Patriot's Perspective...

THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold -- John Kerry, Useful Idiot...
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison
Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.
Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.
FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which the Left often cites as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.
English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."
More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."
Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Why? Perhaps it's because these men inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office. Indeed, while Kerry's handlers might try to cast their candidate as a man of the people, he is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim. Yes, John Kerry is the latest in a line of "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance. Is it any wonder, then, that the character and values of these inheritance-welfare liberals are all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare?
Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift.
Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals, chief among them John Kerry, still dominate the Democrat Party and continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund). V.I. Lenin knew precisely what he was talking about when he famously dubbed Western Leftists "useful idiots."
As this Election Day approaches, we're left to wonder whether America has learned its lessons, or whether our great nation is still under the spell of its useful idiots. Here in our humble shop, we hope that an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.
Another "Kerryism"
A few short months ago, Kerry professed: "Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
More to the point, Kerry said, "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president." Duh?