Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work

The video is self-explanatory. This is a cut of an interview with the economist Milton Friedman, which answers a question about what rich people do with the profits they maliciously obtained from the poor citizens of our great nation. 

This is an EXCELLENT article addressing the false narrative of the evils of being wealthy~

A picture of the arrogance of wealth.

The wealthy need to pay their fair share. There is no way in the world that the lower classes will ever be able to improve their standard of living if the wealthy people do not help them. The wealthy do not need private jets or personal Yachts while so many people are impoverished. We need the government to take things away from them on behalf of the common good. The market just can’t do it and there is absolutely no proof that a market, without government regulation and high taxes on the wealthy will ever improve the life of the masses.


I had you there for a minute, didn’t I?

It seems these days there is something wrong with being wealthy. You are somehow obligated to pay some arbitrary ‘fair share’ where of course, the majority decides what the ‘fair’ share is.

We seem to forget exactly how wealthy even the lowest of classes are today, compared to the super-elite rich only a hundred years ago.

The automobile used to be an item of luxury. It was the historical Yacht or private jet. You had to be extremely wealthy to be able to afford an automobile. Not just that, but to afford the fuel for it wealthy as well, as gasoline was the equivalent of around $5 a gallon in 1906!

“The ordinary ‘horseless carriage’ is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle.”
-Literary Digest

“Nothing has spread socialistic feeling in this country more than the automobile. To the countryman they are a picture of the arrogance of wealth, with all its independence and carelessness.”
-Woodrow Wilson, 1906

Today we see the same thing, but instead of it being automobile, it’s simply high end automobiles. Examples such as 500HP Mercedes Benz automobiles which are being called ‘anti-social’ by some government bureaucrats. Don’t forget yachts and private jets. (Never mind all of the middle class people that must be employed for the upkeep of these luxuries).

If we were to fast forward a hundred years, and you saw that the average person had their own private Yacht and private jet, and could easily afford to travel with it anywhere in the world with it, would you consider it to be silly for them to be complaining about people having more higher end Yachts than they do, or more higher end private jets than they do?

Of course you would.

The free enterprise system has a natural redistribution of wealth. When the wealthy purchase new products at exorbitant costs, it allows the producers of these goods to re-invest the profits into increasing production, resulting in lower prices and more advanced products as they improve on their designs.

Today you can buy a new car for $15,000 that is far superior, faster, safer, and with more features than an automobile in 1906 that would have cost a very rich man the equivalent of $200,000 brand new. In fact, for $15,000 you can buy an automobile that a rich man could not buy at any price at all in 1906, because it simply didn’t exist.

This same rule applies for most everything. For example, look at the computer industry. Today you can buy a computer for a thousand dollars that has more processing power than computers that used to cost tens of millions of dollars only a few decades ago.

A cell phone used to cost you the equivalent of $9,000, had monthly charges about the size of a mortgage payment. Yet despite costing the equivalent of $9,000, they didn’t even have a camera. Today you can get a cell phone with an assortment of features for a measly $200, even as low as $50 if you want something a little older that still beats the pants off the first cell phones.

You didn’t need government bureaucrats or government regulation of the industry in order to accomplish this. It was done automatically by the market. So, rather than everybody making more money, the purchasing power of their wages increases instead.

These are what we can call “real wages”. You can buy more products and services with your income than you used to be able to, you are therefore, wealthier as a result.

And this was all accomplished simply because of the profit motive. Things actually get cheaper when people are pursuing profits.
Read More: Collateral Damage

(MUST SEE VIDEO) Ted Nugent tells the full story of the constant attacks from Federal Government

What you are about to watch will blow your mind. The comments Ted made against the POTUS make perfect sense. Now we know the whole story and it is FRIGHTENING that our government is this out of control.

VIA GBTV
RELATED LINKS: 
It‘s ’Planet of the Apes!: Nugent Rips Gov‘t Over ’Feral’ Pigs Slaughter During Beck Interview 
Nugent Reveals Details to Beck About the Alaskan Hunting Trip That Made Him a Target of the Feds 
Secret Service Probing Ted Nugent’s Obama Comments After DNC Rep. Goes on 30-Tweet Rampage 
Beck Defends ‘Good Man’ Ted Nugent From Leftist Attacks, Asks Why Secret Service Doesn’t Investigate Farrakhan Instead 
Nugent Ousted From Fort Knox Concert Line-Up 

If I wanted America to fail (VIDEO)

The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism—it's become an economic suicide pact. And we're here to challenge it. On Earth Day, visit www.freemarketamerica.org.


H/T Hillbuzz

White House And DOJ Participated In Fast And Furious Says Author Of New Book

New book 'Fast and Furious' says government
guns to Mexico scheme was meant to blame
USA 'mom and pop' gun stores 

Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal

Operation Fast and Furious is the deadliest and most sinister scandal in American history. A scandal so big, it’s worse than Iran-Contra and makes Watergate look like a high school prank gone wrong.

In the early days of the Obama Administration, President Obama claimed his goal was to stop the trafficking of guns from the United States into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels. He claimed gun dealers in the United States were responsible for sending guns to Mexico. Both of his claims were lies.

In order to push his lies and policies built around them, with a goal of implementing harsher gun control laws and reinstating the assault weapons ban, President Obama packed his administration full of anti-Second Amendment zealots. After all, personnel is policy.

In my new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup, I document the conspiracy of senior Obama officials to subvert the Second Amendment, which led directly to the murders of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, I.C.E. Agent Jaime Zapata and countless, faceless lives in Mexico. It debunks the Obama administration’s lies, denials and excuses. This administration was willing to use humans as collateral damage to push a political agenda, and had no shame in doing so. Now, the administration has no shame in covering up their reckless actions. 

Since just moments after Brian Terry was killed in the Arizona desert on December 15, 2010 by Mexican cartel thugs, carrying AK-47s provided to them by the Obama Justice Department through Operation Fast and Furious, the FBI, Homeland Security, ATF, Justice Department and the White House have been engaged in a full scale cover-up.  These are simply names of government agencies, but who are the people behind the cover-up?

I unravel a tangled web connecting President Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and a number of advisors and political appointees behind Fast and Furious. These officials have deep loyalties to each other and their anti-Second Amendment ideology dating as far back as the Clinton Administration. In fact, many key Fast and Furious players  have deep ties to Chicago and helped craft the 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban legislation. 

If the majority of American people knew Fast and Furious like they know Solyndra or the GSA scandal, they would be outraged. Despite very few exceptions, the media has been complicit in the cover-up of Obama’s bloodiest scandal by ignoring and refusing to report about it. Why? To protect the President. This scandal, one that has left hundreds of bodies in its wake, would be deadly to the administration. This is the scandal that will bring President Obama down in November, so long as the American people know its details.
  
Read More: Townhall

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

More on this story: via Townhall Tipsheet 2012  

Obama Justice Department Now Referring Reporters to Media Matters for Information on Fast and Furious

by Katie Pavlich 

Posted at 1:07 AM ET, 4/21/2012

Late Friday afternoon, Free Beacon reporter CJ Ciaramella requested a comment from the Justice Department about my new book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup. This was the response he received.

 

That's right folks. Media Matters, the far Left website funded by George Soros, is now serving as a mouth piece for the United States Department of Justice. Not only did DOJ refer Ciaramella to Media Matters for information about Operation Fast and Furious, but didn't even refer him to material that had anything to do with his original question about the FBI covering up the existence of a third weapon found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Ciaramella writes:

The Department of Justice is using the liberal “watchdog” group Media Matters for America to deflect questions about the Fast and Furious scandal, including those regarding a gun that might have been used in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

A new book raises questions as to whether the FBI hid the existence of a weapon recovered at the scene of murdered U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Conservative commentator and author Katie Pavlich lays out evidence she says points to a FBI cover-up to protect a confidential informant in her recently released book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-up,

In response to an inquiry from the Free Beacon, a Justice Department spokeswoman said in an email that she “was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story: http://mediamatters.org/research/201204190011”

The link was to a story at the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America supposedly refuting many of Pavlich’s claims. Media Matters is a partisan organization whose founder, David Brock, is also running a pro-Obama super PAC.

For more than a year now, Americans have been stonewalled, ignored and disrespected in our quests for information about the Obama administration's lethal Operation Fast and Furious. The fact that the Obama Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is now sending reporters to the far Left, George Soros funded, Media Matters for factual information about one of the bloodiest scandals in U.S. history, is no surprise and totally predictable. This is just an extension of the Obama administration's shameless coverup and refusal to tell the truth about Fast and Furious. The claims made by Media Matters match up nearly exactly with claims made by Justice Department officials in their defense against involvement in Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department has blood on its hands, there are at least 300 Mexican citizens dead and two of our federal agents have been murdered as a result of this program. The Obama administration as a whole refuses to take responsibility and provide transparency for an American public outraged by this scandal. The Justice Department is responsible for upholding the law in a fair, unbiased and non-political manner, but the current politically appointed DOJ leadership has chosen to engage in promoting a far Left and controversial agenda. Apparently, the new spokesperson for the Justice Department is Media Matters, and just in case you're wondering, Media Matters is headed by David Brock, who just so happens to be in charge of a pro-Obama super PAC. Media Matters also enjoys tax exempt status as a non-profit, despite being a mouth piece for the White House and the DOJ.

If you want the truth, read my book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup. It is clear we won't be getting it from the Justice Department on this crucial issue.

BREAKING: Bank of America Reportedly Drops Gun Company for Political Reasons

BREAKING: Bank of America Reportedly Drops Gun Company for Political Reasons

The reported reason: they simply do not want to be associated with gun companies. 

Bailout recipient Bank of America has severed relations with an American company because of a reported bias against their industry. McMillan Group International released an extraordinary statement on Facebook regarding the incident:

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent five minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last five years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.

At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”

“That is correct” he says.

I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a Second Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”

“You have to do what you must” he said.

“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”

Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.

McMillan is now refusing to accept Bank of America cards from customers for payment.

McMillan is heavily involved with U.S. national security. McMillan rifle stocks are the standard for the Marine Corps’ favored M40A3 sniper rifle. McMillan products, from stocks and other accessories to complete rifles, are used by U.S. regular and special forces and by American military allies around the globe.

McMillan products are of particular import in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where snipers and designated marksmen armed with long-range precision rifles performed (and still perform) vital scouting and overwatch functions protecting maneuver units. The extended range of these weapons allows forces to engage with and destroy enemy forces before they are in range to accurately fire against American soldiers and Marines.

Per McMillan’s statement, a politically partisan bank has severed the lines of credit to a company important to our national security. This act has likely added difficulty to the company’s ability to operate, to research product improvements, and to deliver products on time. Bank of America’s stance — especially if this signals a new policy regarding dealing with all arms manufacturers — could potentially effect the readiness of American soldiers in combat zones and the operational efficiency of some of America’s most highly trained and effective units.

Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September.

This is at least the third time Bank of America has implemented a discriminatory policy against gun manufacturers. In early 2001, a scandal erupted over the bank’s attempt to discriminate against another Arizona-based company. The resulting public outrage forced a reversal of the policy.

In 2010, Bank of America attempted a similar action, and was again forced to “clarify” their position:

Bank of America does not have a corporate-wide policy to deny banking services solely on the applicant’s involvement in the firearms industry.

No other gun manufacturer or gun rights group has reacted to the McMillan Facebook post at this time.
Source: PJ Media 
 

If you want your voice heard about this, post a comment on the 

Bank Of America Facebook Page!!!

Illinois Bishop : 'Obama Intent On Folllowing A Similar Path As Hitler, Stalin' (Audio)

 

 

An Illinois Catholic bishop had fiery words for President Barack Obama’s “pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda” during a homily over the weekend where he encouraged good Catholics to stand up for their beliefs at the voting booth.

“This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences,” 

Bishop Daniel R. Jenky said at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria, Ill. during Mass at an event titled “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” and posted in full at The Catholic Post.

According to Jenky, the new Health and Human Services (HHS) contraception mandate has put the country on a dangerous path for religious freedom.

“[N]o Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb,” he explained.

“No Catholic ministry — and yes, Mr. President, for Catholics our schools and hospitals are ministries — can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to his glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions,” Jenky went on to say.

Jenkey said that the church has survived thousands of years of persecution and will survive Obama and the recent HHS mandate, but it will require Catholics to stand for their beliefs — “heroic Catholicism, not casual Catholicism.”

“The church survived barbarian invasions. The church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The church survived the age of revolution,” Jenkey said. “The church survived Nazism and communism. And in the power of the resurrection, the church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.”

Read more: The Daily Caller

COUNTDOWN UNTIL 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Countdown To Election Day 2012

Axelrod Asked If Obama Will Donate His Tax Cuts To The Treasury (VIDEO)

A top campaign adviser to President Obama made clear Sunday that the president has no plans to chip in extra money from his own income to defray the deficit -- and would insist that the tax system itself be changed so that the wealthy pay more. 

Campaign strategist David Axelrod was asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the president might contribute more to the U.S. Treasury after the release of his tax returns showed Obama paid a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The president and first lady Michelle Obama paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent on gross income of $789,674, a lower rate than the president's secretary -- who earned less than $100,000. 

The 20.5 percent rate is also less than the 30 percent Obama wants top earners to pay under the so-called "Buffett rule." 

'We don't run bake sales.'- David Axelrod

Obama aides have said the rate disparity between the president and his secretary helps make the case for why the Buffett rule should be implemented. But Axelrod rejected the idea that Obama could just donate some of his extra income to the Treasury absent such a rule. 

"That's not the way we operate our tax system, okay?" he said on "Fox News Sunday." "We don't run bake sales. It's not about volunteerism. We all kick in according to the system." 

He noted Mitt Romney "pays 14 percent on $20 million" because "the system permits it." 

Axelrod said the system Obama is pushing for is "fair," while the one being pushed by the presumptive GOP nominee and congressional Republicans would "exacerbate" the gaps in the system. 

Axelrod explained that the reason the president's tax rate was so low was because he donated 22 percent of his income to charity. 

"The president's proposal would have him pay a higher rate of taxes in the future," Axelrod added. 

Meanwhile, Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie said on "Fox News Sunday" that the GOP candidate will release two years of tax returns before the election. 

He said Romney is still working on his 2011 taxes.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/15/axelrod-no-plans-for-obama-to-contribute-extra-to-defray-deficit/#ixzz1s7tDcHA0

More from Chris Wallace's interview today of David Axelrod~

On "Fox News Sunday" Obama Campaign Advisor, David Axelrod, struggles to explain the Obama administrations multiple explanations for the Buffett Tax (April 15, 2012).

Obama adviser David Axelrod makes case for Mitt Romney for President

David Axelrod on Chris Wallace Fox News Sunday today: "The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road that we're on." HUH??? Looks like another bad week for Obama~LOL

POWERFUL Catholic Election Ad Rocks Internet (Video)

via Gateway Pundit

“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.”

Psalm 127:1
Catholics Called to Witness released this powerful video for the 2012 election. The values ad includes this powerful quote from Cardinal Dolan:

“Forcing the Church to buy insurance that goes against her teachings is a violation of religious freedom… When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental, one shudders to think what lies ahead.”

This is an amazing production. The video already has over 230,000 views. Enjoy.

From the video: Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? Some things are more important than high gas prices or a faltering economy. They are life, marriage and freedom. This November, Catholics must stand up and protect their sacred rights and duties.

Speech at Kensington Town Hall ("Britain Awake") (The Iron Lady)

BRITAIN AWAKE

1976 Jan 19 Mo

Margaret Thatcher

The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our way of life. 


The question we must now ask ourselves is whether the present Government is fulfilling that duty. It is dismantling our defenses at a moment when the strategic threat to Britain and her allies from an expansionist power is graver than at any moment since the end of the last war.

Military men are always warning us that the strategic balance is tilting against NATO and the west.

But the Socialists never listen.[fo 1] Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 19 January 1976

They don't seem to realise that the submarines and missiles that the Russians are building could be destined to be used against us.

Perhaps some people in the Labour Party think we are on the same side as the Russians!
But just let's look at what the Russians are doing.

She's ruled by a dictatorship of patient, far-sighted determined men who are rapidly making their country the foremost naval and military power in the world. End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 19 January 1976.

They are not doing this solely for the sake of self-defence.[fo 2]

A huge, largely land-locked country like Russia does not need to build the most powerful navy in the world just to guard its own frontiers.

No. The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen.

The men in the Soviet politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns.

They know that they are a super power in only one sense—the military sense.[fo 3]
They are a failure in human and economic terms.

But let us make no mistake. The Russians calculate that their military strength will more than make up for their economic and social weakness. They are determined to use it in order to get what they want from us.

Last year on the eve of the Helsinki Conference, I warned that the Soviet Union is spending 20 per cent more each year than the United States on military research and development. 25 per cent more on weapons and equipment. 60 per cent more on strategic nuclear forces.

In the past ten years Russia has spent 50 per cent more than the United States on naval shipbuilding.

Some military experts believe that Russia has already achieved strategic superiority over America.[fo 4]

But it is the balance of conventional forces which poses the most immediate dangers for NATO.

I am going to visit our troops in Germany on Thursday. I am going at a moment when the Warsaw Pact forces—that is, the forces of Russia and her allies—in Central Europe outnumber NATOs by 150,000 men nearly 10,000 tanks and 2,600 aircraft. We cannot afford to let that gap get bigger.

Still more serious gaps have opened up elsewhere—especially in the troubled area of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

The rise of Russia as a world-wide naval power, threatens our oil rigs and our traditional life-lines, the sea routes.[fo 5]

Over the past ten years, the Russians have quadrupled their force of nuclear submarines. They are now building one nuclear submarine a month.

They are searching for new naval base facilities all over the world, while we are giving up our few remaining bases.

They have moved into the Indian Ocean. They pose a rising threat to our northern waters and, farther east to Japan's vital sea routes.

The Soviet navy is not designed for self-defence. We do not have to imagine an all-out nuclear war or even a conventional war in order to see how it could be used for political purposes.[fo 6]

I would be the first to welcome any evidence that the Russians are ready to enter into a genuine detente. But I am afraid that the evidence points the other way.

I warned before Helsinki of the dangers of falling for an illusory detente. Some people were sceptical at the time, but we now see that my warning was fully justified.

Has detente induced the Russians to cut back on their defence programme?

Has it dissuaded them from brazen intervention in Angola?

Has it led to any improvement in the conditions of Soviet citizens, or the subject populations of Eastern Europe?[fo 7]

We know the answers.

At Helsinki we endorsed the status quo in Eastern Europe. In return we had hoped for the freer movement of people and ideas across the Iron Curtain. So far we have got nothing of substance.

We are devoted, as we always have been, to the maintenance of peace.

We will welcome any initiative from the Soviet Union that would contribute to that goal.

But we must also heed the warnings of those, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn , who remind us that we have been fighting a kind of ‘Third World War’ over the entire period since 1945—and that we have been steadily losing ground.[fo 8]

As we look back over the battles of the past year, over the list of countries that have been lost to freedom or are imperilled by Soviet expansion can we deny that Solzhenitsyn is right?

We have seen Vietnam and all of Indochina swallowed up by Communist aggression. We have seen the Communists make an open grab for power in Portugal, our oldest ally—a sign that many of the battles in the Third World War are being fought inside Western countries.

And now the Soviet Union and its satellites are pouring money, arms and front-line troops into Angola in the hope of dragging it into the Communist bloc.[fo 9]

We must remember that there are no Queensbury rules in the contest that is now going on. And the Russians are playing to win.

They have one great advantage over us—the battles are being fought on our territory, not theirs.

Within a week of the Helsinki conference, Mr Zarodov , a leading Soviet ideologue, was writing in Pravda about the need for the Communist Parties of Western Europe to forget about tactical compromises with Social Democrats, and take the offensive in order to bring about proletarian revolution.[fo 10]

Later Mr Brezhnev made a statement in which he gave this article his personal endorsement.
If this is the line that the Soviet leadership adopts at its Party Congress next month, then we must heed their warning. It undoubtedly applies to us too.

We in Britain cannot opt out of the world.

If we cannot understand why the Russians are rapidly becoming the greatest naval and military power the world has ever seen if we cannot draw the lesson of what they tried to do in Portugal and are now trying to do in Angola then we are destined—in their words—to end up on ‘the scrap heap of history’.[fo 11]

We look to our alliance with American and NATO as the main guarantee of our own security and, in the world beyond Europe, the United States is still the prime champion of freedom.

But we are all aware of how the bitter experience of Vietnam has changed the public mood in America. We are also aware of the circumstances that inhibit action by an American president in an election year.

So it is more vital then ever that each and every one of us within NATO should contribute his proper share to the defence of freedom.[fo 12]

Britain, with her world-wide experience of diplomacy and defence, has a special role to play. We in the Conservative Party are determined that Britain should fulfil that role. Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 20 January 1976

We're not harking back to some nostalgic illusion about Britain's role in the past.

We're saying—Britain has a part to play now, a part to play for the future.

The advance of Communist power threatens our whole way of life. That advance is not irreversible, providing that we take the necessary measures now. But the longer that we go on running down our means of survival, the harder it will be to catch up.[fo 13]

In other words: the longer Labour remains in Government, the more vulnerable this country will be. (Applause.) End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 20 January 1976

What has this Government been doing with our defences?

Under the last defence review, the Government said it would cut defence spending by £4,700 million over the next nine years.

Then they said they would cut a further £110 million.

It now seems that we will see further cuts.[fo 14]

If there are further cuts, perhaps the [ Roy Mason ] Defence Secretary should change his title, for the sake of accuracy, to the Secretary for Insecurity.

On defence, we are now spending less per head of the population than any of our major allies. Britain spends only £90 per head on defence. West Germany spends £130, France spends £115. 

The United States spends £215. Even neutral Sweden spends £60 more per head than we do.
Of course, we are poorer than most of our NATO allies. This is part of the disastrous economic legacy of Socialism.[fo 15]

But let us be clear about one thing.

This is not a moment when anyone with the interests of this country at heart should be talking about cutting our defences.

It is a time when we urgently need to strengthen our defences.

Of course this places a burden on us. But it is one that we must be willing to bear if we want our freedom to survive.

Throughout our history, we have carried the torch for freedom. Now, as I travel the world, I find people asking again and again, "What has happened to Britain?" They want to know why we are hiding our heads in the sand, why with all our experience, we are not giving a lead.[fo 16]

Many people may not be aware, even now, of the full extent of the threat.

We expect our Governments to take a more far-sighted view.

To give them their due, the Government spelled out the extent of the peril in their Defence White Paper last year, But, having done so, they drew the absurd conclusion that our defence efforts should be reduced.

The Socialists, in fact, seem to regard defence as almost infinitely cuttable. They are much more cautious when it comes to cutting other types of public expenditure.[fo 17]

They seem to think that we can afford to go deeper into debt so that the Government can prop up a loss-making company. And waste our money on the profligate extension of nationalisation and measures such as the Community Land Act.

Apparently, we can even afford to lend money to the Russians, at a lower rate of interest that we have to pay on our own borrowings.

But we cannot afford, in Labour's view, to maintain our defences at the necessary level—not even at a time when on top of our NATO commitments, we are fighting a major internal war against terrorism in Northern Ireland, and need more troops in order to win it.[fo 18]

There are crises farther from home that could affect us deeply. Angola is the most immediate.
In Angola, the Soviet-backed guerrilla movement, the MPLA, is making rapid headway in its current offensive, despite the fact that it controls only a third of the population, and is supported by even less.

The MPLA is gaining ground because the Soviet Union and its satellites are pouring money, guns and front-line troops into the battle.

Six thousand Cuban regular soldiers are still there.[fo 19]

But it is obvious that an acceptable solution for Angola is only possible if all outside powers withdraw their military support.

You might well ask: why on earth should we think twice about what is happening in a far-away place like Angola?

There are four important reasons.

The first is that Angola occupies a vital strategic position. If the pro-Soviet faction wins, one of the immediate consequences will almost certainly be the setting up of Soviet air and naval bases on the South Atlantic.[fo 20]

The second reason is that the presence of Communist forces in this area will make it much more difficult to settle the Rhodesian problem and achieve an understanding between South Africa and black Africa.

The third reason is even more far-reaching.

If the Russians have their way in Angola, they may well conclude that they can repeat the performance elsewhere. Similarly, uncommitted nations would be left to conclude that NATO is a spent force and that their best policy is to pursue an accommodation with Russia.[fo 21]

Fourthly, what the Russians are doing in Angola is against detente.

They seem to believe that their intervention is consistent with detente.

Indeed, Izvestiya recently argued that Soviet support for the Communist MPLA is "an investment in detente"—which gives us a good idea of what they really mean by the word.
We should make it plain to the Russians that we do not believe that what they are doing in Angola is consistent with detente.[fo 22]

It is usually said that NATO policy ends in North Africa at the Tropic of Cancer. But the situation in Angola brings home the fact that NATOs supplyl ines need to be protected much further south.

In the Conservative Party we believe that our foreign policy should continue to be based on a close understanding with our traditional ally, America.

This is part of our Anglo-Saxon tradition as well as part of our NATO commitment, and it adds to our contribution to the European Community.[fo 23]

Our Anglo-Saxon heritage embraces the countries of the Old Commonwealth that have too often been neglected by politicians in this country, but are always close to the hearts of British people.
We believe that we should build on our traditional bonds with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as on our new ties with Europe.

I am delighted to see that the Australians and the New Zealanders have concluded—as I believe that most people in this country are coming to conclude—that Socialism has failed.[fo 24]

In their two electoral avalanches at the end of last year, they brought back Governments committed to freedom of choice, governments that will roll back the frontiers of state intervention in the economy and will restore incentives for people to work and save.

Our congratulations go to Mr Fraser and Mr Muldoon .

I know that our countries will be able to learn from each other.[fo 25]

What has happened in Australasia is part of a wider reawakening to the need to provide a more positive defence of the values and traditions on which Western civilisation, and prosperity, are based.

We stand with that select body of nations that believe in democracy and social and economic freedom.

Part of Britain's world role should be to provide, through its spokesmen, a reasoned and vigorous defence of the Western concept of rights and liberties: The kind that America's Ambassador to the UN, Mr Moynihan , has recently provided in his powerfully argued speeches.[fo 26]

But our role reaches beyond this. We have abundant experience and expertise in this country in the art of diplomacy in its broadest sense.

It should be used, within Europe, in the efforts to achieve effective foreign policy initiatives.
Within the EEC, the interests of individual nations are not identical and our separate identities must be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

Any steps towards closer European union must be carefully considered.[fo 27]

We are committed to direct elections within the Community, but the timing needs to be carefully calculated.

But new problems are looming up.

Among them is the possibility that the Communists will come to power through a coalition in Italy. This is a good reason why we should aim for closer links between those political groups in the European Parliament that reject Socialism.[fo 28]

We have a difficult year ahead in 1976.

I hope it will not result in a further decline of Western power and influence of the kind that we saw in 1975.

It is clear that internal violence—and above all political terrorism—will continue to pose a major challenge to all Western societies, and that it may be exploited as an instrument by the Communists.[fo 29]

We should seek close co-ordination between the police and security services of the Community, and of Nato, in the battle against terrorism.

The way that our own police have coped with recent terrorist incidents provides a splendid model for other forces.

The message of the Conservative Party is that Britain has an important role to play on the world stage. It is based on the remarkable qualities of the British people. Labour has neglected that role. MT apparently omitted the following passage in delivery. She noted, "If short of time go to top of page 32 (We are often told)." Pages 29–31 of the text are clipped together.[fo 30]

Our capacity to play a constructive role in world affairs is of course related to our economic and military strength.

Socialism has weakened us on both counts. This puts at risk not just our chance to play a useful role in the councils of the world, but the Survival of our way of life.

Caught up in the problems and hardships that Socialism has brought to Britain, we are sometimes in danger of failing to see the vast transformations taking place in the world that dwarf our own problems, great though they are.[fo 31]

But we have to wake up to those developments, and find the political will to respond to them.
Soviet military power will not disappear just because we refuse to look at it.

And we must assume that it is there to be used—as threat or as force—unless we maintain the necessary deterrents.

We are under no illusions about the limits of British influence. End of passage probably omitted in delivery.[fo 32]


We are often told how this country that once ruled a quarter of the world is today just a group of offshore islands.

Well, we in the Conservative Party believe that Britain is still great.

The decline of our relative power in the world was partly inevitable—with the rise of the super powers with their vast reserves of manpower and resources.[fo 33]

But it was partly avoidable too—the result of our economic decline accelerated by Socialism.
We must reverse that decline when we are returned to Government.

In the meantime, the Conservative Party has the vital task of shaking the British public out of a long sleep.[fo 34]

Sedatives have been prescribed by people, in and out of Government, telling us that there is no external threat to Britain, that all is sweetness and light in Moscow, and that a squadron of fighter planes or a company of marine commandos is less important than some new subsidy.

The Conservative Party must now sound the warning.

There are moments in our history when we have to make a fundamental choice.[fo 35]

This is one such moment—a moment when our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of society,—and the future of our children.

Let's ensure that our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not forsake their freedom.

SOURCE: MARGARETTHATCHER.ORG

Undercover Voter ID Investigation: You Will Never Guess Which Liberal Groups Are Demanding ID

What's wrong with showing identification when you vote? That's an egregious civil rights violation if you ask the Obama Administration and liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, and the Advancement Project. So what happens if you show up at the front door of these groups without ID? Find out on this PJTV undercover investigation.

Today In History: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is Assassinated

Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream"

Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" - The best bloopers are here

Just after 6 p.m. on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. is fatally shot while standing on the balcony outside his second-story room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. The civil rights leader was in Memphis to support a sanitation workers' strike and was on his way to dinner when a bullet struck him in the jaw and severed his spinal cord. King was pronounced dead after his arrival at a Memphis hospital. He was 39 years old.

In the months before his assassination, Martin Luther King became increasingly concerned with the problem of economic inequality in America. He organized a Poor People's Campaign to focus on the issue, including an interracial poor people's march on Washington, and in March 1968 traveled to Memphis in support of poorly treated African-American sanitation workers. On March 28, a workers' protest march led by King ended in violence and the death of an African-American teenager. King left the city but vowed to return in early April to lead another demonstration.

On April 3, back in Memphis, King gave his last sermon, saying, "We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop...And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land."

One day after speaking those words, Dr. King was shot and killed by a sniper. As word of the assassination spread, riots broke out in cities all across the United States and National Guard troops were deployed in Memphis and Washington, D.C. On April 9, King was laid to rest in his hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. Tens of thousands of people lined the streets to pay tribute to King's casket as it passed by in a wooden farm cart drawn by two mules.

The evening of King's murder, a Remington .30-06 hunting rifle was found on the sidewalk beside a rooming house one block from the Lorraine Motel. During the next several weeks, the rifle, eyewitness reports, and fingerprints on the weapon all implicated a single suspect: escaped convict James Earl Ray. A two-bit criminal, Ray escaped a Missouri prison in April 1967 while serving a sentence for a holdup. In May 1968, a massive manhunt for Ray began. The FBI eventually determined that he had obtained a Canadian passport under a false identity, which at the time was relatively easy.

On June 8, Scotland Yard investigators arrested Ray at a London airport. He was trying to fly to Belgium, with the eventual goal, he later admitted, of reaching Rhodesia. Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe, was at the time ruled by an oppressive and internationally condemned white minority government. Extradited to the United States, Ray stood before a Memphis judge in March 1969 and pleaded guilty to King's murder in order to avoid the electric chair. He was sentenced to 99 years in prison.

Three days later, he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was innocent of King's assassination and had been set up as a patsy in a larger conspiracy. He claimed that in 1967, a mysterious man named "Raoul" had approached him and recruited him into a gunrunning enterprise. On April 4, 1968, he said, he realized that he was to be the fall guy for the King assassination and fled to Canada. Ray's motion was denied, as were his dozens of other requests for a trial during the next 29 years.

During the 1990s, the widow and children of Martin Luther King Jr. spoke publicly in support of Ray and his claims, calling him innocent and speculating about an assassination conspiracy involving the U.S. government and military. U.S. authorities were, in conspiracists' minds, implicated circumstantially. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover obsessed over King, who he thought was under communist influence. For the last six years of his life, King underwent constant wiretapping and harassment by the FBI. Before his death, Dr. King was also monitored by U.S. military intelligence, which may have been asked to watch King after he publicly denounced the Vietnam War in 1967.

Furthermore, by calling for radical economic reforms in 1968, including guaranteed annual incomes for all, King was making few new friends in the Cold War-era U.S. government.

Over the years, the assassination has been reexamined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the Shelby County, Tennessee, district attorney's office, and three times by the U.S. Justice Department. The investigations all ended with the same conclusion: James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King. The House committee acknowledged that a low-level conspiracy might have existed, involving one or more accomplices to Ray, but uncovered no evidence to definitively prove this theory. In addition to the mountain of evidence against him--such as his fingerprints on the murder weapon and his admitted presence at the rooming house on April 4--Ray had a definite motive in assassinating King: hatred. According to his family and friends, he was an outspoken racist who informed them of his intent to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He died in 1998.

Source: History.com

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - Man of Peace In a Time of War

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - Man of Peace In a Time of War Synopsis

A rare and candid TV interview with Martin Luther King, Jr. - unseen in 40 years - is the centerpiece of this timely tribute, featuring exclusive interviews with such notables as Jesse Jackson and Colin Powell that provide fresh insight into the life and personality of the late civil rights leader.

Source: Snagfilms.com

TRUTH=DISAPPOINTING AND BORDERLINE OFFENSIVE TO DEBBIE WASSERMAN SHULTZ!

Not The Radio Interview The DNC Chair Was Expecting This Morning

While on California radio station 790 KABC: DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz gets questioned on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's failed record as Mayor of LA. (April 2, 2012)

Doug McIntyre sets this consumate liar straight with the facts.

When she has no way to respond to the truth about what a loser Antonio Villaraigosa is, her comment is, "Doug, with all due respect, I really find your comments disappointing and borderline offensive."

So now HEARING THE TRUTH IS DISAPPOINTING AND BORDERLINE OFFENSIVE TO DEBBIE WASSERMAN SHULTZ!