Constitution so stoically for nearly 20 years.

But perhaps I do the Justice an injustice. What is it that Ginsberg finds so attractive in those other constitutions? Given her comments, I infer it must have something to do with what she means by “human rights”. So I looked first to the South Africa Constitution since Ginsberg singled it out as a “great piece of work.” It’s available online.

The first thing I noticed about the SA Constitution (1996) is its sheer size. The US Constitution is only 4400 words long, but the SA Constitution is over 43,700 words long. Much more stuff. And more means better? Anyway, it’s so big that I could never have read it all, so I focused mainly on Chapter 2, the SA Bill of Rights.

Our American Bill of Rights is rather short — just those first ten tersely worded amendments. The SA Bill of Rights is over 4600 words long and contains 33 major headings. Among these are many noble and proper declarations somewhat like our own, but there are others — namely, the ones that I presume Justice Ginsberg admires. Three in particular declare the following (with my emphasis added) as the supreme law of the land in South Africa:

24. Environment — Everyone has the right:

(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that

(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

…..

26. Housing:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

27. Health care, food, water and social security:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to:

(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

(3) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.

Isn’t this nice? What’s not to like? It sounds like an Occupy-Wall-Streeter’s paradise. It sounds like the promises made whenever socialism has been sold to a hopeful and unsuspecting populace. It reads as does the European Union Constitution, where attempts to deliver on promises like these threaten to collapse whole economies and lead to massive civil unrest.

Note that nowhere in the SA Constitution does it say that SA “rights” are to be conferred by any means other than those of “The State”. At virtually every turn, The State is the implied guarantor, provider, and benefactor.

However …

Note also the remarkable Item (2) in italics under Headings 26 and 27 above. The phrase “within its available resources” is a convenient way for The State to renege on the associated promised right. I interpret that clause in italics to mean: If we cannot squeeze enough money from selfish South African ‘makers’ to cover our promises to South African ‘takers‘, then this ‘human right’ may not be fulfilled after all. The State has few resources of its own, you see. So if these promises don’t come true, please remember to blame the selfish ‘makers’, not The State.

Note also the use of the interesting phrase “progressive realization”. What do they mean by “progressive”? It could mean gradual, which gives the state a way to put off demands for all these guaranteed freebies. Or it could mean Progressive in the political sense, which implies heavy taxation on those wealthy makers and little or no taxation on the takers. Either or both can help prolong The State’s hold on power.

So I’m left wondering whether Justice Ginsberg admires those SA Constitution human rights promises or those weasel-worded escape phrases. Perhaps it’s both(?).

Of course our own Bill of Rights is fundamentally different. Ours is about what the Federal Government cannot do to us rather than what it must do for us. To a Leftist like President Obama, we know that sounds like a defect — he’s told us so. But Conservatives know that the American approach has led to the most prosperous populace, at all economic levels, in the history of the world. And similar approaches have worked well in other places (albeit to varying degrees) such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile.

On the other hand, where the Left has had free reign and made the grandest of promises, like those in the South African Constitution, the results have been horrific beyond belief. Just listen to people who have lived through it in the 20th century (here, here, and here).

Scanning through the South African Constitution I found several other areas that may have attracted Justice Ginsberg’s admiring eye. To limit the length of this article, I’ll include just one more … namely, an amazing provision in “Chapter 1, Founding Provisions” that reads:

6. Languages

(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.

(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.

(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.

(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.

(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and (iii) sign language ; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.

In short, South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok, but perhaps this too won Justice Ginsberg’s approval?

Well …

The Left, including Barack Obama, still loves to portray its socialist leanings as some sort of new, forward-looking, if-only-we’d-try-it philosophy of government that will finally bring us all social justice and fairness. But given its cataclysmic failures and atrocities in the 20th century, I’d say that Leftism and Socialism are both long past their sell-by date.

—————————————————————————–

The road to serfdom begins with the belief you can overcome natural differences to create a tie at the finish line of life.
Herbert London

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 8, 2012
CONTACT: NRSC Press Office

If You Want To Know Who Richard Carmona Will Stand With In Washington, See Who He’s Standing With In New York City Tonight
Carmona Set To Fundraise With Liberal New York Senator Chuck Schumer

WASHINGTON – Richard Carmona (D-AZ) likes to preach his independence on the campaign in Arizona, but an inside look at his fundraising apparatus tells a far different story. Tonight, Carmona’s political patron liberal U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will host a fundraiser for Carmona at the posh Grace Hotel in New York City.

Schumer is an unabashed supporter of Barack Obama’s tax-and-spend agenda, supporting key initiatives like Obama’s failed $825 billion stimulus and $2.5 trillion healthcare law. Additionally, Schumer is a strong opponent of the Second Amendment and has consistently voted to raise taxes on families and small business owners in Arizona. On every major issue, Schumer has been in lockstep with President Obama, who personally recruited Carmona to run last year.

“If Arizonans want to see who Richard Carmona will stand with in Washington, they don’t need to look any further than to see who he is hobnobbing with in New York City today,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Jahan Wilcox. “It’s clear liberal Democrats like President Obama and Chuck Schumer know that Richard Carmona will be a loyal vote for their big government agenda of higher taxes, reckless spending and job-killing healthcare takeovers.”

BACKGROUND …

Senator Chuck Schumer’s Official Invitation

“This Wednesday, February 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM at the Grace Hotel in Times Square, Senator Chuck Schumer and I would like to introduce you to an outstanding individual who is running for United States Senator from Arizona. In fact many key national leaders are now working on behalf of Dr. Richard Carmona and we are asking for your support in helping him get elected as the next United States Senator from the state of Arizona.” (Peter Fontanes, Dr. Richard Carmona Reception, Accessed On Facebook On 02/08/12)

Schumer Received A “F “Rating From The Gun Owners Of America

• Schumer Received A “F” From The Gun Owners Of America. (Gun Owners Of America Website, www.gunowners.org, Accessed 2/8/12)

And Has A “F” Rating From The National Taxpayers Union

• In 2010, Schumer Received A “F” From The National Taxpayers Union. (National Taxpayers Union Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 2/8/12)

# # #

Now, if I understand correctly, the Teaparty created itself after the now famous Rick Santelli rant on CNBC  in response to the passage of Obamacare.

Read that again – a REAL conservative response to Obamacare.  Patriotic Americans nationwide organized themselves to march on Washington in protest of Obamacare, organized themselves locally to fight the implementation of Obamacare, to replace RINOs and send REAL conservatives to Congress to REPEAL OBAMACARE.

Read that again – to REPEAL OBAMACARE.  R E P E A L

Along comes the self-proclaimed leaders (admittedly not all) of the Arizona Teaparties supporting Newt Gingrich.

So what’s the problem with that?

Well notwithstanding Newt’s belief in global warming and support for international communism as a solution for global warming and his direct work with Nancy Pelosi

Click here to view the embedded video.

notwithstanding Newt’s work in support of Al Gore’s initiatives,

notwithstanding Newt’s lobbying for the ethanol “bio-fuel” industry,

now it comes to light that Gingrich SUPPORTS OBAMACARE and the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!

Well lo and behold, as they say, a new Newt every day!  LOL

You can hear Newt here (at 00:40) clearly state his support for Obamacare individual mandates.

It may be time for a little Teaparty revolt in Arizona.  If you are a Teaparty member like I am, make sure to print this out and bring it to your next meeting.  If your Teaparty’s “leadership” is promoting Newt Gingrich, it’s time to *REMOVE* that Teaparty leader.  It’s time to expose them for being a spineless RINO  infiltrator and replace them with a real conservative and PATRIOT who understands that Americans’ freedom is not for sale or barter in this or ANY election and that any support for Obamacare will not be tolerated!

Teaparty, y’all!

The logical mind says “try something else”. The progressive mind says “double down.“

COMMENTARY; John Hull, Yahoo Contributor

Liberals fancy themselves as intellectuals, but their actions often tell a different story. How is it these intelligentsia can be so out of phase with reality?

In a campaign speech in Ann Arbor, Mich. on Friday, President Barack Obama advised the crowd, “We’ve got to have a strategy that, yes, is producing our own oil and natural gas.”

He said this without any sense of irony, the same guy who killed the Keystone pipeline just nine days prior and with it tens of thousands of jobs.

Obama’s blocking of the pipeline prompted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to look to China to bolster its oil industry, as reported by Business Week. Obama has been warned from the beginning that blocking the pipeline would result in Canada going to China, but he chose to step on his union base to protect his campaign donations from the no-growth enviro-wackos, as reported by CNN.

Obama is willing to abandon a proven energy source and real jobs, yet worries about losing those that are impractical, unaffordable and are hemorrhaging jobs as evidenced by the following statement from his Ann Arbor speech: “I don’t want to cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because we were too timid.”

Obama advised Congress must “double down” the taxpayer funding of “clean energy” even after three solar companies received over $660 million of our dollars crashed and burned in rapid succession, as reported in Yahoo!.

To the logical thinker, this is nothing short of ridiculous. To the progressive, this makes perfect sense. This is because progressivism is a cult religion, beliefs that transcend reason.

The silliest belief in the progressive philosophy is its call for fairness through unfair means. Theirs is an unattainable, child-like utopian dream of fairness of outcome. They reject the fact that, although all men are created equal, they do not stay equal, by their own making. Some are smarter than others, some are lazy or do drugs, etc. In order to achieve this fairness of outcome for some, they must be fundamentally unfair to others.

They must take from those who work hard and earn and give to those who do not, and it’s okay, so long as the person taken from is someone else. Perhaps someone who has a little bit more than them.

This is not unlike a baby with a rattle who sees another with a lollipop. He wants the other baby’s lollipop, but will not give up his rattle, and feels he deserves the lollipop simply because he wants it. He doesn’t care that the other baby had to get a booster shot to earn that lollipop.

This is the mindset that calls for more government and more welfare in spite of the fact that in the 7 decades since welfare began the need for welfare has grown. It has made them dependent rather than independent.

The logical mind says “try something else”. The progressive mind says “double down.”

In other news on Yahoo…

As for the notion that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, I would like to cite the following study:

According to a May 2010 study from The American Institute for Economic Research entitled: “Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans, participants were separated into six classes by political ideology.

The study consisted of 4,835 participants who were asked eight questions about economics. The results in order from most right answers to most wrong answers were as follows; Very conservative, libertarian, conservative, liberal and progressive.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 26, 2012

Richard Carmona Was Noticeably Absent From Obama’s Visit

WASHINGTON — Yesterday, President Barack Obama visited Chandler, Arizona but one person who skipped the event was Democrat Senate candidate Richard Carmona who the President personally recruited to run.

While the liberal kingmakers in Washington tried for months to get Carmona to challenge former Democrat party boss Don Bivens for the nomination, they were ultimately unsuccessful. That’s when the Campaigner-in-Chief got involved and personally encouraged Carmona to jump into the race, while Obama campaign officials claimed a Carmona candidacy would help them make Arizona competitive for the President.

It seems, however, that with the President’s poll numbers mired at just 41 percent approval in Arizona, Carmona wasn’t ready to return the favor.

“It speaks volumes about President Obama’s standing among Arizonans that even his hand-picked Senate candidate Richard Carmona wasn’t willing to stand at his side,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Jahan Wilcox. “No matter how hard Carmona tries to duck though, at some point he will need to step forward and explain to Arizonans why President Obama was so committed to getting him into this race. Clearly, President Obama saw a reliable vote for his big government, spending agenda in a Richard Carmona Senate candidacy.”

As Politico first reported:

“On September 23, President Obama called Richard Carmona to encourage him to run,” said one Democratic strategist. “The president said Carmona would certainly shake up the race. Carmona emphasized in the conversation that he would be a very independent voice in the Senate.” (Alex Burns, Obama courts Arizona Senate candidate, may contest state ‘heavily,’ Politico, 10/06/11)

Friends,

Our campaign has a great creative team focused on sharing our message of principled, conservative leadership while using the FACTS to highlight contrasts with my opponent. Yesterday, we released our newest video Lobbyist Matt Salmon gives money to liberal democrats, the first in a new series. In this video, we asked conservatives what motivates them to give to political campaigns and why my opponent contributed to liberal democrats like Congressman Joe Baca and Ed Pastor.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Our video has already been featured by Small Business Against Big Government, Tucson Citizen, andWestern Free Press.

So take a few minutes and check out the video here and share it with your friends!

Also, for the latest from the campaign subscribe to our Facebook page.

Sincerely,

Kirk Adams for Congress

Phoenix, Arizona – President Obama will hold a rally Wednesday in Chandler and conservatives want to know; will Congressman Flake be there to support his pro-amnesty, Washington insider friend Barack Obama?

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Congressman Flake was in the front row of President Obama’s rally,” said Katie Martin. “The Congressman is in lock step with the president’s policies and has voted repeatedly to help push through President Obama’s liberal agenda. It is time that Congressman Flake owns up to his Pro-Obama record and apologizes for voting against Arizonans.”

Political Pals – Congressman Jeff Flake and President Barack Obama

Congressman Flake agrees with President Obama and thinks we should provide amnesty to illegal immigrants! (Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Op-Ed, “The Numbers Are On Our Side,” Progress Illinois, 4/18/08; www.progressillinois.com/)

Congressman Flake agrees with President Obama and wants to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants! (H.R. 1645, Introduced 3/22/07)

Congressman Flake agrees with President Obama and thinks the military should be a social experiment and voted for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell! (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml)

Congressman Flake agrees with President Obama that Cap and Trade type legislation is a good idea! (H.R. 2380, Introduced 5/13/09)

###

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Need a show of support for SB 1070        Sen. Gallardo will be holding a press conference to announce his bill to repeal SB 1070

RALLY AT STATE CAPITOL MONDAY AT NOON (ARRIVE AT 11:30AM)   ALERT!!! – SUPPORTERS OF SB1070 NEED TO SHOW THEIR SUPPORT THIS MONDAY AT OUR CAPITOL!!!                                                                                                                                           Sen. Sylvia Allen and Arizona Border Security Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Border Security State Sovereignty will be responding to a public Press Conference being held this Monday, at the Arizona State Capitol approximately 12noon. Sen. Allen will be responding to Sen. Gallardo (Friend of Randy Parazz)who is a publicly proclaimed advocate for Open Borders and severely opposesthe development of the Arizona State Guard to secure Arizona’s Border, and provide protection to the citizens of Arizona who continue to fight off the assault of illegal’s and drugs coming into Arizona. Sen. Allen is requesting citizen support from fellow Arizonans who are willing to stand for a secure border. Arizonans willing to stand with Sen. Allen, Sen. Stevens, Sen. Griffin, Sen. Antenori, and Sen. Melvin.   Please show your public support for these elected officials who are willing to stand and fight the good fight to preserve the welfare of Arizona.   Come to the Arizona State Capitol this Monday by 11:30am. Come and bring your voices and your determination to preserve our Great Grand Canyon State

• All the Tea Party constitutionalists who opined on talk radio that Gingrich and Cain would have made a great GOP ticket missing the constitutional provision that the President and Vice President must come from different states.
• Self-righteous and indignant Arizona Democrats who defend Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Colleen Mathis as a persecuted unpaid volunteer dedicated to justice and fairness. A cursory glance at her actions clearly indicates she was a Democrat shill wired from day one who stacked the deck and still takes text messages her Democrat husband and others send from the back of the meetings. Any competent political reporter not in the bag for the Dems would’ve noticed and reported that by now.
• Lazy and inept Arizona Republicans who blithely ignored the giant sandbag that Dems had constructed for them on the supposedly “independent” commission and believed the game was on the level.
• A spineless Governor who once waffled and froze over signing SB1070 finally succumbing to the obvious and acquiring an unearned reputation for courage much like Mrs. Mathis. Neither are exactly Joan of Arc. Mrs. Dithers was finally convinced to “do something” about the hijacked IRC and bounced Mathis. Cluelessness followed capped by the single page Hail Mary letter she threw the Supreme Court and her hasty retreat to the showers after the interception.
• Libertarians and Paulistas who attempt to redefine a movement they were never part of by trashing conservatives for being conservatives and not libertarians.
• Conservatives and Tea Party types who try to read other conservatives out of the movement for deviations from them. Conservatism has always been a big tent and included big government types. Somebody had to write the Alien and Sedition Laws. Want Hamilton and Adams airbrushed out of the portraits of the Founders? Edit Hamilton’s portions out of THE FEDERALIST?
• Romney supporters who keep telling me “he’s the inevitable GOP nominee.” Not being Buddhist, Marxist or Calvinist, I never bought anything being inevitable and his supporters do him no favor by claiming it.
• Romney detractors who claim he’s too liberal and then cite Reagan as a standard. Governor Reagan was to the left of this GOP field including Huntsman.
• Liberals who whine about educational funding and claim concern for children when their actual concern is the payrolls of their political and union allies some of whom on occasion are actually involved with a schoolchild. When these frauds tell you we need more money “for the childen” note that usually means paying another adult.
• Conservatives who support corporate welfare whenever it’s for something they slobber over like stadium skyboxes.
• Occupy folks who have yet to compute that the money they’ll never be able to pay off for that Art History degree wasn’t just a scam by the banks. They ignore the bloated university staffs who collected it and the pols who enabled them by changing the bankruptcy laws.
• Finally the hypocrisy and arrogant narcissism of Congressman Paul who sanctimoniously claims high integrity, but cops out on the repulsive racist and other bilge printed under his name and from which he profited, by claiming it was done by “ghost writers” and that “he never read it”. That makes him not only totally irresponsible and easily manipulated, but worse a fraud who sees nothing wrong in falsely claiming the thoughts of others as his own. Paul also needs to explain why he “stands on principle” in refusing to support any of the other GOP candidates for President while as a House member he has consistently supported the choice of the GOP caucus for Speaker including Newt Gingrich. Perhaps for the massive earmarks he brings to his Texas district?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2011

Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on Administrative Law Judge’s Decision that the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Program is in Violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 

Phoenix, AZ, December 27, 2011– Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement on the decision of Administrative Law Judge Lewis Kowal that affirmed the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD’s) Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 as per his ruling from June 15, 2011:

“I was very pleased to receive Judge Kowal’s decision today affirming the ruling that I made on June 15 that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.

In my role as State Superintendent of Public Instruction I have a legal responsibility to uphold the law and a professional imperative to ensure that every student has access to an excellent education.

Upon taking office on January 3, 2011, I was faced with the immediate circumstance of the Tucson Unified School District being found in violation of A.R.S. §15-112 by the outgoing Superintendent. Instead of making a snap decision on the matter, the Arizona Department of Education, at my direction, conducted an intensive investigation, spanning many months, of TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Department (MASD) and its program.

In the end, I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation – a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District. The Judge’s decision confirms that it was the right decision.

I will be issuing my final ruling regarding the matter in the near future after a thorough and deliberate review of the Judge’s decision.”

###

This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.

The question facing House Democrats as they met to contemplate the state’s new realities was delicate: How could they influence an avowedly nonpartisan process? Alexis Marks, a House aide who invited members to the meeting, warned the representatives that secrecy was paramount. “Never say anything AT ALL about redistricting — no speculation, no predictions, NOTHING,” Marks wrote in an email. “Anything can come back to haunt you.”

In the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines,” according to another email.

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.

In one instance, party operatives invented a local group to advocate for the Democrats’ map.

California’s Democratic representatives got much of what they wanted from the 2010 redistricting cycle, especially in the northern part of the state. “Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”

(Read the entire article)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Lou Show recently aired this expose on DeeDee Blase which discusses her formation of the “Tequila Party.”

This is especially insightful given the Occupy Movement taking place across the country. Perhaps the “occupiers” might take a lesson from this.

By Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

* * * * *

Mr. Maybury writes on investments. This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985. source: Mises Daily