A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 3

Above: Soviet Propaganda from 1919 that says: "Workers of the World Unite!" On the left side of this photo you'll see a tired and oppressed people beneath the rule of the Czar. On the right side you'll see the complete opposite. People happily going about their lives with pride and enthusiasm under the communist regime. In reality, however, the quality of life under communism was far from happy; even worse than the quality of life living beneath a Czar autocracy. Fear and despair would be more accurate emotions to describe the life of the communist. Right: Well, this pretty much speaks for itself. I found this pro-Obama poster on a blog site that was radically liberal. Surprised?

Click here for Part I: The Fall of the Czars

Click here for Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

Part III: The Life of the Soviets, the Spread of Communism, & Closing Arguments

          The Soviets were not a happy group of people during WWI. Like Obama, Lenin inherited a mess of a country. The soldiers were still fighting along the war fronts, the economy was a disaster, and production was at an all time low. The people were hopeful, but they had very high expectations for their new government. It didn't take long for Lenin to realize he had bitten off a bit more than he was willing to chew. Lenin immediately pulled the troops out of combat, allowing Germany to focus all their attention on their western fronts against France and England. Lenin signed a peace treaty with Germany, which ultimaely gave Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Ukraine territories over to German occupation. Those territories consisted of about 1/3rd of Russia's farmlands, half of Russia's industry production, and about 90% of Russia's coal. Russian allies, England and France weren't too happy about this. During this time, the Russian people continued to dig in the garbage for food. People typically aren't happy when they're hungry, so in an effort to prevent any counterrevolutionary efforts, Lenin established a military organization called the "Cheka."  Their job was to kill counterrevolutionaries, or rather, anyone who opposed Bolshevik policies for any reason. This period was known as "The Red Scare," which continued all the way through Stalin's regime. On top of that, Lenin announced a new economic policy he called "war communism," part of which involved "labor conscription." Labor conscription means the government has the right to mandate where, when, and at what job every individual was required to work. Lenin also established the "food army," which involved militants paying a friendly visit to all the farmers so they could confiscate ALL of their harvest production; leaving nothing left for the peasants to eat. Other peasants tried to hide some of their production from the food armies, but were usually discovered and confiscated. Eventually, these food armies started confiscating seeds and farm equipment, robbing the peasants of all means needed for future production. Within a year, Russia was struck with famine, which was particularly bad for the peasants living outside the cities. Peasants resorted to cannibalizing either their own, or others' children. There was an estimated death toll of 3-5 million people between 1918 and 1922 as a direct result of famine. As a response, some of the Bolshevik's most faithful groups began to rally against the totalitarian regime. They demanded free speech, freedom of the press (basically the whole U.S. Bill of Rights), free trade unions, and the peasants wanted to use their lands for their own benefit without having to pass everything they earned off to the government. It only took about a year for the people of Russia to decide that communism really wasn't the greatest thing, after all. At the head of this freedom movement were the Russian sailors at the Krondstadt Naval Base, who were once the Bolshevik's most faithful followers. This was known as the Krondstadt Rebellion. Lenin responded to them by sending in Red Army troops. Thousand of sailors were killed and hundreds more were later executed. Communist totalitarianism was there to stay.

          Lenin spent his final days reflecting on the impact of the revolution and the general direction of Russia's future. Lenin was not, in any way, satisfied with the state of "Mother Russia" and the disservice his communist sysem has done to her "children." In his last writings, Lenin described his revolution as a betrayal of the Russian people; a mere replacement of Russian autocracy with an even more oppressing bureaucracy. It wasn't the communism he hoped for, but his hope in communism had not completely faded. While Lenin didn't approve of the direction Russia was heading, his deteriorating health and his deep entrenchment into communist rule made it impossible for him to change the course he had set for the Soviets. Then, there was Stalin; the next dictator of the Soviet Union. Lenin wished to have Stalin removed from his position as General Secretary before it was too late, but Stalin had no intention of giving up his position. Lenin died in 1924 at the age of 54.

          Stalin immediately took control of the Soviet Union shortly after Lenin's death. He removed most of his political friends and adversaries (including Trotsky) by means of exile and intended to carry on the revolution by employing whatever means necessary. For the next 30 years, Stalin would terrify his own people. The "counterrevolutionaries" who were executed under Stalin's regime had it much easier than millions of others who were brave enough to stand against his tyranny. Stalin labeled all his opponents as kulaks (bourgeoise) and were forced to work in labor camps called Gulags. These labor camps literally worked people to death. Gulag workers were not fed, housed, or treated in any way like human beings. The only defense the Russians had against this Red Scare was to place portraits of Stalin inside their homes and to openly praise their dictator in any way they could. Soviet propaganda and the Soviet media would cycle relentless imagery of their dictator accepting gifts and praise from Russian crowds. He was seen holding, hugging, and kissing children. There were many other ridiculously unrealistic portrayals of Stalin, even though he was one of the most evil men to ever exist during the 20th century. Outside of the Stalin film fantasies, the people knew their fellow citizens were disappearing by the millions. No one knew for certain it was the work of Stalin; they certainly had their suspicions, but were completely powerless to do anything about it. For 30 years, this tyranny continued until Stalin finally died in Moscow, 1953 at the age of 75. Stalin's death toll accounted to approximately 20 million people. To put this into perspective, think of Hitler's Holocaust. Approximately 5 million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust under Hitler. Stalin killed four times that many. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's highest military leader, Nikita Krushchev, branded Stalin a criminal and openly publicized the truth of Stalin's crimes committed against the Russian people. The "de-Stalinization" of Russia would continue for the next few years. Anything that even remotely resembled or represented Stalin's regime such as: portraits, statues, books, films, etc. were either burned or destroyed by Russian citizens. In 1961, alongside Lenin, Stalin's body was removed from the Red Square Mausoleum. To this day, the Russian people struggle to rebuild a broken country after decades of communist tyranny.

         The Spread of Communism was one of Lenin's primary goals during his rein over the Soviets throughout the early 20s. In 1920, Lenin started the Congress of the Communist International in Moscow where revolutionaries from all westernized countries (including the U.S.) would meet. The purpose of the Congress was to start a worldwide revolution in an effort to spread communism to all industrialized nations of the world. They would begin by teaching Marxist ideology throughout all public schools and universities. Eventually, every open position within the government, the public schools, and the universities throughout Russia mandated its occupant to fully accept Marxist ideology in order to qualify for the position. Communism eventually spread its way to 23 countries throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean. Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia all fell to communism within a few decades of Soviet influence. China was especially impacted. Mao Zedong immediately adopted the newly infiltrated Marxist ideology into Chinese culture. Mao's rule of China and his Chinese revolution would lead to a death toll of approximately 40 million people; twice that of the number of deaths reported under Stalin's rule. Fortunately, most of the countries listed above did not remain under communist rule. Today only five communist coutries remain: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Throughout the past century, communism contributed to the slaughter of approximately 100 million people; most of which died long and torturous deaths at the hands of Marxist fanatics.

Sidenote: During the early stages of the Cold War, Soviet infiltrators held high ranking positions in the United States government. A man named Alger Hiss was one of them. Alger Hiss was a soviet spy and communist who worked directly under Franklin D. Roosevelt as the Assistant Secretary of State. Hiss was also a Harvard law graduate; as were many other communist infiltrators during that time. Whittaker Chambers (ex-communist and Soviet defector) announced the names of at least 200 soviet spies working within high ranking positions of the federal government. Chambers announced Hiss as just one of those agents. The Liberal media denounced Chamber's accusations and branded him a lunatic despite the overwhelming level of evidence supporting his claims. At the same time, the U.S. Army began work on a secret enterprise known as The Venona Project, which basically involved a decryption of Soviet cables between U.S. and Soviet officials. Upon decryption of these cables, The Venona Project discovered Chamber's accusations were indeed true. Venona listed the names of 204 Soviet spies working within the U.S. government; all of whom labeled themselves as Liberal, Progressive, or Democrat. During the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, the Democratic Party knowingly sheltered communist traitors, all of whom were guilty of relaying sensitive, nuclear information and technology directly to Soviet officials in Russia. Joseph Stalin knew about the development of the U.S. Atomic Bomb even before President Truman learned about it. This level of espionage was directly responsible for keeping the United States on the brink of total nuclear annihilation throughout the Cold War. Among the people listed by Venona were Ethel and Julius Rosenburg (convicted soviet spies). The Rosenburgs are, even today, revered as martyrs by the Liberal media. For decades, the Liberal media refused to accept the overwhelming evidence against communist infiltrators operating within the Democratic party and working to undermine the U.S. government. Even after the Venona files were de-classified and made public in 1995, Americans everywhere were finally able to see the truth, but the liberal media still has no intention of conceding on the matter.

Closing Arguments

           By now, you're probably asking yourself "What's your point? Why is this relevant? Communism is practically gone in today's world and therefore, poses no perceivable and imminent threat." I'll answer that question by saying this... Even after the Russian revolution, a century of bloody, communist history, the Cold War, The Venona Project, etc. etc... Marxism is very much a thriving ideology in today's world. It is especially concentrated within universities, both domestic and abroad. I know this because I spent six years taking university classes. I studied Sociology. I read the texts. I did the coursework. I got my degree. For a while, I even believed in it. Despite the total indoctrination of Marxist theology in today's university settings, every class has completely and utterly FAILED to include a thorough review of communist history and the terrible crimes it has imposed on humanity. Of course, most university professors don't want you to know "those" details. Either that, or they don't even know it themselves. Even though some people have chosen to acknowledge the historical record of Marxism-in-practice, the ideology of Marxism is still a utopian and fantastical idea among thousands of uninformed scholars; much like it was with Lenin during his youth. The only difference between Lenin and today's scholars is Lenin didn't have the luxury of learning from a Marxist history; he was the first person to truly apply its ideology in a real-world setting. Take a moment to turn on the news, read today's political cartoons, or check Facebook for the latest explosion of liberal propaganda. You will see the underlying messages of Marxist ideology everywhere. The demonization of privileged and successful individuals (Romney and the rest of the Bourgeois population). The stabs against capitalism (The Occupy Movement). The sensational and sympathetic coverage of the underprivileged masses (the Proletariat). "Workers of the World Unite!" (pro-union Obama posters). It is all delicately channeled Marxism making its way from the universities, to the mass media, to Hollywood, and finally to the easily-influenceable minds of the American people. Politically speaking, the American mind-set in today's world bears much resemblance to the mindset of the 1917, Russia. There is absolutely nothing "new" or "progressive" about today's "liberal" ideas. Their ideology has existed for almost an entire century. They have been applied, tested, and failed in at least two dozen countries throughout the world; a testament to the blatant differences between ideology and reality. It has always been Karl Marx's plan to catalyze the determinism of an imminent global revolution. Even today, his ambitions survive and are carried on by scholars, professors, actors, journalists, and Democratic leaders; mostly by those who are too lost in their own ideologies to possess a solid perception of reality. With every passing year, the U.S. inches further and further in this direction. At what point should we decide, as a country, when enough is enough? At what point will we finally awaken to the reality of this threat? As an informed citizen of the last and truly free nation left in the world today, what will you do? What will you say? How will you vote? These are difficult questions we really need to ask ourselves if we hope to survive as a free nation.

Thanks for reading...and God bless!

- JSR

Reference

Coulter, A. (2003). Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Crown 

          Forum. Random House, Inc.

Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

         

A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 2

Above: A 1905 American cartoon depicting the struggles of the Russian proletariat against the oppressive bureaucracy of the ruling Monarch. Little did the Russians know the rise of the Bolshevik regime would only create an even greater monster.

Click here for Part 1: The Fall of the Czars

Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

          The March Revolution was not an entirely unique event in world history. In fact, the spark that ignited the March Revolution was exactly the same spark that ignited the French Revolution in 1789. So, what is this spark that I speak of? Bread. When a country starts to run dangerously low on bread, people have a historical record of reacting violently. Why is this? Because bread has always been the primary source for nutrition and sustenance among a nation's working class. When the bread runs out, they have nothing to eat. This was the same for the workers and peasants of Russia in the early 1900s. It was especially hard for peasants in Russia to produce enough food as a result of the brutality of their winter seasons. This places the people of Russia at a distinct disadvantage because they could only grow and harvest crops during the summer months. By March, the people had run dangerously low on wheat products, especially since most food sources were taken from the workers and given to the troops fighting along the war fronts. The soldiers, however, weren't faring along any better. They experienced heavy losses, brutal winters, food rations, and lost battles. Their spirits had faded just as much as their families had back home. When all the bread had gone, the people of Russia (peasants, industry workers, and soldiers) immediately quit their posts and began marching the streets of Petrograd in a full-on strike. Thus, the March Revolution began.

          Just one day before the uprising, Czar Nicholas II boarded a train to monitor efforts on the war front. He had no idea what was about to happen at home. Over the next few days, the streets were full of Russia's proletariat. People carried signs that stated "Down with Monarchy!" Others bore the red flags of socialism. Any police that attempted to control the chaos were shot on sight. Eventually the police dropped their uniforms and either joined the masses or went into hiding. The same happened with soldiers who had not yet joined the movement. Most of them were absorbed into the flow of the crowds. Surprisingly, the Cossacks joined the movement against the police right from the beginning of the strike. Government offices were looted and the debris littered the streets. Despite the uprising of the Russian people, an aura of uncertainty remained. No one really knew what was going to happen next. They only knew things were about to change and that was good enough news for most of them. The crowds eventually moved their way towards the Tauride Palace where The Dumas were being held.

          The Imperial Duma consisted of government officials who would meet to discuss reformations of the Russian State. They were similar to today's Representatives and Senators, only they were not officially elected by the people; they were appointed by the Czar. The establishment of the Duma was not a favorable decision by the Monarchy, but Nicholas II authorized their establishment under pressure of Russian officials in 1905. One of these Duma members, Alexander Kerensky, took charge of the Provisional Government that was to bring order to the Russian chaos. Through a series of meetings, the Duma identified two political parties with different ideas on how to structure the new Russian government. On the left was the Executive Committee of the Soviet who insisted on forming a republic, but would later be taken over by Bolsheviks. This would mean an absolute removal of the Czar and his dictatorial powers. On the right was the Temporary Committee of the Duma, consisted mostly of bourgeois. They insisted on setting up a constitutional monarchy, similar to English government under King George V.  This would mean keeping the Czar on the throne, but removing his dictatorial powers; a figurehead, at best. Kerensky was a member of both committees and insisted no harm come to the Czar, his family, or the Imperial Ministers. Unfortunately for Kerensky, the masses of rioters wanted nothing to do with Imperial royalty and Nicholas II was forced to abdicate his throne on March 15. He was then placed under house arrest with his family in Tsarkoe Selo (a suburb of Petrograd). The Provisional Government failed to meet the general demands of the people, however. Kerensky and the rest of the Provisional Government Ministers intended to carry out the war against Germany as a result of bound agreements between Russia and her allies Great Britain and France. The people wanted the war to stop, but they didn't want to abandon Russia's allies either. Other Russians still felt loyalty to the Czar, even though they were unhappy with the present situation. In the meantime, Lenin (who was previously exiled to Siberia, then deserted Russia for Switzerland) made his way through Germany and back to Russia to promote his Marxist ideologies in an effort to reform the Russian government and establish a Socialist nation. 

Sidenote: Lenin and the rest of his Bolshevik followers were staunch supporters of Marxist ideology, which is the core component of this blog post. The book Das Kapital by Karl Marx represents one of the most dangerous ideas in human history. Karl Marx presents his theory on "Dialectical Materialism," which is based partly on Charles Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." What Dialectical Materialism represents is all human beings are nothing more than materialized constructs of matter that have evolved over the course of millions of years. Like animals, we really weren't created by any supernatural being(s), nor should we be constrained within the "limitations" of morality (limitations meaning one should have to experience no guilt for causing the death and suffering of millions of people; the ends always justify the means). Every step in the development of our physical and intellectual abilities are a direct result of conflict with other consructs of matter that has been ongoing since the beginning of time. Some matter survives onward and others go extinct; such is the way of life. Dialectical Materialism also puts forth the belief that humans have no souls, which can neither be saved or ascended into any form of afterlife. This is intended to discredit any ideas about religion and morality in an attempt to qualify the belief in Atheism. Marx then takes this concept and applies it to society. Marx believes that some groups of people with old ideas should go extinct while people with new, progressive ideas should survive. Marx believes it is perfectly natural (Darwinistic) for the proletariat to rise against the bourgeois; to eradicate capitalism and set up a system of socialism governed entirely by the working class of that society. He also believes it is perfectly natural (Darwinistic) for all opponents of this ideology to be killed or made to suffer in an effort to preserve the social movement; such is the way of progress only achievable through conflict. Marx also believes that proletariat uprisings and the establishment of communism can only come from a slow indoctrination of the masses through education, propaganda, and hardship within a well-industrialized nation. This would mean infiltrating school systems with Marxist ideology, taking control of a nation's mass media, and allowing the contagiousness of these ideas to spread during difficult economic times (Despite the Marxist theories that denounce religion, Marxism, like a religion, is not backed by science and its strength depends entirely on the number of its faithful followers). Ideologically speaking, Communism is supposed to be a perfect system where there is no official government and everybody owns everything. In reality, however, Communism is more along the lines of turning an entire nation into one, great big ant colony with the centralized government acting as the ant colony queen. Everybody lives and sacrifices solely for the greater needs of the nation. Individualism and ownership is completely nullified and replaced with the morality of altruism (Sacrificing oneself for the good of others). Altruism, by its own definition and ideology, seems noble. In Communist reality, however, it means sacrificing one's life so that other members of a famished society can cannibalize your corpse (Yes, that's what I said. I'll touch more on that in Part 3). Lenin and his Bolshevik supporters understood the works of Karl Marx well and did exactly as Marx's theories suggested. During this critical moment in Russian history, the divided nation of inhabitants, the hopelessness of the working class, the economic disaster, the ongoing war, and the weak Provisional Government sewed the perfect environment for spreading Marxist ideals. The great social experiment of Marxism in Russia was about to begin.

          Lenin made his way into Petrograd where he quickly began his work riling the masses of Russia and gaining a growing support of the Russian proletariat. He damned the Provisional Government as it was represented primarily by upper class members of the bourgeoise and would only oppress the people as if they were under Czar rule. The people ate it up. He made promises to the people, promised them land, promised them ownership, promised to end the war with Germany, and justified the decision to abandon Russia's allies. It is believed that Lenin's speeches and public ignition caused mass riots agaist the Provisional Government forces in Petrograd. These were known as "The July Days" where people rioted in anti-war protests and died in the streets at the hands of Provisional militants. Kerensky and the rest of the Provisional officials branded Lenin a German sympathizer and ordered for his arrest. Lenin escaped across the border to Finland where he continued to command his Bolshevik movements. Lenin and his primary followers, Stalin and Trotsky, organized efforts for a coup d'etat (sudden, illegal deposition of government), which would later happen in November. Kerensky received reports from his followers regarding this coup, but chose to take no action against it. Kerensky was preoccupied trying to achieve unity between the irreconcilable left and right winged committees along with helping Russian allies with the war effort. In the meantime, the war continued, the economy continued to decline, and the people grew exhausted; thick with hopelessness. The Bolshevik movement rapidly gained more support under these conditions. Revolutionary propaganda was published in the newspapers, which were edited exlusively by Stalin, and were widely read throughout the Russian population. On the morning of November 7, 1917 the Bolshevik's staged a coup d'etat that overthrew the Provisional Government. Kerensky fled Russia and escaped to England where he remained in exile. Eventually Kerensky moved to New York City where he later died. The Russian State was now at the hands of Lenin and his Bolshevik Lieutenants: Stalin and Trotsky. The Russian people finally got the change they've been fighting for. If they only knew...

- JSR

Part III: The Life of the Soviets, the Spread of Communism, & Closing Arguments

Reference

Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 1

          What you see above is a political cartoon from Russia, late 1800s, which depicts a tired and oppressed Russian people burdened with carrying the three most oppressive forces in Russia's pre-revolutionary history: The Czar, the Church, and the whip-bearing Capitalist. I recently found this upon reading a book called "Russia in Revolution." I quickly realized just how much the mindset of the Russian people during that time was not a whole lot different than the mindset of Americans in today's politics. The Russian Revolution is probably the most significant event to happen in human history. The fall of the Russian Czar, the rise of the Bolshevik Regime, and the birth of Communism have sparked a series of events that continues to echo across the globe today. The purpose of the next few posts are to provide my readers a historical review of this critical moment in world history; to understand just how much of a disaster the birth of Communism really was for human civilization and why it bears so much significance in today's political climate.

Part I: The Fall of the Czars

           The Russian Revolution was not a singular event. Across the span of several Russian Monarchs, the people of Russia had sporadic uprisings against the autocratic regimes for several decades before the Bolsheviks finally took the country over in 1917. Under the Czar autocracy, the Russian State owned and controlled everything within its borders: The people, the farms, the industry, the press, the universities, everything. As far back as 1825, Nicholas I was among the first of the Czars to meet with revolutionary adversity.

          Nicholas I stamped out his initial resistance (known as the Decembrists) with executions and exile; the typical reaction of a threatened Monarch. Nicholas I tolerated no political movements that granted the Russian people any hope for autocratic reform; as did every Czar preceding him. The Decembrists longed for a Constitutional government and a freer nation for the Russian people, but doing so would remove too much power from the Czar; something a Monarch is often unwilling to compromise. The ownership and oppression of the Russian people continued and eventually Alexander II (son of Nicholas I) rose to power in 1855.

           Alexander II made a feeble attempt to appease the masses of Russia (most of which were peasants) by liberating them from serfdom, thereby allowing peasants autonomous control over their own lands. It wasn't enough. The amount of land alotted to each peasant family was insufficient for an entire family to survive comfortably. Alexander II then allowed the people to establish the zemstvos; county councils whose members were elected by the people. The people were still unsatisfied. The zemstvos allowed further reforms which brought about improvements to local schools, hospitals, and roads. More schools, roads, and hospitals were built. Agricultural infrastructure improved and trial by juries were established. The people were still unsatisfied. Alexander II came to realize his peoples' lack of gratitude and regretted his decision to allow so many reforms in the first place; an attitude that eventually carried over to his heir, Alexander III. Later, a new revolutionary group started up; they were known as the Narodniks (The Populists). The goal of the Narodniks was to remove the Czar from power and turn Russia to Socialism. They first operated as missionaries, spreading revolutionary ideas to the people of Russia, but were often met with suspicion by the general public. They organized a secret group called The People's Will. Operations later evolved to planning acts of terror to intimidate the Czar regime. Trains were dynamited, officials were assassinated, and government buildings were bombed. In 1881, The People's Will succeeded in assassinating Alexander II and two of his Cossack guards (Russian Mounties) by bombing his coach as it passed through Petrograd (A city later called St. Petersburg). Members of The People's Will were eventually tracked down and executed.

Sidenote: The People's Will operations in late 1800s, Russia were quite comparable to the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) that begin in America, 1969. The WUO's violent efforts aimed to overthrow the U.S. Government and establish a classless society (Communism). Their efforts continued through the mid-1970s with a series of several monument and government building bombings, robberies and jailbreaks. Their messages were conveyed in a piece of  literature called Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism (a title inspired by a quote from Mao Zedong), which was met with high praises by the Liberal media at the time. Key leaders of the WUO (who were highly inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideals) were eventually caught and served prison sentences. Bill Ayers, one of the primary leaders of the WUO, is now an education professor in Chicago's University of Illinois and has counseled with President Obama before his election to discuss education reform among other things. Hmmm.

          Alexander III (son of Alexander II) rose to power immediately after his father's death. Alexander III was very stern, temperamental, and merciless to those who stood in his way. He spent the next 13 years repressing the efforts of revolutionaries and undoing some of the reformations granted by his father. Sidenote: A revolutionary named Alexander Ulyanov was executed for the assassination attempt of Alexander III in 1887. Ulyanov's 17 year old brother, Vladimir Ilyich (alias: Lenin) would later become a key player in Russian history. During this time, however, Russia's industrial development and locomotive infrastructure improved dramatically. In 1894 Alexander III died from a bronchial infection. His son, Nicholas II took the throne two years later.

          Nicholas II, the last of the Russian Czars, was nothing like his father. He was polite, quiet, and a bit unsure of himself as he would easily change his opinions on particular matters whenever met with confrontation. He disliked arguments and preferred to keep things peaceful. Nicholas II understood his personality was not fit for an autocratic ruler where a strong will and commanding presence is paramount. At a young age, Nicholas II did not want to be a ruler, particularly after witnessing his grandfather's (Alexander III) fate. It's especially unfortunate his personality rose to power during some of the most difficult and volatile times in Russian history. Nicholas II definitely had his work cut out for him. The first day of his rule began in tragedy for the Russian people. Traditionally, during a coronation (crowning) ceremony, the royal family offers gifts to the peasants who attend. Unfortunately, during the coronation of Nicholas II, a rumor spread there weren't enough gifts for all the peasants who were present. It resulted in a stampede that killed about two-thousand people and the rule of Nicholas II was branded as an omen by the Russian people because of this. To top this all off, the start of World War I, Russia's war with Germany and Japan, and the rapid rise of new revolutionary groups were enough to keep Nicholas II busy. While Nicholas II preferred to drop his responsibilities and spend more time with his wife and five kids, he was forced to spend the bulk of his waking moments exiling individuals with revolutionary ideas and organizing the war efforts against Germany and Japan. Over time, he grew even more distant from the Russian people as he gradually focused more of his time dealing with the Russian military, while leaving civil matters at the hands of his wife, Alexandra (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria of England). The biggest mistake made by Nicholas II was his unfettered focus on providing enough resources for the war effort while depriving the working citizens of Russia enough resources to live comfortably. The Russians grew weary from the losses of war and the rationing of food. The March Revolution in 1917 rapidly erupted. During this time, the Russian press issued newspapers announcing "Change!" (sound familiar?) as the events of the revolution began to unfold. Nicholas II, his wife, and his five children were exiled to Tobolsk, Siberia. In April 1918, Nicholas II and the rest of the Romanov family were moved to the Urals of Ekaterinburg. They were later massacred on July 17 by Bolshevik militants.

           There were many relevant events and political movements that took place before Nicholas II's removal and many political movements that took place before the Bolsheviks' rise to power. 1917 was quite a busy year for the Russians. The most succinct way I can illustrate the succession of these events would be: The March Revolution > Removal of Nicholas II > Kerensky vs. Lenin > Rise of the Bolsheviks > Communism > Stalin. I'll delve further into the events of Russia, 1917 in the next few posts. Thank you for reading...and God Bless!

- JSR

 Click here for Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

Reference

 Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

        

          

         

Culture Crisis! The Extinction of Middle-Class Values and the Financial Corruption of America

          An important note I would like to make to my readers: This article will contain highly controversial information that will likely offend some of you. While it is not my intention to offend or place blame on any particular group of people, it is solely a personal effort of mine to inform my readers about what is truly wrong with America today and why it is something we simply cannot afford to ignore any longer. This is an issue that effects everyone. It is a problem that every American, Republicans and Democrats alike, have allowed to continue for too long. I'll begin with a simple observation I made upon viewing both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

          The photo above was taken during the Democratic National Convention, which spoke primarily about preserving the quality of life for middle-class workers. While watching some of the DNC speakers, I had a brief moment of deja-vu. Less than a week prior, I was hearing a lot of the same rhetoric from Tampa. The word "middle-class" seems to be a popular buzzword for both political parties. It makes sense considering the historical implication of what it means to be "middle class." It sounds good. It sounds noble. The "middle-class" have always been perceived as the "hard-working," the "self-reliant," and the "industrious;" the embodiment of the American Dream. Speaking out in favor of the middle-class is the ultimate form of propaganda in this upcoming election. I've heard many Democrats at the DNC say that Republicans don't care about the middle-class because of all the ways they want to cut government spending and entitlement programs like Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, and Social Security. It is this statement that is the central focus of this article and is the very essence of what is really wrong with America today. How would any real, industrious, hard-working, and self-reliant middle-class American feel about this statement? How would George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams feel about this statement? This is an issue that transcends American politics. It is not about unemployment. It's not about entitlements. It's not about the healthcare crisis. It's not about the national debt. It's not about taxes. It's not about inflation, wages, special interests, or retirement, either. These are all just symptoms of the real illness that has affected a vast majority of the American people.

          So what is this illness that I speak of? Complete and utter erosion of middle-class American values; the values that involve self-reliance, self-restraint, and industriousness; an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. What used to be a self-reliant, rugged, and hard-working nation has now become a nation of self-interests, entitlements, laziness, and taking away more than what is contributed. It is a mentality that stretches across all socio-economic statuses; rich, poor, and middle-class alike. Now, I understand this is a pretty bold statement to make, especially since the bulk of my readers likely come from middle-class households, but consider the next few things I'm about to tell you and decide for yourself.

• Disability Entitlements: In the 1960s, less than 1% of the US workforce received disability benefits from the U.S. Government. Let's also consider this: Most of the truly backbreaking work of the 1960s has since been replaced by automated technology, like computers and machinery; not to mention successful treatments of labor-related injuries brought about by 50 years of medical advancement. With that said, the US should have seen a drop in disability claims (as a percentage) over the last 50 years. So, why is it that as of 2012, 5% of the total American workforce is currently collecting disability benefits and not working? I'm sure there's all kinds of speculation in the realm of political correctness regarding this issue, but allow me to explain this to you, bluntly: As of right now, millions of Americans are defrauding SSDI benefits! Why work when you can easily claim a labor-related injury, qualify for disability, and receive a monthly check from the government for rest of your life? Consider this: A man claims disability at the age of 45 and receives a monthly SSDI check of $1,100. This means by the retirement age of 65, he will have milked a total of $264,000 from the US taxpayers, but wait! It doesn't stop there. From the age of 65, his disability will end and he will qualify for Social Security benefits at the same amount until he dies at the average, male life expectancy of 79 years. That's another $184,000, but wait! I'm still not done. After his passing, his wife will now be entitled to her husband's social security benefits until her life expectancy of 81 years. Assuming the wife is the same age as her husband, she will receive a total of $26,400. This makes a grand total of $474,400 to one household courtesy of the American taxpayers and that's not including the Social Security benefits the wife would have also received in her name alone. Now, this may not seem like that much money in the grand scheme of things, especially not over the course of 36yrs, but when millions of people throughout the country decide to jump on this bandwagon, it becomes an unsustainable system; a ponzi scheme. It is a complete and utter deviation from the country our Founding Fathers intended for us. Now, I understand disability benefits may be a sensitive topic for some people and I'm aware that some people truly and honestly depend on SSDI. However, we cannot ignore the fact that millions of Americans are taking advantage of an entitlement system they don't deserve. This blatant, nationwide use of entitlement fraud has cost the American taxpayers approximately $132 billion dollars in the year 2011, which is twice that of the SSDI benefits paid in the year 2000, and is expected to double again within the next 10 years. It's just another of the many different financial leaks that has drained our economy and our sustainability within the last 40 years.With that said...moving on.

• Unemployment: Look, I understand the economy sucks and the prevalence of job opportunities are scarce, but there is no doubt in my mind that unemployment entitlements are being abused rampantly throughout the country. Before I get into the nitty-gritty details, let me tell you a personal story about my experience with people on unemployment. While working as a bank teller, I would often hear customers' "unemployment horror stories" about how difficult it was to find work. They all seemed to really hate the raw deal of joblessness that life has handed them. For the longest time I felt sorry for them and prayed their luck would change sooner rather than later. Well, as it later turned out, Obama extended the length of disability benefits in both 2011 and in 2012, allowing all current and new unemployment recipients a total of two full years to find employment. Suddenly, a lot of these poor, unemployed customers seemed to be in much brighter spirits than they ever appeared before. For most of them, their unemployment was extended at least another year, which means they get to sit on their asses for the next 364 days without any worry of seeking employment. Some of these customers weren't so happy, however. Some of them were getting dangerously close to their unemployment expiration date and were able to find a job just before Obama's extension was enacted. It took every ounce of my own willpower to hold my composure upon hearing their testimony about this. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Upon further reflection, however, I realized it does make sense. After all, why look for a new job when you can live comfortably on unemployment for two years until your benefits run out? So what happens in the next two years when these benefits finally expire? Unemployment recipients will still complain about the job situation, the economy, and (if Obama wins the election) unemployment benefits will get extended AGAIN! The whole system is just a huge incentive to keep people from seeking work and it's all being paid for at the taxpayers expense. It has become another highly abused and unsustainable system; another of the many drains on the American taxpayers. Most unemployment checks that I have cashed for bank customers totaled around $660 bi-weekly. This means most people on unemployment are receiving about $1,320 a month just to fill out a bi-weekly EDD form that simply states "Yes, I looked for a job. No I didn't find one." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployment recipients in America today totals to about 12.6 millon people. This means total annual expense in unemployment benefits amounts to approximately $200 billion dollars a year, nationwide. Several states including: California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania have taken billions from the federal government to make up the difference. Again, I realize this massive abuse of entitlement doesn't include every unemployment beneficiary in the country, but I'd wager everyone reading this knows at least one person in their life who is abusing the unemployment entitlement system today. It is not unusual in today's times.

• Retirement: I wouldn't consider retirement as an undeserved entitlement under normal circumstances, but there are several cases throughout the country where it certainly is. This is especially true for public sector workers, which account for about 17% of the total United States workforce. Think about this: A public sector worker begins working for the city at age 25 until the age of 55. Throughout the worker's 30 year career, he receives an annual COLA (cost of living allowance), an annual raise, better promotional opportunities, better job security, exceptional medical, dental, vision, and life insurance packages, and accumulating vacation and sick time that goes uncapped throughout the duration of his 30 year career. As a civil servant, it is not unusual to retire after 30 years with a six-figure salary, which means annual retirement pensions would equate to at least $90k, but wait! That's just the tip of the iceberg. On top of receiving this pension, the retiree is also granted the same medical, dental, vision, and life insurance package benefits along with a final payout of all accumulated and unused vacation and sick time. Additionally, most public sector retirees will retire between the ages of 55 and 65 and their lifespans could continue on for up to another 30 years. This means they'll be receiving their retirement benefits for roughly the same duration of time as the life-span of their career. In 30 years, a public sector retiree walking out with a $100k annual salary will receive roughly $2 million-700k in annual retirement pensions and that's not including the hundreds of thousands of dollars in unused sick/vacation pay or the money paid by insurance benefits. So, how can local communities, cities, and municipalities afford to pay for this? They can't. The amount of money collected in taxes from private sector workers is not enough to sustain such a heavily imbalanced system. Cities around the country are going bankrupt because of this, threatening the cushy retirement packages and pensions of retired public sector workers everywhere. So, how do the retirees respond to this? They sue the cities of their employment, demand their entitlements, rage about it in the local newspaper, and expect the outside world to feel sympathy for their cause. It's another of the many entitlement complexes that has completely gone awry in this country. What's really unfortunate about all this is how little the public sector retirees understand regarding the risky and difficult retirement options of private sector workers, most of which primarily invested their retirement money in the form of 401k's. After 2008, 401k portfolios were atrocious and private sector workers across the country began to worry they may not get to retire at all. On top of that, most private sector retirees are not granted an annual pension from their company of retirement, nor are they granted medical, dental, vision, or life insurance benefits. The one thing that private sector workers will be entitled to, however, is Social Security and Medicare, but those are two additional entitlement systems that have contributed heavily to deficit spending throughout the last 40 years. Certainly those won't be available forever, either. When you look at the reality of this whole situation, it almost appears like public sector retirees are stomping their feet like spoiled children at age 55 while private sector retirees walk away from their careers at age 65 with a lot more uncertainty about how they will afford retirement. It's totally corrupt and completely backwards.

• Welfare: The US spends approximately 6% of its annual budget on direct welfare programs such as: Income Security, Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and 'Other Income Security' (whatever that means). While 6% may not seem like a whole lot of money required, think of it this way... Let's imagine  your total net income is $50k a year; a fairly average salary for many middle-class Americans. 6% of that annual salary equates to exactly $3,000. When broken down over the course of 12 months, this equates to $250 a month. Now ask yourself this...How many monthly bills could you pay in one month with $250? I could probably pay at least 3 of my monthly bills with that. I'd say that's a pretty significant chunk of change for that reason. While the concept of welfare was initially intended to help out families during difficult times, it has since become a primary dependence and way of life for many low-income Americans. As dependence on the Government's anti-poverty programs persists, the drive for the recipients to become self-sufficient eventually die away; leaving behind a "downtrodden population of societal victims." They pass off all sense of personal responsibility and develop an entitlement complex where they believe their livelihoods are "justly" burdened by the working taxpayers of the society that surrounds them. What welfare programs are actually doing is they are breeding entire populations of this entitlement complex whose entire perspective on life contradicts everything our Founding Fathers intended for us to have. Adversely, welfare and other, similar social programs are directly responsible for the growing level of government control over the lives of its citizens. The more dependent people become on Government, the more power the Government has. Welfare is, in every way, contradictory to the founding principles of this nation.

• Deficit Spending: This is the mother lode of everything that is wrong with America today and is by far the scariest thing happening in today's economic times. For the past 50 years, deficit spending has been the most significant contributor to America's upcoming economic downfall and we cannot ignore the reality of this very serious issue any longer. Right now, the national debt has risen to just over 16 trillion dollars. That's one thousand billion dollars times sixteen. The national debt is so high that America is well past the point of no return. Every year, the U.S. owes $340 billion in compounding interest alone, which is only paid for by accumulating even more debt. Even if all the taxpayers in the country were taxed 100% of their total income for an entire year, and the government shut down every avenue of spending for that year, the debt's principle would still stand and interest on that debt would continue to compound. What we are seeing today in America is not much different than what history has seen from other great nations, kingdoms, and empires throughout the history of human civilization. For example: The Roman Empire in 284AD, the early 13th Century Byzantine Empire, late 13th Century Wales, The French Revolution in 1789, late 16th Century Spain, 19th Century Ottoman Empire, The Russian Revolution in 1918, and Germany 1938. The three things all these major economic collapses have in common: War, debt, and hyper-inflation. As is with the United States, our debt continues to inflate as a knee-jerk reaction to stop the deflation that would have occurred as a result of the housing market crash in 2008. The United States is operating solely on free money, which is money the US Fed is, metaphorically, pulling out of thin air, printed in currency by the US Mint, and selling that debt to countries like China and Japan. Think of it like this: 43 cents of every dollar is borrowed money, accumulating interest and will need to be paid back. Currently, the majority of this debt remains in stasis by banks, but if that money is released into the US economy (and it eventually will), the US will experience hyper-inflation beyond anything that has ever been seen in the history of the world. Germany WWI, for example: Germany experienced hyper-inflation so extreme that it would have cost 80 billion German Marks just to purchase a single egg. The German Marks currency was deemed worthless and the transfer of wealth moved over to basic commodities. If history is any indication of what is truly possible, given these circumstances, the US currency will become practically worthless. Food will rapidly fly off the shelves, civil war will erupt, people will starve, and all the wealth will transfer back over to the value of commodity goods (which is usually gold). Although I'm not trying to cause mass-panic with these statements, I'm simply acknowledging an economic life-cycle and its consistency throughout human history. So, why haven't we learned from human history and made efforts to stop this coming financial apocalypse? The truth is: We have tried. What we didn't realize, however, is the longer we stave off total financial meltdown, the worse the inevitible will be when it finally happens. I'd wager most Americans don't realize just how serious this ballooning debt really means for the future of America.

          So, why are all these things happening and why won't it stop? I can sum that answer up using two, very simple words: Human Nature. It is completely natural for humans to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Instead of abiding by the values set in place by our Founding Fathers, we have eventually decided, as a nation, it is easier to take more and give less. We have decided to work the political system in a way that benefits us while expensing others. We are never satisfied with what we have and we continue to demand more. We have decided that it's easier to delve further in debt than it would be to pay it down or default. We have decided it's easier to let our future generations pay the price of irresponsibility for us. It is the ultimate selfishness, moral extinction, and financial corruption in the history of this country. When all is said and done, America will survive, but it will never be what it once was. Maybe by then we can rebuild the country with the grassroots values we have long forgotten since 1776.

Thank you for reading...and God Bless.

- JSR

         

         

The GOP on Rape, Abortion, and the American Taxpayer

           Well Folks, this is about as bad as it gets. Just about everything mentioned in this piece of propaganda is factually false, but in a feeble attempt to keep my composure, I'll try to explain every element of this poster piece-by-piece so that we can better understand the reality of this issue.

         What this poster is basically trying to say to the sheeple masses is this: "If you vote for the Republican Party, bad BAD things will happen... especially if you're a raped woman who's pregnant!" It uses poor imagery, scare tactics, and completely falsified statements to support this message. Notice how they drew fangs protruding from Paul Ryan's mouth. Really? As if suggesting the presence of a mythical monster isn't evident enough of Liberal fantasies; the artists (if you could call them that) of this meme somehow believed the white triangles plastered on Ryan's upper lip would somehow invoke a sense of terror or animosity from its Liberal viewers. Talk about paternalization. If the GOP really wanted to take part in this kind of propaganda, they would have only needed to display an honest, non-photoshopped image of Nancy Pelosi; white triangles not included. Or maybe I'm completely wrong in my line of thinking. Perhaps it's just a big joke that's supposed to be funny somehow; only no one is laughing. Not even Liberals. Either way, if the Liberals really represented a noble cause, they wouldn't feel the need to post this kind of crap all over the place. So, let's get to work on breaking this down, shall we?

          First we see three photographs of Paul Ryan and Todd Akin. The whole idea behind this poster is a result of comments made by Todd Akin, who is currently under intense scrutiny by both the Conservative and Liberal masses. The comments Akin made were regarding cases of rape and abortion services for rape victims. The primary elements to Akin's comments boil down to 3 simple statements: 1) It is rare for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape. 2) Women have some sort of biological mechanism to prevent pregnancy after a "legitimate rape" occurs and 3) The focus of punishment should be placed on the rapist and not on the child conceived through the rapist's actions. We really can't argue the fact that Todd Akin communicated his stance in a way that is just... atrocious; resulting in a political blight on the Republican Party...as expected. But anyway, let's take a closer look at these comments...

Akin Comment #1 - It is rare for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape. In an effort to be as politically fair as I can, I'll use a source that is usually not in favor of Conservatives; The New York Times. The NY Times published a story about this matter and even went on to find data to support this claim made by Akin. What The NY Times found (per findings of The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) was that approximately 5% of reported rapes result in pregnancy. Here's another statement using the same data: Approximately 95% of all reported rapes do not result in pregnancy. I'd say that pregnancy as a result of rape is a pretty rare occurrence, assuming one were to take this information into consideration. If someone contracted a deadly illness and the doctor told them they had a 5% chance of survival, I'd say their chances aren't too promising. What Akin said here was indeed, true and he deserves no criticism for it. With that said...moving on.

Akin Comment #2 - Women have some sort of biological mechanism to prevent pregnancy after a "legitimate rape." I never thought it was possible for a simple remark to send my Cheerios through my sinus passages and out my nostrils, but it did indeed happen upon hearing Akin make this remark. It was this statement that forced the previous comment out of everyone's consciousness as people frantically started to check their own vital signs (including me). To say that women can biologically shut their reproductive organs down, at will, is about the most ludicrous statement anyone has ever heard and that applies to both Conservatives and Liberals. It is this remark that, I believe, is most responsible for the smear attacks against Akin and the Republican Party's "war on women." Yes, that's what Liberals are saying about the GOP now, in case anyone is actually surprised. The other half of this comment: "legitimate rape." There are all kinds of debates surrounding the use of these words and most of it is angry mumbo-jumbo from both sides of the political spectrum. There is no official definition for "legitimate rape," but there is a legal definition for the term "forcible rape," which is probably what Akin meant to say during his interview. There's no way of knowing that for sure, however. I'll touch more upon the definition of forcible rape later.

Akin Comment #3 - The focus of punishment should be placed on the rapist and not on the child conceived through the rapist's actions. I think most people missed this part of the interview as they were still reeling, heaving, and defibrillating from the previous comment, but I happen to agree with Akin here. My agreement is purely out of subjectivity, however. What I take from this message is that Akin feels an unborn child should not be aborted on the basis of being a product of rape. It is perfectly okay for one to feel this way. It's his opinion; his personal belief. There's nothing wrong with having either. On the other hand, it does seem unconstitutional to force anyone in either direction based solely off one's personal beliefs. Despite the political firestorm that has engulfed everything that is Todd Akin, he later did apologize for his remarks. To me, that demonstrates a strong sense of humility and character. The American people should willingly accept his apology and move on.

          It's no surprise other major GOP figures would somehow make their way into this debate, even though it was Todd Akin (and Todd Akin alone) who made these highly controversial comments. The only way Paul Ryan is somehow involved in this matter revolves around H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; a bill in which Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are co-sponsors (along with 11 House Democrat Representatives, if I may add). The bill passed through the House in May, 2011. 235 House Republican Reps and 16 Democrat Reps voted in favor of this bill and 175 Democrat Reps did not. The Liberals decided it was better to invest their time spatting on about the GOP's "war on women" and constructing mindless, political memes like the one shown above. Perhaps they could have invested just a few minutes into actually reading the contents of the bill. It's only 14 pages, after all. So, in an effort to arm myself with knowledge, I decided to read the bill and see exactly what it has to say. The bill basically states in Sections 301 - 304 that if a woman wants to have an abortion, it should not be the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay for it. No surprises there. The title of the bill alone could have told anyone that. Section 309 is where things started to get interesting, however. Section 309, parts (1) and (2) of the bill states the following:

 ‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of  forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. 

          So, there you have it. Abortion operations, as a result of pregnancy incurred from forcible rape, incest, or life-endangering physical conditions as a direct result of pregnancy, WILL be provided and paid for at taxpayer's expense for any woman under said circumstances. Allow me to add there is absolutely nothing in this bill that is, in any way, making abortions illegal. It's simply stating that abortions will not be paid for by the U.S. Government UNLESS the pregnancy falls under one of the two categories listed above. I'd say that's about as much of a compromise between the two parties as one could get. Now, let's talk more about the big buzzword here: forcible rape. Upon reading the legal definition, it seems pretty clear as it covers just about every rape-related circumstances one could think of. Here's a list of all the different rape circumstances that I am aware of.

• Date Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies. 
• Date Rape with Roofies? - You can't consent to sex if you're not conscious; definition applies. 
• Gang Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies.
• Marital Rape - Still no lawful consent; definition applies.
• Incest Rape - Still no lawful consent; definition applies. 
• Child Sexual Abuse - Below age of consent = Child cannot legally consent to sex; definition applies.
• Prison Rape - It certainly is possible for a female CO to be raped by an inmate(s); definition applies.
• Acquaintance Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies. 
• War Rape - It certainly is possible for female military personnel to get captured and raped by enemy combatants; definition applies.
• Statutory Rape - Below age of consent = Minor cannot legally consent to sex; definition applies.

       I can't think of any others right now, but I'll add more if, and when I do. The only fuzzy part about this bill is it didn't mention whether or not a police report and medical examination is required if one claims pregnancy as a result of rape. It would be awfully easy to get abortions courtesy of the tax payers if one did not have to provide any evidence that a rape actually took place. Perhaps this is what Akin meant by "legitimate rape" after all.

So let's go back to this poster again and see exactly what truths we determined (Snopes style!) with the given information.

• 2011 - Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored an "anti-abortion" bill that included the term "forcible rape." - False.
• For accuracy, here's how this message should be worded: "Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored an abortion-related bill that included the term "forcible rape." It's not anti-abortion, it's anti-tax-payers-being-required-to-pay-for-abortions; minus a few exceptions. There's a considerable difference.
• Today, Akin used the term "legitimate rape." - True.
• Akin did use the term "legitimate rape" during his interview regarding rape and abortion. So what? 
• Ryan opposes abortion even in cases of rape. - False.
• Sec. 309 Parts (1) & (2) of H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act clearly states otherwise.
• Romney knowingly chose a running-mate who would use the government to enforce laws that would force a woman to give birth to a rapist's child against her will. - False.
• H.R. 3 does not, in any way, make abortion illegal, it simply states the tax payers should not be required to cover abortion costs under normal circumstances.
• Fact: Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape. - False and a flat-out LIE.
• Just because a statement starts with the word "FACT" in all caps does not mean it is one. Sec. 309 Parts (1) & (2) of H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act clearly falsifies this statement. Do I really need to repeat that again?

In conclusion...Liberal idiocy.

Thank you for reading...and God Bless

- JSR

Why Does it Seem Like America Is Not Getting Better?

          I found this wonderful little poster plastered all over countless profile pages on a social media powerhouse we like to call "Facebook." Facebook is the online propaganda generator of the century! Even though I often don't agree with the same beliefs adopted by the General Left, my all-too curious mind just makes it impossible for me to resist reading what it has to say...and it says a lot, indeed.

          Upon reading this poster, I suffered a panic attack for about a fourth of a second thinking that perhaps I may have been on the wrong side of the political spectrum; which was clearly one of the poster's intentions. Initially, I had to ask myself why the Republicans would ever oppose the creation of jobs, take care of 9/11 responders, or care about equal pay for women? I continued on to read some of the comments where I discovered the Facebook Libs were just eating this poster up; qualifying these "facts" to satisfy their own convictions that Republicans are "enemies of the U.S." Yes, that's what some of the Liberal commentators posted in response to this eloquent piece of literature (sarcasm). The one thing I do like about this poster is it proves Liberals acknowledge the fact that America really isn't better off today than it was four years ago. Accepting responsibility for failure is not something they seem to do well, however, and I'd wager not one of these Facebook Libs took the time to read up on any of the bills that are listed. I, on the other hand, decided it's best to look further into these claims, so I read each and every one of those bills. After only a few minutes, I come to find the claims of this poster came as no surprise. Even though most of the material listed above is indeed true, it fails to include the full story, which goes without saying. I'll explain what I mean in full detail below...

H.R. 847 - James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009. This bill was actually passed by the Senate in Dec, 2010. Although the bill may have been filibustered before, it still made its way through. Pres Obama just needs to sign it into law, which according to my resources, hasn't happened yet. This bill should not be a complaint from Democrats any longer. 31 House Republican Reps did support and vote in favor of it, after all.

S. 3816 – Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. Bill overview: Includes small tax benefits for companies who move jobs back to the U.S., but imposes tax penalties for business that don't. Personal opinion: No business-minded person in the world would agree to a bill like this. And according to the Republicans, Democrats aren't known for having a strong business mind-set (with the exception of Clinton, perhaps). It’s no surprise why all the Repubs shot it down along with 4 Democratic Senators (the only surprising part about the life of this bill). It's hard for U.S. workers to compete with offshore workers because the corporate tax rate is so much lower in other countries (like China) and the workers only get paid pennies on the dollar compared to U.S. workers. The only thing that I believe will fix that problem is if the U.S. corporate tax is lowered and if workers in other countries start demanding higher wages and benefits, which they currently are. Lowering the corporate tax is not a new idea considering the U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. I've heard Liberals claim the U.S. actually does not have the highest corporate tax and they all seem to mention Germany being among the highest. I looked into this claim only to find it is, in fact, false. Yes, offshoring is a problem that needs fixed. So, make the U.S. more competitive for businesses to operate locally and the problem should fix itself with time. A bill like this is blatantly proposing a raw deal to business owners across the country. It would never fly under a Republican Senate majority. "Nay!"

S. 1723 – Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011. Bill Overview: Proposes lots of government spending to retain public sector jobs in a broke economy. My opinion: No one, from either political party, can argue that public sector jobs are paid for by taxation of the private sector and the private sector is already suffering immensely in today's economy. A strong economy in the private sector is paramount if public sector jobs want to keep receiving their pay and benefits, which are currently better than most jobs in the private sector. The New York Times, a predominantly Liberal news source, even agrees with this claim. This is especially true with Police and Firefighters working within predominantly Democratic states, like California. Currently there is more money being spent to support public workers than what the taxpayers can afford, and this bill proposes we should burden the tax payers even more. The Democratic leaders need to focus only on jobs in the private sector, but they seem to be avoiding it like the plague. Why is that? It’s the private sector that pays most of their salaries, after all. I'm not surprised why Republicans voted against this bill. I wouldn't have voted in favor of it, either. "Nay!"

Sidenote: In Jan, 2012 President Obama vetoed the Alberta Keystone Pipeline proposal, which would have created around 20k jobs here in the U.S. and not paid for through taxation. We're talking raw revenue paid to the U.S. from Canada; an opportunity for the U.S. to make some real money. Not borrowed money. Not taxed money... Real money! Talk about a "stimulus." If job creation really was a priority of Obama's, then why would he veto this proposal? Even a sizeable chunk of Democratic Senators and House Representatives supported the pipeline, rapidly accelerating the bill through the legislation process only to be crushed under Obama's green thumb. I'll tell you why this happened. 1) Oil productions in the Bakken fields of North Dakota are ramping up considerably; making the pipeline proposal a fast and cost-efficient method of transportation between the oil and its refineries. Without the pipeline, shipping of oil must now rely on locomotive transportation (railroads). Coincidentally, Warren Buffett (Democratic Party contributor and billionaire) purchased a portion of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp in November, 2009 (the company that operates the BNSF railroad) on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Currently, this railroad is the primary method of transportaion of Keystone XL's oil between the Gulf Coast and Canadian refineries. So, what does this have to do with Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline? It's simple. The pipeline would have nullified the need for railroad transportation of oil, which would have cost our poor, Liberal, billionaire Buffet about 20% of Bakken's business and about 950k barrels a day of Keystone XL's (pipeline) business. Obama couldn't afford to support a bill that would damage business endeavors of one, very rich Liberal, even if it's at the expense of thousands of Americans, both Democrat and Republican. The veto of the Keystone Pipeline is the very essence of corruption, but wait! ...the motives don't stop there. 2) Obama and his environmentalist supporters decided that "oil emissions" were a bigger threat to the country than the unemployment rate and the country's stagnant economy; not to mention the pipeline would have only run through predominantly Republican States. Go figure. President Obama tried to justify his veto as a means to "protect the American people." A statement that puckered the sphincters of Liberals across the country. The Liberal media now portrays Obama as a big American hero because of it. Enviromentalists; they'll sit back and worry so much about people breathing "dangerous" fumes all while choking on their own bong emissions. Perhaps if these environmentalists spent a few less hours baking their minds into oblivion, they would have come to discover that pipeline transportation of oil would have been the least environmentally detrimental alternative to oil transportation.

S. 1769 - Rebuild America Jobs Act. While many of the contents of this bill are certainly desirable, it still calls for A LOT of Gov spending, which is not the direction Republicans want to go right now; not with a national debt teetering at the brink of 16 trillion dollars. Despite the vast amount of money needed for this bill, it still would not be enough to fund all the things it wanted to do. For instance, part of the bill wanted to allocate 50 million dollars in job training for up to 3 million jobs. If my math is correct, that equals $16.67 per job. Even McDonalds spends more than that to train a burger flipper. That 50 million would have been wasted money. And that’s just one example. Also, most of these jobs are contract/infrastructure jobs that are not permanent. What happens to all these workers when the jobs are finished? Don’t get me wrong; the concept of the bill is decent, it just needs serious revision and more focus on the private sector. Perhaps under better economic circumstances and less national debt, the concept of this bill would gain more support than it got. For now... "Nay!"

S. 2230 – Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. Proposes to raise taxes on any household income of $1 million or more. Ok, let’s examine what “household income” means. It means if two peoples’ combined salaries equal more than $1 million, they get taxed more. This means 2 married individuals making at least $500k a year, unless a spouse files their tax returns separately. If either household partner owns a small business that is not a corporation, it is not unusual to gross out at more than a million dollars per year. Let's also take a moment to realize that with owning a small business, there is a considerable difference between one's gross income and one's net income. Does a bill such as this mean small business owners would get taxed even more? Yes, it does. While small business owners may make a lot on paper, they also incur a lot of costs to doing business.  Let’s also realize that small business owners are the primary job creators in this country. Taxing them more is detrimental to job creation, especially if it’s taxing 30% gross income, as the bill proposes. Small Businesses would suffer immensely, more layoffs would occur as a result and unemployment would continue to rise. If the Dems want to tax the rich, then tax the rich. $1 million/yr in today’s world is hardly what I would call “rich.” "Nay!"

S. 3220 – Paycheck Fairness Act. I and every other conservative I spoke with wholeheartedly agree that women should make just as much as men while working the same job; plain and simple. The way this bill wanted to address this problem, however, is just...irrational. It basically proposes setting up a whole new bureaucracy intended to oversee workplaces across the board to ensure women are getting paid fairly. Sanctions for non-compliance would be put in place, too...as expected. The bill also proposes a government program to train girls and women on how to negotiate higher salaries with new employers. New bureaucracies = additional regulations, the government borrowing more money and more tax dollars being spent. Even with all these new regulations, it wouldn't stop businesses from not hiring women if such a bill were passed. My conclusion, everything about this bill is an incentive for businesses to NOT employ women. Why would anyone hire one if doing so would only bring about more bureaucracy; big brother making sure you're in compliance with yet another cluster of government regulation. As if business' compliance departments aren't already pulling their hair out. Not to mention the additional hours sole proprieters have to spend every day on compliance alone. It's another strain that businesses will attempt to avoid in any way possible, even if it means trying to hire less women. Another thing to keep in mind is that variability in pay between workers (males AND females) of the same job is not unusual. This is because there are a lot of gender-neutral variables that play a part in determining how much one should make. Previous work experience in the same field and educational credentials are relevant factors for determining how much a worker's beginning salary should be in comparison with his/her colleagues. All are contributing factors to why people working the same job may see variances in pay. I don't think this bill would help women. It would maginalize them even more. "Nay!"

          So there you have it. I read all the bills and these were the conclusions I drew from them. Before any Liberal goes on saying that Repubs hate everyone and are trying to disrupt everything the Dems are working toward, read the bills they propose and decide for yourself if their methodologies really are in America’s best interests. We all have the right to make our own decisions, after all.

The information presented is complements of OpenCongress.org.

If you made it this far...thank you for reading. God Bless!

- JSR