The Marxist roots of “political correctness”

On unions, unionists and their lies

Every page of the history of the past 150 years belies the communist / unionist dogma that they are necessarily "internationally minded" and that there is some kind of unshakable solidarity with the "workers of the world." The fact that unions in more highly-developed economies are consistently active in lobbying efforts against opening immigration from lesser-developed economies proves that these unions and their leaders are willing to condemn their “working brothers” (falsely so-called) in these poorer nations to a life of poverty and poor working conditions in order to protect their own privileged life of higher wages and benefits.

On Unionist Lies and Solidarity

Every page of the history of the past 150 or more years belies the communist-unionist dogma that they are necessarily "internationally minded" and that there is an unshakable solidarity with the "workers of the world."

The very fact that unions in more highly developed economies—like the United States—are constantly active in lobbying efforts against opening immigration from lesser-developed economies proves that they are willing to condemn their “working brothers” (falsely so-called) in these poorer nations to a life of poverty and poor working conditions in order to protect their own privileged life of higher wages, better benefits and shorter working hours.

Joe McCarthy was right

by Don Capron

Joe McCarthy was right.

Now that I've grabbed your attention, let me tell you why.

For fifty years I trust there isn't an educator in either the academy or high schools who hasn't failed to castigate Joe McCarthy as a hate-monger, liar, destroyer of careers, and someone who routinely accused innocent people of wrong doing. "McCarthyism" has become the reflexive adjective among those on the American Left when accused of anything of less than patriotic motives or, for that matter, taken to task for questionable behavior. McCarthy was not only right, he's been given a bad rap by history.

For four years, from 1950 until 1954, McCarthy was the only voice in America speaking out against those in government that were Communists, fellow-travelers (liberals who believed in but did not join the Communist Party), Russian sympathizers, and Stalin apologists. His enemies, consistent with the Left today, chose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

From the earliest years of the New Deal until the late 1940's the government was deeply infiltrated with Communists and their supporters. There was no shortage of either messages to the President or evidence to support such infiltration. Yet, Franklin Roosevelt, then Harry Truman, chose to ignore such evidence.

Adolph Berle, Undersecretary of State for internal security at State, went to Roosevelt in 1940 with a list of Communists in government provided by Whittaker Chambers, a party member who'd defected. Roosevelt, according to all accounts laughed it off and refused to deal with it.

J. Edgar Hoover, in 1943, informed Roosevelt of Soviet spying both within the government and at the Russian Embassy. On this occasion Roosevelt not only disregarded the evidence, he sent Harry Hopkins, his Domestic Affairs advisor, to warn the Soviet Union’s embassy that their phones were tapped.

In 1946 Hoover again went to the White House, this time providing Harry Truman with a list of known Communists and sympathizers still in the government. Truman's response was: "What am I going to do? Give those @#%&* Republicans up on the Hill something to bash me with."

McCarthy's detractors, Communists, and Soviet sympathizers never anticipated two things: One, the Venona intercepts and their subsequent release; Two, the collapse of Communism and the opening of Soviet files.

From 1943 until 1980, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, the National Security Agency intercepted every Soviet message going from or to the United States. It was not until 1994 that their existence was even acknowledged, and 1995 when the first 1,400 of 240,000 intercepts were released to the public. Their content was damning and supportive of the contentions of not only McCarthy but Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Hoover, and others.

The collapse of Communism opened files of not only internal Soviet spy documents but also gave the FBI, CIA, and American scholars access to the files of the American Communist Party that had been hidden in a Russian warehouse since 1950. The cat was out of the clichéd bag.

Just who was exposed by these documents. Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed. Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R. Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.

William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the 1930's. Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs. Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior. Finally, William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency. This is just a very few, the most prominent or household names one might say.

Was Robert Oppenheimer, the Director of the Atom Bomb Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, a member of the Communist Party? Quite emphatically, no! His wife was. His brother was. His mistress was. As were many of his closest associates at the University of California. In addition, Oppenheimer was one of those scientists in the 40's who thought that all scientific information should be shared universally for the good of mankind.

Were any of the aforementioned exposed by McCarthy? Not one. He'd been too late at the spy discovery game. After all, Alger Hiss got Richard Nixon the Vice-Presidency. White had been shifted to that historical ashbin where failures are allowed to "resign" to, the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Hiss, unquestionably the most brilliant of the rising stars at State at the age of 43, in 1947 became the head of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace; a position usually held by a senior citizen with insufficient retirement funds. Lawrence Duggan, as the FBI closed in on him, had the presence of mind and good sense to jump from a window and commit suicide. Of course, he was considered a "victim" of a non-existent "Red Scare".

Just how many did McCarthy catch? Darn few. Of the 10,000 government employees who were exposed as Communists, security risks, or of questionable loyalty and lost their jobs, at the least, only forty can be attributed to McCarthy.

Any of the major players? None, as most had either been moved laterally by Truman or snared by the FBI.

Most of the forty were small time functionaries such as Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Philip and Mary Jane Keeney, and Howard Shapley; and these were the most prominent. In every case, of the forty, they were all accorded trials and attorneys before their dismissal.

Lattimore had been Director of the School Of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, advisor to FDR on China in 1941, advisor at State in 1946-1947, preached that Mao's Communists were "agrarian reformers", in 1948 encouraged George Marshall to stop aid to Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalists, and in 1949 urged U.S. withdrawal from Korea.

Lattimore was a McCarthy "coup". Lattimore was the individual who coined the term "McCarthyism" in response to and defense of the charges brought against him. In a feeble attempt to attack the messenger, Lattimore went so far as to write a book declaring his innocence while, at the same time, attacking McCarthy.

There was only one problem in all of this for Lattimore: Hoover had given Lattimore's FBI file to McCarthy and McCarthy had Louis Budenz as a witness, a former Communist, who'd worked with Lattimore. McCarthy carried the day but was forever stuck with the sobriquet "McCarthyism".

John Stewart Service was another who had managed to hang on, long past FBI and other snares, only to be "outed" by McCarthy. Service was at State and had leaked secret documents to a "front" magazine called "Amerasia" that were used to damage the Chinese Nationalist cause. Again, Service was caught only as a result of a Hoover/FBI "black bag job" (breaking into the offices of "Amerasia").

Philip and Mary Jane Keeney had been fired from the University Of Montana in 1938 for subversive activity. In spite of this Philip, within two years, was at the Library of Congress and, during the war, was with the OSS (forerunner of the CIA). Mary Jane, meanwhile, was at the Bureau of Economic Warfare during the war and subsequently became part of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations. Again, when McCarthy was challenged on these charges, Hoover had already provided him with their FBI files.

McCarthy's discoveries were in inverse proportion to his notoriety. What McCarthy really did was breach the gentlemen's agreement and game of using Communists prior to and during the war while they were slowly dispatched after the war. Many of these were part of the Eastern Establishment in that they came from the "right" families, went to the correct prep schools and universities, belonged to the right clubs, and had the right connections.

Hiss had gone to Johns Hopkins, Harvard Law, and had clerked at the Supreme Court for Felix Frankfurter. They all had impeccable credentials.

It was one thing to catch a handful of Communists outside of government, as in the case of the Rosenbergs. It was quite another to expose the dirty secrets of the 1930's and 40's. That was McCarthy's sin.

Was he a pillar of virtue? Hardly! He was a dreadful alcoholic and eventually died from cirrhosis of the liver. He was a bully, unkempt, crude, and a lout. He once unmercifully pummeled Drew Pearson, his antagonist in the press, after a dinner party, in the coat room of a Washington doyenne. He had many physical and character shortcomings. But he was right.

For all those rushing to put pen to paper to denounce any of the above, you'd be best advised to first do your "homework". Read:

• Verona (Yale University Press)
• The Secret World Of American Communism (Yale University Press)
• The Haunted Wood (Random House)
• The Verona Secrets (Regnery)
• The Secret History Of the KGB (Basic Books)
• Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (Modern Library)
• Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator (Free Press)

If at first you haven't read the above, then you are coming unarmed for a battle of wits.

---

[Editor’s Note: This writing originally appeared at http://www.oswegodailynews.com/content/2002/071502/071502ideas_capron_joemccarthywasright.shtml but, regrettably, is no longer available via this link. Sorry.

Read more here: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4020. Thanks.

Follow @VoteSmartToday on Twitter.]

The lie of international socialists (communists) as “liberators” and “champions of justice”

Communists and so-called “international socialists” portray themselves as democratic liberators and champions of justice, yet here is their 70 history beginning with1917:

• 60 MILLION KILLED in the Soviet Union | 40% of these were executed directly by Communist officials
• 66 MILLION IMPRISONED in Soviet prisons and concentration camps (GULAG)
• At least half of these totals of killed and imprisoned were Christians
• As late as 1982, there were still an estimated 10 MILLION people being IMPRISONED in about 1,000 concentration camps and prisons in the former U.S.S.R.
• According to the International Red Cross, at least ONE MILLION people were IMPRISONED in the Soviet Union for "religious" offenses alone
• There were OVER 500,000 IMPRISONED in political and religious concentration camps in Communist Vietnam. (Que Me, 1985)
• More than ONE MILLION Afghans were KILLED by the Soviet Army between 1979 and 1985. (Helsinki Watch Committee, 1985)
• Over THREE MILLION Cambodians (40% of the population) were KILLED by the Marxist Khmer Rouge during Pol Pot's reign of terror
• About 1,800 Christian churches were forcibly closed by Marxists in Ethiopia during early 1985

It is worth remembering that a good many labor union leaders in the U.S. are also big supporters of communism or international socialism.

Communists also say the oppose aggression and are peace-loving. But look at their record:

• 1920 - Unsuccessful invasion of Poland by the Soviets
• 1921 - Invasion of Georgia in the Caucasian Mountains
• 1939 - Invasion of Finland
• 1940 - Invasion of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania
• 1950 - Invasion of Korea by Communist China
• 1956 - Invasion of Hungary
• 1968 - Invasion of Czechoslovakia
• 1979 - Invasion of Afghanistan

Lastly, Communists claim to oppose colonialism for “democratic” reasons, but the Soviet Union was the last major colonial power on earth. Native Russians made up only half the population of the USSR. There were 63 major national groups and more than 127 languages engulfed by the Soviet colonialism.

---

Never trust a Leftists!

Minnesota AFL-CIO leader named Communist Party National Committee Member of the Month

Mark Froemke, President of the Western Minnesota AFL-CIO working together with Shar Knutson. Froemke and Knutson combine to make the Minnesota AFL-CIO a winning team. Together they have won accolades for their work on behalf of Barack Obama's wonderful health care reform package: H.R. 3962 which working people are thrilled about.

Check it out here -- from the source!

It was bad already in 1955, and it has gotten worse, I suspect

In 1955, the Daily Worker (official publication of the Communist Party USA) reported with some pleasure the results of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of 1,200 seniors, in 86 high schools, throughout the U.S. that showed that six in ten seniors believed that profits are unnecessary to making the economy work.

The lie of the "advance" of socialism

Communist socialism was responsible for turning the world's largest wheat exporter (Russia) into the world's largest wheat importer in a few short decades. That same Communist-socialist form of collectivism was able to turn the African continent's wealthiest nation (Ethiopia) into that continent's most destitute nation in only 17 years.

As F.A. Harper has rightly said:

"[Socialism]... due to its inability to generate any accumulation of the tools required for an advanced society,... must subsist on the confiscation of what has already been produced under some other plan; it has to parasitize something. The confiscation of private property is civilization in retreat."

The leftist avant garde is, despite their motives and intent, taking this nation and the world back to the caves and jungles, not forward to utopia.

A Thread from a Linked-In Discussion

James:

2009 and a New President

Hello All,

How do you think the new year and new administration will effect either the industry you are in or your company indirect or directly?

Personally, I am in the banking industry, I am unsure what all this means for the banking industry.

Me:

DECLINES in personal liberties, national security, free enterprise, free markets, the benefits of capitalism and the value of the U.S. dollar.

INCREASES in taxes, federal regulations, socialist policies, fascist polices and risks to U.S. interests abroad.

James:

I am interested in hearing where this has all been stated. Is this a generalization or factual based statements on the new president. Also, I do see that the opposite of what your stating has not work over the past 8 years, so are you proposing what needs to happen?

Me:

Well, the previous administration inherited a recession, was afflicted by the economic outfall of 9/11/2001, and still managed to bring us 24 (or was it 26?) consecutive quarters of sustained growth with almost no inflation.

The new administration intends to takeover 15% of the U.S. economy via a federal health care program, which will INCREASE taxes; INCREASE federal regulation of the health care industry; REDUCE our individual liberty to choose our own path to health care; REDUCE the free market and free enterprise incentives to health care excellence in the U.S.; and emulate the socialist policies of other nations that have government-run health care. (That's just one example.)

Furthermore, the current economic stimulus package -- falsely so-called -- is nothing more than a virtual fire hose of money thrown at special interests and public works, and accompanied by "tax incentives" -- most of which are nothing more than the redistribution of wealth, since they are giving the so-called incentives mostly to those who DO NOT pay federal income taxes at all.

If the federal government intends to CONFISCATE THE MONIES of the wealth-producing populace through its foolish tax policies, at least DO NOT also insult our intelligence by telling us that the politicians are now going to HELP US by returning to us some small portion of what they have taken!

Yes, my statements are based on FACT -- historical facts. NOWHERE IN HISTORY has an economy been "stimulated" by confiscatory tax policies. NOWHERE IN HISTORY has socialism or fascism been demonstrated to improve the economy of any nation. Socialism, as instituted under the Soviet regime, managed to make the world's largest wheat EXPORTER (Russia) into the world's largest wheat IMPORTER (U.S.S.R.) in a matter of a few short years. (Were it NOT for the grace and supply of the U.S. government and the productivity of American agriculture, the Soviet government could not have survived for the 70 years that it did without major wars of aggression to seize new lands that it could pilfer and destroy.)

Show me any nation on earth where BIG GOVERNMENT has led to MORE personal liberty? Despite what President Obama said in his inaugural address, the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT DOES MATTER. The fact that a larger government, by its nature, results in or feeds upon more regulation is de facto evidence that BIG GOVERNMENT leads to a reduction in personal liberties.

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's intervention in the auto industry gives us the grand selection of automobiles that was available to the typical citizen of the Soviet Union, and we, like the Soviet citizen, must "apply for" a vehicle and wait a year or two to take delivery of it?

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's meddling in markets and confiscatory tax policies remove all incentives to excellence amongst our manufacturers? Then, perhaps, one day we will be just like the U.S.S.R. where the most common cause for house fires was -- of all things -- exploding television sets!

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's ill-conceived "green" policies drive the price of gasoline to $5.00 a gallon or higher? Meanwhile, our food prices skyrocket because we've made our machines competitors for our food supply through government subsidized ethanol programs.

I wish -- even HOPE -- that I am wrong in my assessment. Meanwhile, I have grave concerns that I am not.

Open Letter to Republican Leadership in Congress

I just sent the following to Republican leadership (if they may be properly so called) in the U.S. House and Senate:

Honorable Madame or Sir:

With regard to the onslaught of socialist economic policies and spending – including absolutely ridiculous so-called “green” initiatives that are really “red” under their subtle shrouds – that will be brought to the floor in the coming months, DO NOT SUPPORT THEM. Please do NOT lend your support nor “trade” your precious vote for by doing so you will be selling your soul and the soul of our great nation. If the Democrats intend to take the United States down the road to socialism economically and to put Marxists in the judiciary, then let them do it themselves. Let there NOT be one Republican vote in support of these ruinous measures.

What are YOU going to tell them?

If We Lose This Battle, We May Lose the War

Wise men have always understood than men of equal intelligence, equal brilliance, and equal learning may hold differing viewpoints on the same issue. To hold these differing opinions under the same circumstances requires that the men with differing opinions must, in the end, be seeking differing goals out of the circumstances in which they find themselves.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves today, we have a radical left-wing President-elect supported by a Democrat Congress that is, in turn, supported by the radical left-wing of the Democrat party. I repeat, Congress is not supported by mainstream (or even "Main Street") America, but rather driven by their own leftist avant garde agenda.

I implore you to consider carefully how closely the present leftist agenda in the newly elected federal executive and freshly reinforced Democrat Congress reflects that agenda set forth by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in The Communist Manifesto.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes: Understand here that the intent is the "nationalization" of private property for "public purposes." We are seeing the first steps being taken in this direction with the acquisition by the federal government of "stakes" in U.S. banks.
   
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax: Increasing taxes on the so-called "rich" has been the hew and cry of the Democrats for years. However, in the recent election cycle Obama made it his war cry.
   
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance: The Obama administration has already laid out its plan to increase the "death tax" to 55%. That would put the U.S. half way to the goal of the "abolition of all right of inheritance," would it not?
   
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels: Here's one the Democrats have not seized upon, as yet. The question is, how long will it be before those who stand for the U.S. Constitution and its original intent are labeled as "rebels"? Will the government then seize their property in "self-defense"?
   
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly: Is not this the direction in which we are headed with the $700 billion placed in the hands of Henry Paulsen to "rescue" the U.S. citizenry from the present "crisis"? NOTE: This "crisis" itself is entirely the making of the long-term philosophies and encouragement of the liberals and Democrats.
   
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State: With a history of undermining privately owned and individually operated transportation (the personal automobile) through policies that have made them increasingly expensive to own and operate; and, over the same period, being powerful advocates for "public transportation," I believe we can see that the leftist Democrat agenda is certainly showing tendencies in this direction.
   
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan: This is indicative of a plan for the federal government to take more and more of the private economy under its control. In just the last several months we have seen moves in two specific areas: banking and automobile manufacturing. However, we have a "promise" from the President-elect and the record of prior attempts by Democrats in Congress to take control of the healthcare sector of the U.S. economy.
   
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture: Was it not Barak Obama's words that he would establish a "citizen army"? The similarity of language is stark and frightening.
   
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: Here is the one missing point from the presently exposed leftist agenda of the Democrats.
   
10. Free education for all children in public schools: Of course, "public school" education is only for the masses. It's not good enough for the Obama's, nor is it good enough for most of the Congressmen and Senators that are such "supporters" of "public education" for us, "the teaming masses." Of course, the purpose of the "free education" has proven to be more for indoctrination than for education, for surely we are witness to the fact the average product of "public education" is far better indoctrinated than educated by almost any measure.
    

Fellow citizens, if you love this great nation as I do, I beg of you that you stand up with me and fight against any acts of this Congress or the forthcoming federal Administration that would tend along these lines. Arm yourselves with the knowledge of the telephone numbers, fax numbers, and addresses of your Congressmen and Senators, House and Senatorial committee members of pertinent committees, and support with your finances organizations that are taking historic stands against the onslaught of leftist legislation and actions.

We must fight for those who do not yet see! We must fight for the generation that has been indoctrinated by public education -- for those who foolishly thought that a vote for Barak Obama was like casting a vote for an "American Idol" contestant.

We must fight NOW! For I fear that if we lose this battle now, we may lose the war. So much damage may be done and so many things my be cast into law that will be virtually impossible to reverse in the future if we do not now take a firm stand.

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

I hate socialism

"I am opposed to Socialism because of its inhumanity; because it saps the vitality of the human race which has no vitality to spare; because it lulls to indolence those who must struggle to survive; because the theories of good men who are enthralled by its delusions are made the excuse of the wicked who would rather plunder than work; because it stops enterprise, promotes laziness, exalts inefficiency, inspires hatred, checks production, assures waste and instills into the souls of the unfortunate and the weak hopes impossible of fruition whose inevitable blasting will add to the bitterness of their lot."

-- Edward F. Adams (1913)

Operating according to principles - Part I

Some have charged that liberal politicians "have no principles." The charge is usually stated something like this: "How on earth can so-and-so do such a thing? Doesn't he have any principles?"

However, I beg to differ with those that allege such things against liberals in our government!

Liberal politicians, in general, act according to a solid set of principles with an history dating back to the 19th century (at least).

In this post, I will try to bring forth some quotations out of the past that might shed some light on just how principled are the actions and words of those defamed liberal politicos. Let us begin.


On the Matter of Classes, Races, Minorities, and Their Struggles

While the American conservative approach to classes, races, minorities and the challenges they face is to give equal opportunity to them all insomuch as it lies within the government's power to do so, the liberal politicians in this nation seem to operate by another principle.

So much of the liberal politicians' rhetoric, so many of the liberal politicians' public policy, appears to be predicated upon pitting "rich" against "poor", "Black" against "White", "the minority" against "the majority", and so forth. They do this to obtain leverage, votes, and (of course) power.

On the one hand, the conservative principle was well articulated by Abraham Lincoln when he said, "That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."

On the other hand, the principle that most clearly articulates the apparent thought processes behind liberal rhetoric and political action is this: "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles."[1]

Obama draws the following distinction as the the difference between the "rich" and the "poor": "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other...."[2] Another way he positions this dichotomy is as the struggle between "Wall Street" and "Main Street." You will find that rhetoric used by other liberals in Congress, like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden is similar.

It was a Republican -- Abraham Lincoln -- that first freed the slaves from individual ownership.

It is ongoing liberal Democrat public policy that keeps minorities in the U.S. today enslaved, by and large, to programs that reduce their incentive to industry, commerce, and self-improvement. It is a further shame that such public policies and such ongoing "class warfare" is frequently encouraged by liberal-minded, power-hungry leadership within the minority communities themselves.


On Free-Trade and the Free Market System

Here, too, liberals have a general principle to which they adhere: "...Free Trade. In one word, ...exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."[3]

Liberals, unfortunately, believe that in a market exchange, there must a "winner" and a "loser". They believe that the market exchange is a zero-sum action. If the "seller" gets a +1 out of the deal, the "buyer" must have gotten a -1 out of the deal. Indulge me in recounting an incident that, I believe, shows this is not the case.

A few years ago, I had two young sons. These boys wanted to earn some money, so they took on a couple of newspaper routes. They worked diligently -- getting up at 4:30 AM day after day -- for many months and saved their money. (This, by the way, is called "creating capital.")

When each of them had saved somewhat more than $100, they wanted me to take them down to let them buy new bicycles. Of course, I did so.

They shopped and shopped until each had found the bicycle that suited them and their budget. After they had made their purchases -- swapped their hard-earned cash for the bicycles of their choice -- I asked them: "Who just 'won' in the deal you just transacted? Did Pep Boys (where they had made their purchase) 'win', or did you?"

They both took a moment to think, then the younger of the two (maybe 10 or 11 at the time) replied: "We both 'won'."

I replied, "You're right! You each wanted the bicycle more than you wanted the cash. That is to say, you placed a higher value on the bicycle than the cash. However, Pep Boys wanted the cash more than they wanted the bicycles. They placed a higher value on the cash than on the bicycles. Everyone involved got their own view of higher value in the transaction."

There was no "exploitation" occurring in this transaction!

"Free trade" simply assumes that there is an equally powerful self-interest on each side of a given transaction. As long as there is no force and no coercion involved in the transaction, then each of the participants will (logically) make the decision that they believe is in their own self-interest. Self-interest is to take the option that gives the choosing party the maximum value as a result of the exchange. That decision could be, for example, to not accept the deal offered by the other party. That, too, may be a "free trade" or "free market" outcome.

Of course, if liberals could not define "free markets" and "free trade" as exploitive, how could they find the fodder they require for creating and renewing antagonisms between classes, races, and minorities? This redefinition of the "evils" of an unfettered economy is essential to their creation and maintenance of a "power base" predicated on "class warfare."


On Too Much Success

Back in the late 1990's, when Microsoft Corporation was being pursued by various state prosecutors for alleged abuses in the marketplace, one of Microsoft's lead product engineers was quoted with regard to the charges. I cannot now quote him exactly, but allow the liberty of paraphrasing his statements:

Apparently, success in the U.S. is like a dog race. At the beginning of the race, the goal of all the dogs is to catch the rabbit. However, if anyone actually catches the rabbit, they want to stop the race and start it over again.

One of the things that liberal principles cannot countenance is too much success! Their principle is captured as follows: "...there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. "[4]

"Too much civilization" means to liberals that Americans should not be allowed to have, through their own sweat, toil and sacrifice, an economy that causes other peoples to be envious. This thought persists even though no nation in the history of the world has spent more of their own son's precious blood nor put more of their own nation's capital at risk for the liberty of other peoples.

"Too much means of subsistence" is construed by liberals to mean that Americans should not be permitted to have and maintain an industrial and economic infrastructure that consumes 25% (or whatever number) of the world's present active supply of petroleum-based energy. More than this, the liberals have carried this further to say that we do not even have the right to use America's own known energy reserves to supply our needs.

And, "too much industry, [and] too much commerce" is the liberal principle to be applied any time they want to apply confiscatory taxes to tear down industry and commerce.

It has been a good year for Exxon-Mobil, there's no doubt about it! They are one of the companies that happened to be in the right industry at the right time to make better-than-average profits. The liberals appear to be appalled at the $11.7 billion reported on the firms 10Q.

However, allow me to point out some other numbers that the liberals do not talk about when they discuss Exxon-Mobil:

• Exxon-Mobil has nearly $267 billion invested in their operations. Many of these assets are at risk world-wide because they must work in nations with tenuous or even hostile governments. With this investment at risk, their present profits represent a 19% return-on-assets.
  
• In the three-month period reported on their 10Q, Exxon-Mobil paid $10,526,000,000 in income taxes. That breaks down to: $115,700,000 per day in income taxes; $4,800,000 per hour in income taxes; $80,000 per minute in income taxes; or $1,334 every second in income taxes! Still, the liberals want to extract more and more from this and similar companies while driving them to take additional capital risks by spending more money further exploring areas with doubtful reserves or investing heavily in "alternative energy" development.

It seems apparent that Exxon-Mobil is better managed than Fannie-Mae and Freddy-Mac, which were run mostly by liberal Democrat appointees. One thing we have not witnessed in those two firms is "too much success".

[To be continued]

-- Richard

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1888
[2] Marx and Engels, ibid
[3] Marx and Engels, ibid
[4] Marx and Engels, ibid