Liberalism is the New Feudalism

I am going to try and make this as simple as possible. Liberalism, which is really socialism, is the new feudalism. Now if you were listening in junior high school history, you may know what feudalism was. Feudalism was a form government used in Europe in the dark or middle ages. It consisted mainly of a ruling class and serfs.
The ruling class was a pyramid, with a monarch at the top, a king or queen, followed by princes, dukes, barons, lords and knights. The bishops, priests made sure they had a place. Mixing with this governing class were court jesters whose job it was to entertain and play “yes man” to the royalty. There were squires and pages and the there were the serfs.
Serfs were the masses, usually peasants, who by the fear of being killed, agreed to be slaves and their children to be slaves to the ruling class in exchange for protections. They had no rights and would be conscripted into the army during times of war.
How possibly could I compare today’s liberalism to feudalism? Easy, if these socialists get their way, that is exactly what we have. The liberals use fear to scare the masses into giving up their rights. They use capitalism, free enterprise, as the villains that they need to perpetuate this fear. Horrible mean euntrepiurs who what to destroy the planet, starve old people and even kill children all for enriching themselves. Very scary.
The dark ages were a bleak time. The were called the middle ages because it was a time when not much happened in the way of advancement in culture, science, art or economy. It was a time filled with disease, war and poverty. It didn’t end till the dawn of the Renaissance, a time of free commerce that led to great advancements in art, invention and medicine. If you look at the world today, you can see that the countries that promote free enterprise are the ones where the greatest advances are coming from.
Now the comparison. Socialism has its ruling class. It is the Liberal hierarchy. They want their queen, even though they wouldn’t actually call her that. They build their power on the backs of the masses. They start with a government education system to dumb down the masses while using these schools to perpetuate a doctrine to keep the masses in step.
The have two types of jesters. They start with the “mainstream” media which promotes the ruling class while attacking their political opponents with their propaganda. They often prevent actual news that may tarnish the ruling class from ever being heard. If Hillary Clinton were a Conservative Republican, she would be the most investigated person in history. But she’s not.
Then there are the Hollywood leftist who have idolized themselves to the masses. They pretend to have a wisdom about themselves because they have become very rich by say things other people have written for them to say. Both types of jesters are quick to demonize anyone who may have ideas different from their own.
We may be on the verge of another Dark Ages. This time it could be worse.

Global Warming?

Why are the same people who claimed back in the 1970s that the activity of man was causing global cooling are now scaring people with global warming?

Why do the people who say the North Pole ice is melting fail to tell us that the South Pole ice is growing?

Why do people give an Oscar and a Noble "Peace" Prize to someone who's movie has over nine significant errors and who once falsely claimed to have invented the Internet?

Why do the liberal elite think that it's o k for them to pollute because they can afford to buy "Carbon Credits" to ease their consciouses? If carbo credits are o k to off set polluting, does that mean it O K if I create 3 children, that it makes it o k for me to kill three people to off set the population?

Who came up with the scam of Carbon Credits and how can I get in on it?

Why doesn't ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the all the other so called news agencies pick up on the comments of John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and a Climate expert's comments that Global Warming is the biggest scam in history? Why do they give credibility to a "Chicken Little" politician than those who have made a life of studying the climate? Why do they fear doing their job by showing us other opinions? Why do we support their sponsors?

Why are the same people who want to sell us out of our sovereignty and sell us into a world government headed by the UN are the same people who want to force the global warming taxes and laws on us?

Why are so many so easily suckered in to this global warming fiction? Are they just sheep?

What is mudslinging?

I watched the Democratic debate from Nevada this week and I Mrs. Clinton accused a couple of her fellow condenters for the presidency of mudsling from the Republican playbook. Now I have studied some history and I have been interested in presidential campaigns. There was some real mud slinging. Candidates were often accused of horrible things, even rape and murder. One presidential candidate was even accused of being dead. I have always thought that those types of statements would be considered mudslinging.



But I never thought that telling the truth was mudslinging. If a candidate has taken both sides of an issue in one debate, let alone in front of different audiences, that there was the video to prove it, how could that be called mudslinging?



When I was a child, I heard this saying, "You can sure dish it out, but you can't take it." Mrs. Clinton's complaints of her rivals reminded me of that saying. She has no problem attacking them but can't deal with them attacking her. If she should become president will that be her approach to the enemies of the United States? Will she cry foul to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vladimir Putin and pout about it? I don't think they would care.



I have a lot of other problems with Mrs. Clinton like her lack of openness and honesty, her wanting to govern by focus groups like her husband did. But she better be able to take a verbal punch, especially if it is factual, because if she can't and she's elected, we are in big trouble.