Today I heard several people making jokes about the Premier of Ontario's latest tax grab (HST) since he has been in power and it reinforced the image of the ever subserviant Canadians who get in line and accept anything and everything the Liberal government does. No hue and cry from the special interest groups or the big unions, particularly the public service types who never fear tax increases because they know that they can still negotiate their wage and benefit increases with little or no resistance from the Liberal administrations of the day. Those that earn a decent wage in this Province have at least 50% taken from them in taxes and at least another 10% gobbled up in user fees (licences etc), obscene levies on (sin) products such as liquor and tobacco and the 40% paid at the pumps for fuel. Yet all we can do is moan and whine or make jokes about the tax and spend group now in charge. Where are the voices of common sense and reason who see the waste and mismanagement of our hard earned dollars? The so-called silent majority who still have values and believe we should be a free Country of individuals not a collection of special interest groups trying to get their slice of the pie without a thought to the rest of the citizenry. When these people kicked Bob Rae and his incompetent minions out of office in the 90's we all thought that Mike Harris would get the Province's finances in order again and he almost did before the Liberal media, the big Public Service Unions and other special interest groups finally bombarded the uninformed masses with lies and spin in order to get them back in line so they would elect the Liberal junket we now see at Queen's Park. Harris passed a law requiring the government tp balance the budget before politicians could vote themselves raises for example but McGuinty rescinded this law almost immediately. Harris tried to get the Health Care System reorganized in order to curb the ever rising cost and the ever diminishing services. The unions, associations (doctors etc) fought tooth and nail against any cuts his government tried to pass. Even though everyone agreed that something had to be done they just didn't want to be the ones who suffered the cuts. He transferred the education responsibility from the local municipalities onto the Provincial Government so he could try and curb the waste in this area and keep the taxes down but again he faced the large and powerful Teachers unions who vilified him daily in the media, and who by the way eagerly joined in the fun. Mike Harris was voted into office because of his "Common Sense" policies but once again common sense be damned if it ventures into my back yard. Maybe he tried to do too much who knows, but eventually the constant drumbeat of negativity made people crave peace so they sold their souls to get it. Since McGuinty has been in office this Province has seen the highest tax increases ever levied on its citizens and yet all we can do is quietly moan and joke about it. Our manufacturing base under the Liberals has eroded so much that Ontario is now a "have not" Province under the rules of Confederation. Once the engine that drove the Country, "can you believe it?" Mike Harris was a brave man who tried to do right by his Province but today he is painted as a troublemaker who made enemies of the bloodsuckers in our society. He tried to revamp welfare by eliminating fraud and introducing accountability to the taxpayers for the money they doled out to every Tom Dick and Harry that requested it. Well people, you got what you wanted "Peace". There are no big battles anymore because the Libs just cave into the big public sector unions and the special interests groups who will stimulate the news media to get their way. It now may cost you several thousands of dollars a year more but hey the teachers and other government employees are happy. The question is "How long before we can find another man of principle like Harris who is willing to withstand the visciousness and partisanship in order to save our Province?" If only I was younger.....................................

When you were a teenager I bet you heard from your parents this famous phrase, "While you are living in my house and I am taking care of you my rules must be followed." And rightly so because you are not an adult, have little to no experience, no money and no job to earn a living. And yet when you become an adult, begin attaining experience, have a job and can support yourself why do you want to turn over your freedom to a "mother" state? Before you pooh pooh this statement let's think about how you have done this over the past 100 years. Old Age Pension was the first major program sponsored by the Government in which they required you and your employer to pay into a fund which would provide you with some funds when you hit 65. Next came the Canada Pension Plan that also required you to pay into a fund to reap some benefits when you hit retirement age. I would suggest to you that if you took this same money and put it into a private plan you would be reaping much better benefits than the few hundred dollars a month that the government sends people. It is impossible for anyone to live on this paltry amount but you had no choice and as any insurance or investing scheme would do the government itself invested this money. Now because its government I can't tell you that they made a lot of interest on it but the point is that they made the rule and you had to abide by it. Next is the Health Care Plan that everyone raves about until they need it, particularly at an older age and they find out you are bound by many rules and really have little or no choices (loss of freedom). If you want to choose a doctor forget it, there is a massive shortage of doctors (government created) and you are lucky to find one (Almost 3 million people are without doctors). Because of socialized medicine many laws have also been incorporated purporting that it is for your own good. While it may be the case, you have still lost the choice for instance, to smoke inside everywhere except in your own house. This is because you may get cancer and the Social Health Care system will be burdened with the cost of caring for you. The law regarding seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are in place for the same reason. At one point in time you were free to smoke, drive without seatbelts and go helmetless on a Harley because it didn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. The smoking ban has gotten so ridiculous in Ontario that you can't even see the products on the store shelves because of government infringements on our rights. Remember I'm not arguing the merits of doing any of these things I am explaining that you have lost the freedom to do so even if you chose to. Because it is very costly to administer all of the many laws that are "for your own good" the government then needed money so they legalized theft. To do this they created taxes. Now look at this in a simple manner. If a man came into your house with a gun and took your money that would be theft. This is what the government does without the gun (they call it the tax code) but it is still theft. The freedom to keep the money you earned has been lost and if you try and retain any more than they say you will quickly be put in jail. The worst part of this "Nanny State" is that it creates more and more "adult kids" that need to be taken care of by the government. Sooner or later when a larger portion of the population become dependants rather than suppliers of tax revenue guess what will happen?

The key difference between Canada, Europe and the United States are the principles their respective nations follow in order to manage their society. Canada and Europe, while starting with “Individualism” in the 1800’s have evolved into a form of “Collectivism” over the past 200 years. The USA has remained steadfast in its belief in “Individualism” but with the latest left wing regime now in power it appears they are joining the rest of the world in the belief that the “group” is more important than the individual. Let’s look at the differences. If society embraces the individual, a person can enjoy the widest range of freedoms and decision making power over their own lives with very little interference from their government or anyone else for that matter. The government’s purpose is 1) to establish and maintain common sense laws that allow a society to function and 2) to protect its citizens from foreign invaders. In this type of environment every citizen has the right and freedom to pursue their goals in life and to capture every opportunity they choose. However, with this freedom comes responsibility and accountability for one’s own actions. It also leaves the onus on each citizen to provide for themselves and not to be dependent on their neighbour. A sense of morality borne in this type of society also creates the will for charity to help those not as fortunate.
Collectivism on the other hand chooses to see the group as the most important part of society and therefore restricts the decision making venue of the individual to minor issues of less importance while the government or head of the Collective makes the important decisions for everyone. The most relevant examples in today’s environment are the Unions and the recent Communist regime in Russia. In the Union philosophy the brotherhood (or Sisterhood if applicable) determines what wages and benefits everyone gets and no member can expect any more for their efforts whether they work harder or do less than their peers. The rules they live by are those directed by the union “bosses” who under the guise of democracy rule their minions with an iron fist. Anyone who has belonged to a union knows what I mean. The Collective thinking governments are worse because the elites actually make decisions that affect not only your working day but every aspect of life itself. They dictate what you can see, what you can eat, what you can read, what you can say and how you can protect and provide for your family. In Ontario for instance I will provide a small list of some of the things that either the Federal or Provincial government controls:
1) Soon you will not be able to purchase cola, soda pop or bottled water in public places.
2) You are not allowed to see tobacco products on the shelves of any store
3) You cannot purchase liquor or beer from anywhere but a government sanctioned outlet
4) You cannot hunt, fish or drive without paying a fee
5) You cannot get a second opinion on health matters unless you go out of the Country because the government makes it impractical to do so.
6) You cannot in Canada choose when or where you get critical medical treatment and yet if you go outside the Country the government will not cover the entire cost.
7) Because the government pushes political correctness all people in airports must be searched and detained regardless of age or nationality
8) Government censors screen movies, TV programs and books to remove any objectionable (to whom?) material.
9) The Human Rights collective doesn’t allow you to say certain things if they are deemed (by whom? to be hateful or discriminatory.
10) You are not allowed easy access to a weapon to protect yourself or your family even if your life could be in danger
I could go on but you get the point. All of these things are argued to be necessary for the greater good of the group so we must of course relinquish some personal freedoms. And of course there needs to be a bureaucracy set up to administer each and everyone one of these control mechanisms.Obviously then the government needs money so we are taxed on everything we earn,do or buy until we die. At this point you are still not clear because you must pay inheritance tax. I hate collectivism but it appears, in Canada at least, there are more people that want to be taken care of from cradle to grave and who are ready to give up their rights and freedoms to be wards of the State. Achtung!!!

Take a close look at what's happening in Europe and then tell me I'm wrong about Public Service Unions and the need to modify labour laws to limit their power or outlaw them altogether. Every European Country espoused the same type of "Social Welfare" state as Greece and each of them are in the same position although some are not yet bankrupt like Greece albeit not too far away. In each of these Countries the employees in the public sector earned better wages than those in the private sector as well as receiving benefits far and away above anything seen in the latter. So now the "all giving and all benevolent governments" of Europe are realizing they have to stop this foolishness and of course what happens?? There are riots in the streets with acts of violence that rival any other public outburst seen in the 20th century and why do you ask? Because these folks don't care if their Country is bankrupt they want their full retirement benefits at age 51 and their cradle to grave health and welfare benefits. They want their wages to remain in the top quartile of all citizens and every perk in their lucrative contracts to be honoured regardless of cost. Some say that its the bankers fault because of the sub prime rate fiasco but they fail to recognize that this didn't happen just over the past two years. Oh no, Greece has been in trouble for over two decades but decided to turn a blind eye to their ever increasing deficit. They continued to give the store away to the unions without the least concern about the burdensome debt that was crushing their economy. They just borrowed and borrowed until the numbers overwhelmed them and left them no choice. Now they want to sue the US over the bad securities that cost them a bundle but this is just another socialist tactic ie "blame someone else" and relinquish responsibility. Now take a look at Canada and the USA and see if you can spot any similarities. Both of the public sector workers in each country earn more per year on average than do those in the private sector. The strongest and richest pension plans are those in the public sector which of course are funded by the taxpayers who themselves do not have access to any of these golden plans. The deficits in each Country have increased but the USA's has skyrocketed into the stratoshpere as have most of their individual states. One of the anchors around each of their necks are the expensive costs of the public sector in each government. Canada is not as bad as the USA because of Paul Martin's attention to the deficit when he was Finance Minister (even as the economy was good) throughout the last half of the nineties and the 1st half of this current decade. Unfortunately I can see some of the individual states (California 1st) going the route of Greece and I suspect you will see the same reaction from the left wing as they march through the streets with a vengeance. If the US Federal government fails financially or gets someone on board that will legitimately cut costs rather than raise taxes then hold on to your hats as the Liberal fanatics will come out from under the rocks to raise chaos. Canada of course cannot sustain a reasonable economy without US trade and will more than likely follow suit. My point here is that once the going gets tough the folks that don't realize what fiscal responsibility means will be the ones on the street crying about their undeserved rich programs that have been footed by the taxpayer for far too long.

I joined CARP (Canadian Association of Retired Persons) two years ago for several reasons. First I could get discounts for many items being a member and second I could get information on items of interest for retired people. However, as with many things that start out heading in one direction they have now taken an abrupt turn in another. Mr. Znaimner the "CEO" announced that CARP was to become "ZIP" a new political party which was founded to further the fortunes of the "over 50 years" of age crowd. So instead of working to support the retired from the sidelines he now wants to jump right into the middle of the political arena and be a major player. Of course the motivation is not to work towards a better Country for all of us it is to further the interest of the CARP members only. Voila' a new "Special Interest Group"! Unfortunately this is not a good idea for CARP members. It is only a good idea for the likes of Moses and Susan Eng who thrive in the spotlight and orgasm in the pursuit of power. Consider Susan Eng's credentials, as described by Moses, "an agitator extrodinaire (or something like that"). Not a thinker, not an educator, not an expert on retired peoples issues or anything else for that matter,but no, an agitator. Great, that's all this country needs is another splinter political party to split votes and send us towards the multi party coalitions caused by minority governments that never get anything done due to the constant trade-offs and diluted policies forced onto them byspecial interest groups like the NDP, the Green Party etc. Sure maybe I should jump on board because anything the new party can get will no doubt be in my self interest but somehow I feel like I'd be joining the "me" generation and going against my basic principles of individualism. I believe that we all have enough benefits paid out of the public purse as it is so why should we as seniors feel like we should have the same or more than anyone else. Shouldn't we be leading the way in educating our children on the benefits of self sufficiency, not the inside mechanics of the political machinery with the objective of getting all that we can for US and the hell with everyone else. This type of thinking segragates our citizens into groups and blocs fighting over someone elses money. That's right lets not forget that the Government has no money until it takes it from someone else (ie the taxpayer). Susan Eng and Moses Znaimner are high profile political activists with a well established record on the left side of the political spectrum which, amongst other things, always wants to see a "big" government that is in control of its citizenry and keeps this control through entitlements. They believe the debate in government should be primarily to determine which groups get the most money.Their strategy is based on the theory that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Maybe this is how the game must be played these days but I hope somehow, sometime we, the people, will regain control of these power hungry politicians and left wing zealots that goose step their way through life.

One of my very good friends has a son in the Canadian Armed Forces who will be deployed to Afghanistan in the very near future. He and his wife have mixed feelings of course because while they are extremely proud of him they are as equally concerned about seeing him travel into “Harm’s Way”. He is a young man who chose to serve his Country while becoming prepared for adulthood and he views this next year as his job and the fulfilment of his commitment to the Armed Services. But this is not the subject I want to write about today. After talking to my friend over lunch I discovered some things that make me both angry and ashamed of my Government and its politicians for their lack of respect for our Military. Apparently my friend’s son and many others in the Canadian Military purchase much of their own equipment (with the military’s approval) to the tune of thousands of dollars in some cases. You see when these young men and women travel to the USA to receive some of their training they have to walk alongside US troops such as the US Marine core and in his words it’s like comparing a Lexus to a Cobalt. The US makes sure their fighting men and women are provided with the best equipment as they fight to protect their Country. The Canadians on the other hand have just reasonable equipment (prior to Harper it was atrocious). For instance, the boots that are issued to the infantry are middle of the road and do not provide enough protection and comfort so the soldiers purchase their own boots which cost in the neighbourhood of $250 a pair vs. the Govt issue which are estimated to cost around $50 a pair. "Like walking on pucks" was the phrase used to describe the standard issue. He talked about other pieces of equipment that were more in the line of battlefield gear to hold ammunition for quicker access that he had purchased privately after seeing what was available while with the US service people. I truly cannot understand why the left wing politicians can find it so important to implement every entitlement program that comes through the House of Commons while continuously cutting back the funding for our brave young men and women that are in combat. Also as a Country can ship millions and millions of dollars to places like Haiti and other third world nations for every reason under the sun while simultaneously cutting the military budget to get the funding to do so. Add that to the bail out of auto makers and their union minions while at the same time letting our troops go into battle without the best available in weaponry and clothing. As you know by now I deplore Liberalism for what is has done to our nation but this is the best example I can relate to explain why I feel the way I do. Every Liberal Government since the end of the” second World War” has cut Military spending through direct reductions in equipment and/or its quality as well as organizationally with things like the amalgamation of the Forces. Out troops are some of the best fighting soldiers in the world and should be outfitted as well as any Armed Forces including that of the USA. All I can say to the politicians is “Shame on all of you from the PM to the backbenchers for allowing this situation to continue. What I can say to my friend’s son is “Thank you and God bless you and protect you from peril”.

It is very evident that the Anglo-Saxon or Caucasion race of people is slowly dying out. In Countries where thi s race of people primarily reside the birthrate is 1.5 babies per female or lower. In order for the population to stay even it needs to be a minimum of 2.1 children born for every woman. The prediction is that both the Anglos in Canada and the European Countries will have ceded the majority to non Caucasion peoples by the middle of the century. The USA will take a little longer depending on the influx of both legal and illegal immigrants over the next ten years but nevertheless it will fall in line by the end of the century. There are many reasons for the decline in the Anglo American and European races but most if not all are directly related to "Social Engineering" and "Special Interest Groups". To start and review this phenomenum one must look at the beginning of the 20th century and the Industrial Revolution. From this point onward we saw a continuous expansion of wealth in the western world and regardless of the bumps and temporary slowdowns of financial depressions and recessions the standard of living improved continuously up to and including the current day. With the prosperity came freedoms not seen or heard of before and everyone wanted their fair share of the pie so groups such as the Suffragets, the ACLU, labor unions and many many more organized to fight for their particular cause. The suffragets for instance formed to seek rights for women which was a just and righteous cause but later became the Women's Liberation movement that demonized men while at the same time ridiculing women that wanted to be family caregivers and raise their children. They also fought successfully for a woman's right to abort a baby for any reason. Now whether you agree with this right or not you have to admit that losing potentially 40 million babies to abortion over the past 40 years has negatively affected the white population in the western world. Labor unions who were originally fighting for basic workers rights grew into large political organizations concerned more with power and wealth. They, along with other leftists have pushed for more entitlement and socialist type programs which are cover terms for the "redistribution of wealth". In order to support this philosophy everyone had to pay more and more taxes which drives up the cost of living for everyone. So in the 60's and 70's it became apparent that women no longer had a choice between staying home and raising a family because two incomes were required to 1) be able to enjoy all of the products coming available in the new age of technology and 2) to cover the high cost of taxation. Mix in some planned parenthood and voila' we have the reduction in childbirth by healthy families to 1 or 2 children because they just can't afford more. Sure there are other factors involved but none with more impact than those I have noted. The United States was the last beacon of hope but with Obama trashing the concept of self reliance and inividual rights and conforming America into a large "Collective" it appears they are heading along the designated path with the others. I worry for my grandchildren and their children because if I'm right we will have not left them as great a Country as our fathers left us.
Margaret Thatcher on Socilaism........There is nothing wrong with socialism until you run out of other people's money.

After watching this amazing woman since she came onto the political scene a couple of years ago I have developed some opinions of which I will now share. She is not an intellectual as defined by the political elite around the world. She verifies this fact everytime she tries to be like one of them and usually fails. Knowing all kinds of facts and figures of which most are insignificant, is not the talent that should define the President of the USA, or for that matter any strong leader. The main stream media are going to try and crucify her ( and have done so) regardless of what gaffes she makes or doesn't make. Her strength is in her passion for Conservative values and the belief in the USA Constitution and everything it stands for in the lives of every American citizen. Because of these things she is a magnet for the "everyday" American who thinks as she does about a small Government with less intrusion into their lives. People can understand her positions because they are straight forward and simplistic without any political spin or beltway jargon and this makes her a dangerous foe of the elitists in Washington. Ronald Reagan faced this same sort of animosity from the left when he ran for the top office as they painted him out to be some "dumb" actor stumbling outside of his comfort zone. He faced these attacks with several skills that Palin must attain if she is going to be succesful. First she must recognize the fact that this will happen and understand that being humble and not taking yourself too seriously strengthens your profile with the folks that count, not the other way around. Concentrate more on how to communicate what you believe rather than what you know. This doesn't mean you don't have to be intelligent it just means that people will never know who you are unless you can clearly define yourself through words. Last and probably the most difficult is to possess a quick wit and an ability to think quickly on your feet, as they say. This comes with practice, experience and an ability to be comfortable with who you are. If you feel inferior to your opponent this will become apparent to everyone in short time and this is not the place to be when running for office. If she can garner these three skills and retain her core beliefs she will become a force to be reckoned with over the next 3 years and possibly a candidate for the "Comander in Chief's" job in 2012. Somewhere between now and the next 12 months she will have to decide because the process is long and arduous and will require a lot of energy and fortitude to make it to the finish line. Among the talents that make good candidates in this techo-age is the ability to look good and she does have this one sewn up. Personally I hope she gets her ducks in a row and makes a run for the top. I'd love to see her set a few of these Liberal elitists on their rear end.

Before I get into a lot of trouble let me say that I know many many teachers and some are very good friends so please don't take my following comments personally. Let me start by stating a few facts; first, teachers in the public sector are members of a union. I realize they don't have a choice but never the less they have to live and act according to a collective mentality. Second teachers work 10 months out of 12 every year. Third they are government employees who work for the people that pay the taxes that pay their salary. I want you to remember these facts as I point out some things that I believe are negatively affecting the education of our children. First of all anytime the teachers union want more benefits, higher wages and less work they hold our children's education as ransom (strike) in order to secure these things. The union makes it almost impossible to remove ineffective teachers from the job because their focus is on their members not on the kids. The union dictates that teacher evaluations are unfair and therefore will fight to the death to keep the taxpayers from finding out if the people who teach their children are qualified to do so. This honoured profession has become another collective union group and they operate no differently than the auto employees union, the truckers union or any other brotherhood of employees. Their purpose in life has nothing to do with improving children's education and all to do with extractiing more and more from their employers (taxpayers). Large unions are a part of the socialist system of government and in the private sector there is a balance between the reasonable sharing of thebusiness's success in good times and taking less in hard times. In fact when they press to hard they sometimes become a major reason why businesses fail vis a vis GM, Chrysler etc. But what balance do the teachers unions face? In fact what balance do any public sector unions face when the press their demands regardless of the current economic situation. There are none and added to that they are bargaining with people that have nothing to lose...(politicians). So on one side you have unions that can use your children as a ransom to achieve their goals and on the other side you have politicians that put up a good front but the reality is, they won't lose anything if they cave in to the union's demands. Who always loses is the taxpayer and their children. Seems a little unfair to me that these two groups, who are immune from any negative impact have the ability to continously gouge the ordinary citizens by dipping into the that deep black hole that is known as government funding (tax revenue). Realistically the unions aren't going away but at least the government should take away the right to strike and this would even the playing field a little. The private sector creates the wealth in any Country but today who in the hell wants to work in the private sector with all of the uncertainty and the fact that the public sector earns 20% more in wages on average. Diminishing private sector , growing public sector.....you tell me is this sustainable? I think not. Unfortunately no politician wants to take them on because the big unions, the Liberal Media and the socialist members in the government will attack them mercilessly. What is really sad, is that they attack people on a personal level rather than arguing the issues. This the favorite tactic of anyone on the left when they can't argue with logic and common sense they go for the throat and demonize the person who is debating them. Anyway I got that off my chest so its off to the scotch and soda.

In simple terms Capitalism is about individualism whereby most other systems are about groups, collectives, large government control etc. It is about allowing people to attain success in an environment that provides the opportunity for everyone to make their own choices on how they want to live their lives. Some government intervention is necessary within Capitalism to perform tasks that facilitate the ability of people to live and co-habit in a society. The enforcement of"common sense" rules and laws, the protection of the state, and the care of those in society that truly (mentally or physically) can't look after themselves. Beyond that it is up to the individual to forge his/her future. Entrepeneurs can start businesses and these can grow into Corporations that bring wealth to everyone. It is not only the owners that gain but it is every person that works in the organization and usually thousands that just interact with the business. The degree of wealth is determined by many things, ingenuity, risk taking, intelligence, and hard work. Where a person ends up on this scale is determined any one or all of these things. For instance ask yourself why the CEO of General Motors is in his position and you are in yours. Somewhere during your life you made choices and these most certainly effected your outcome. Perhaps you decided to drop out of school and go work in a factory which is fine if it is the choice you made. But to denegrate the CEO because he makes two million a year and you make $50,000 is wrong. He stayed in school went to college and earned a MBA and then worked his way up in management to achieve his status. That doesn't mean he is more intelligent than you it just means he chose education and a different path for his career. Maybe you are part of a union which is a collective and you have turned over your individual decision making to this body. How much you make and how much leeway you have is now predicated on what a group decides for you.I'll get back to this but for now lets jump back in history and look at the USA who embraced Capitalism in its purest sense decades ago. They have grown into the richest Nation in the world and with that comes the highest standard of living in the world. If you compare poverty in the USA to poverty in any third world Country the differences are striking. If you are under the poverty line according to the USA standard, you will still have a car, a roof over your head, emergency medical care, a TV, food for your table etc etc. Furthermore I would venture a guess that those in this category made their own choices to get there and are probably continuing to make them today. The folks in third world poverty do not even have food and water much less anything else so this reflects the plight of the poor in a non- Capitalistic Society. The point is that punishing Corporations or entrepeneurs because they are successful does nothing but hurt everyone in the food chain. Also everytime the Government takes over some part of the free market economy it negatively affects the Capitalist model which in turn has a negative domino effect on the economic system. In Europe and Canada these Countries chose to stray from the Capitalist model and move towards socialism, which they could, because they were thriving through trade with the USA and its burgeoning market. Essentially people signed up for a type of "union" which requires you to pay dues (taxes) and decisions are made for you. Now the USA is being pounded by debt and a large Government monster that is growing by the minute under the left wing ideology and these other Countries have to sit by and wring their hands because they do not have a true Capitalist system as a base from which they can rebuild their own economies. They have to rely on the USA and I believe in the end the American people will choose to remain within the Capitalist system. If not hold on.