Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I’ve been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary’s job – and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor’s salary – is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are “suckers” as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let’s leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor – IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here – they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read “Democrat”] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

Advertisements

Because Child Molesters Love Socialism, Too: Can Anyone Sink So Low That Liberals Would Refuse Them Socialism Funded By Other People’s Money?

March 4, 2013

I found this as laughable as I found it illustrative:

Re “L.A. adds parks to oust sex offenders,” March 1
I am not a sex offender and to my knowledge don’t know any sex offenders. I certainly don’t condone the illegal actions they committed. And under other circumstances, I would think creating more parks is good.

But when I read The Times’ article about L.A. creating a park in order to force sex offenders from their apartments, I was horrified. Sex offenders need homes like everyone else. These people are human beings and need more support from the city, not less. I’m sure most are trying to put their lives back together and to fight their own urges.

If the city wants to help society, it should assist former sex offenders to have decent housing, provide them with social services and help them get jobs, rather than force them onto the streets.

Rebecca Rona Culver City

The Los Angeles Times print version had the title (written by the newspaper) the headline “They’re people, too.”  Which is of course a highly debatable assertion as far as most “people” are concerned – excluding liberals, of course.  It turns out that government liberalism is FAR more compassionate than God – as long as other people’s money is used to pay for their generosity.  God holds people accountable for their actions; God judges SIN.  Liberalism, by contrast, is only capable of wanting to expand bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger to beget more liberalism (and thus more wickedness).

Is there anything some low-life, cockroach, pile-of-slime, morally-diseased predator of innocence can do to be denied free “decent housing,” free “social services” and free government-created “jobs”?  No.  There is not.

Jesus, out of His compassion healed the lepers and forgave the sinners; but that aint NOTHIN’ compared to Obama’s supernatural compassion: he gave the child molesting scum a check paid for by “taxpayers” with only about half of his largesse coming from money we’re borrowing from China but of course promise our children and grandchildren will pay back with plenty of interest.

Because Obama loves those child molesters so much, so big and so loving is his heart, that he will give them the inheritance of our future generations.  Who – if they could vote today – would surely all choose to be aborted, according to liberal theology.

And because liberalism is all about growing the size of government which grows just as well when it’s doling out handouts to a degenerate pervert as it can when it’s doling them out to somebody who isn’t a piece of slime.  Bureaucracies are needed which are as eternal as the God of Heaven.  And the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against these bureaucracies.

The story being alluded to above – “Los Angeles adding parks to force out sex offenders living nearby” is funny because the uberliberal city of Los Angeles that so warmly invited all these pedophiles to come share their bread are now using the contrived government “service” of city parks to drive them out of the houses they gave them in the first place .  It wasn’t like these perverts went flocking to Texas, you know.  It’s also funny because apparently there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, after all.  Which is exactly what religious conservatives have been arguing all along.

It’s kind of laugable in its own way that the liberals who run Los Angeles are now trying to force pedophiles out of their homes so they’ll go somewhere else; given the fact that child molesters are now ditching their GPS devices and slipping out of law enforcement’s ability to track with alarming regularity.  How many of these child molesting turds are going to be leaving their GPS bracelets behild when they’re forced out of their residences???

Liberalism is the constant governing by crisis: they create one crisis (incredibly lax treatment toward pedophiles) and then exploit the failure of their own policy to enact yet another immoral policy.  And then exploit that one to enact ANOTHER immoral policy, and so on ad infinitum.

There are idiot liberals who actually have to pay for their morally idiotic bullcrap out of actual budgets and there are the rest of the liberals who think that money can never be considered an object when a pervert is asking for a handout.  And the liberal with the budget who doesn’t have Obama’s Federal Reserve Money-Fabricating Machine has to choose reality no matter how repulsive reality is to him.

Another thing that’s funny is that the article occurred on the front page of the March 1, 2013 Los Angeles Times an article on the White House involving itself in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of sodomy.

If I were an attorney for a child molester – another liberal profession whose status as “people” is highly debatable – here’s what I would do: I would argue that the City of Los Angeles is discriminating against my sexual orientation.  After all, if nobody would choose to be gay, just how many people do you think would choose to be child molesters?  Pedophilia isn’t a “choice” any more than homosexuality is a “choice”; these poor victims were born this way, every bit as much as those beloved homosexuals were.  And it is moralistic and anachronistic to judge “people” for their sexual preferences.

Liberalism cannot withstand the light of individual personal responsibility any more than vampires cannot withstand the light of God’s sun.  They simply must dispense with it all together.

That, for the record, was the original homosexual position.  Oh, yes: NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – was a vibrant part of the Rainbow Coalition and even briefly enjoyed United Nations representation.

Pedophiles were just born “queer” in a slightly different way, is all.

And of course while homosexual marriage has NEVER been practiced by ANY nation until this last, most wicked generation, pederasty – a.k.a. pedophilia – sure has.

For the factual record, given that the Catholic Church was scandalized and demonized by the liberal mainstream media for “pedophile priest”, and given that in 81% of the cases, those acts of “pedophilia” involved post-puberescant, sexually-developed teenagers rather than tiny little toddlers, I am further warranted to connect homosexuality and pedophilia together just as the left connected it together to attack the Catholic Church.

We are a nation in decline amidst a culture that has already spilled right out into a toxic sewer.  And Obama is demanding more and more tax hikes to fund more and more of his perversion.

And thanks to liberals, we’re going to be forced to keep paying for it until our complete economic collapse.  And then a desperate, hungry people who have already proven how wicked they are will demand that government save them from the disaster that government created.  And therefore they will choose more socialism to save them from the disaster of socialism.

Openly Socialist Hollande And Obama Share SAME Major Policies – So Obama Isn’t A Socialist WHY, Exactly???

May 8, 2012

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

I have frequently on this very blog demanded liberals to explain in detail just how exactly Barack Obama isn’t for the same thing (i.e., the major economic element of communism).  But let’s start with the French and get to Obama later.

Planet France is a place where fools have pretty much run things ever since 1789.  Two words that define France today are “socialism” and “surrender.”

Who did Planet France just elect?  And just what is this particular cheese-eating socialist surrender-monkey saying he’s going to do?

Hollande defeats Sarkozy in French presidency vote
Updated 04:05 p.m., Sunday, May 6, 2012

PARIS (AP) — Socialist Francois Hollande defeated conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy on Sunday to become France’s next president, heralding a change in how Europe tackles its debt crisis and how France flexes its military and diplomatic muscle around the world.

Exuberant, diverse crowds filled the Place de la Bastille, the iconic plaza of the French Revolution, to fete Hollande’s victory, waving French, European and labor union flags and climbing the column that rises at its center. Leftists are overjoyed to have one of their own in power for the first time since Socialist Francois Mitterrand was president from 1981 to 1995.

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!” Hollande declared in his victory speech Sunday night after a surprising campaign that saw him transform from an unremarkable, mild figure to an increasingly statesmanlike one.

Sarkozy is the latest victim of a wave of voter anger at government spending cuts around Europe that have tossed out governments and leaders over the past couple of years.

In Greece, a parliamentary vote Sunday is seen as critical to the country’s prospects for pulling out of a deep financial crisis felt in world markets. A state election in Germany and local elections in Italy were seen as tests of support for the national government’s policies.

Hollande promised help for France’s downtrodden after years under the Sarkozy, a man many voters saw as too friendly with the rich and blamed for economic troubles.

Hollande said European partners should be relieved and not frightened by his presidency.

“I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again,” Hollande told huge crowds of supporters in his electoral fiefdom of Tulle in central France. “We will succeed!”

Hollande inherits an economy that’s a driver of the European Union but is deep in debt. He wants more government stimulus, and more government spending in general, despite concerns in the markets that France needs to urgently trim its huge debt.

Sarkozy conceded defeat minutes after the polls closed, saying he had called Hollande to wish him “good luck” as the country’s new leader.

Sarkozy, widely disliked for budget cuts and his handling of the economy during recent crises, said he did his best to win a second term, despite widespread anger at his handling of the economy.

“I bear responsibility … for the defeat,” he said. “I committed myself totally, fully, but I didn’t succeed in convincing a majority of French. … I didn’t succeed in making the values we share win.”

With 75 percent of the vote counted, official results showed Hollande with 51.1 percent of the vote compared with Sarkozy’s 48.9 percent, the Interior Ministry said. The CSA, TNS-Sofres and Ipsos polling agencies all predicted a Hollande win as well.

Hollande has virtually no foreign policy experience but he will face his first tests right after his inauguration, which must happen no later than May 16.

Among his first trips will be to the United States later this month for summits of NATO — where he will announce he is pulling French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year — and the Group of Eight leading world economies.

Hollande’s first challenge will be dealing with Germany: He wants to re-negotiate a hard-won European treaty on budget cuts that Germany’s Angela Merkel and Sarkozy had championed. He promises to make his first foreign trip to Berlin to work on a relationship that has been at the heart of Europe’s postwar unity.

Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, congratulated Hollande on Sunday night and said both countries will keep on cooperating closely in driving the European Union’s policies and be “a stabilizing factor and a motor for the European Union.”

At home, Hollande intends to modify one of Sarkozy’s key reforms, over the retirement age, to allow some people to retire at 60 instead of 62. He also plans to increase spending in a range of sectors and wants to ease France off its dependence on nuclear energy. He favors legalizing euthanasia and gay marriage.

Sarkozy supporters call those proposals misguided.

“We’re going to call France the new Greece,” said Laetitia Barone, 19. “Hollande is now very dangerous.”

Sarkozy had said he would quit politics if he lost, but was vague about his plans Sunday night.

“You can count on me to defend these ideas, convictions,” he said, “but my place cannot be the same.”

His political allies turned their attention to parliamentary elections next month.

People of all ages and different ethnicities celebrated Hollande’s victory at the Bastille. Ghylaine Lambrecht, 60, who celebrated the 1981 victory of Mitterrand at the Bastille, was among them.

“I’m so happy. We had to put up with Sarko for 10 years,” she said referring to Sarkozy’s time as interior and finance minister and five years as president. “In the last few years the rich have been getting richer. Now long live France, an open democratic France.”

“It’s magic!” said Violaine Chenais, 19. “I think Francois Hollande is not perfect, but it’s clear France thinks its time to give the left a chance. This means real hope for France. We’re going to celebrate with drink and hopefully some dancing.”

Planet France is a place where liberalism lives forever.  Planet France is a place where foolishness is wisdom, where night is day and where evil is good.

The markets already plunged on the fear that Hollande could win; now he’s won.  And the finance markets aren’t happy with “we will spend other people’s money until there is no more of other people’s money left to spend” policies:

Euro falls to three and a half year low amid market jitters at French and Greek elections
The Euro hit a three and a half year low against the pound as financial markets reacted to the election of Francois Hollande as France’s first Socialist president for 17 years and the new threat to a eurozone break-up posed by the post-election turmoil in Greece.
By Roland Gribben, Henry Samuel and Bruno Waterfield
11:24AM BST 07 May 2012

The Paris stock exchange CAC 40 index dropped 1.52pc in early trading with investors nervous about the growing pressure for a eurozone economic policy switch from austerity to growth, reflected in the French and Greek election results and President Hollande’s priorities.
 
The euro fell heavily across the board on Monday. Traders said the euro’s losses, which saw it hit a three-month low against the dollar, its lowest in 3 and a half years against the British pound and a 2 and half month trough versus the yen, were likely to be extended in coming days.
 
Stocks in Italy fell 2.2pc, the main Madrid index slipped 1.76pc while a 2.02pc drop in the DAX index of leading German shares was blamed on a local election setback for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
 
Political stalemate in Greece after the failure of any party to gain a majority saw shares on the Athens market slump 7.6pc.
 
The strength of the opposition to the Greek bail-out programme has raised fresh questions about continued eurozone membership.

Alexis Tsipras leader of the Syriza party, a coalition of the radical left which emerged as the second biggest after winning 16pc of the Greek vote, immediately drew the battle lines declaring: “The people of Europe can no longer be reconciled with the bailouts of barbarism.”
 
The euro fell its lowest level for almost four months to $1.2954 before showing signs of a rally to $1.301 while the interest rate on France’s benchmark ten year bonds rose.
 
Traders said there was no panic but the rising yield is increasing concerns about a run on French debt and a threat to the French deficit reduction programme. A widening in the spread between French and German bonds was seen as a ‘flight to safety.’
 
Germany’s 10-year yield fell to as low as 1.552pc, the second record in consecutive trading days.
 
Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s said President Hollande’s victory would have no immediate effect on its French rating.
 
The agency infuriated former President Sarkozy when it stripped France of its top triple-A rating in January.
 
A number of analysts felt markets had already taken account of a Hollande victory while others argued that a combination of the French and Greek results would increase pressure on eurozone debt.
 
World stock markets hit as France votes for first Socialist president in 20 years and Greece chooses a parliament with a majority of MPs from anti-bailout parties.

Some say that the market has already taken a Hollande win – i.e. a win for socialism, a win for liberalism, into account.  These are pretty much saying that Hollande will govern far more pragmatically than his liberal rhetoric suggests.  They’re saying that the world financial markets will prevent true socialism from emerging in France, and that Hollande will have to face reality given that he’s simply boxed-in by simple reality.   But even those people are saying, “We are quite pessimistic about the euro area in the short-term. We think that the GDP contraction will amplify in the second quarter. So, things will get worse in the coming weeks.”

I think that’s hogwash.  I think that Hollande will now believe he’s got a mandate to export his brand of socialist-liberal belief in unicorns and fairy dust to Germany and to the world financial markets.  His win was by about the same margin that Obama won by, interestingly, and both Obama and Democrats sure as hell thought THEY had a mandate which they foolishly exploited until the voters gave them a historic ass-kicking in 2010.  I also think that Hollande’s “Our way out of our massive debt is for our government to pretend we’re not in debt and quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” mantra is the way to ruin.  And that ruin will surely ensue.  And, lastly, I think that the Eurozone’s complete and utter collapse is all but guaranteed now.

I said “quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” in honor of our own socialist fool: Barack Hussein Obama.  Because Obama has spent FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS BUSH DID:

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!”

Our socialist fools in the Democrat Party in America are as determined to ignore reality as the sociliast fools on Planet France.

Compare and contrast openly socialist Hollande’s major policies to Obama’s: both want huge government stimulus programs; both oppose any constraints on government spending; both demand that we tax the rich; and both want a special tax on banks.  That’s because Barack Obama is a damn SOCIALIST!!!

The French election previews the U.S. November election contest between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney in the following four ways:

1). Both Obama and Hollande offer almost identical leftist platforms (details on this below).

2) The bland challengers (Hollande and Romney) ignite electoral passions less than their more colorful opponents (playboy Sarkozy with his celebrity wife and Obama, the first black president).

3) The sorry state of the economy gives both challengers a hefty leg-up.

4) The French and American elections are foreshadowed by electoral disasters for the incumbent party in off-year races in 2010 and 2011. In both, the incumbent party lost long-held majorities in one house of Congress or parliament.

Read more…

And it’s no surprise that America under Obama is looking more and more like Europe and having the same long-term problems that Europe has had:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s euro-style unemployment
Welfare-state mentality fosters permanent joblessness
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, June 14, 2011

It’s no secret that President Obama wants America to look more like Europe. He desires expanded powers for labor unions, higher gas prices for commuters and a diminished role on the world stage. So far, he’s been effective in fostering the conditions for European-style unemployment on these shores. […]

As we speak the unemployment rate just went down.  Why?  Because 115,000 jobs were created – nowhere near enough to even keep pace with population growth, mind you – and 342,000 gave up trying to find a job in complete despair.  We live in our own version of planet France when nobody could have a job and our president could boast of a 0% unemployment rate.

George Will pointed out a couple of facts as to just how terrible Obama is managing our economy this week on ABC’s “This Week”:

JAKE TAPPER: George, the president kicked off his campaign yesterday. Thoughts?

WILL: He kicked it off a day after we saw the emblematic achievement of the Obama administration, which is to make a decline in the unemployment rate bad news. It ticked down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent because 342,000 of Americans succumbed to discouragement with the Obama economy and left the economy.
 
Male participation rate in the economy today is lower than it has been at any time since we began keeping this statistic in 1948. Indeed, if the workforce participation rate were the same today as it was when Mr. Obama was inaugurated, the real unemployment rate would be measured at about 11 percent. That’s no record to run on.

Barry Hussein has been a jobs holocaust.

Bay Buchannon later made a statement about the planet France-like FOOLS who were instrumental to Obama’s 2008 victory: college students.

People who are graduating from college, 53 percent, do not get jobs when they graduate. We are going to lose that whole generation because, you know, when the jobs do come back, they’re going to hire college graduates just coming out.

Those idiot socialist fools deserve to suffer; it’s too dang bad the rest of the nation has to suffer along with them because of their vote for Obama four years ago.

I point out how simply godawful Obama has been for America.  Two years ago, due to Obama’s wildly failed policies, the labor participation rate measuring how many working-age Americans are actually WORKING was at a 25-year low.  Last year that participation rate had decreased to a 27-year low.  This year it decreased to a 31-year low.  Millions and millions of jobs have simply been vaporized under Obama and there is no sign that they will be coming back.

If you vote for Obama’s version of planet France, I can guarantee you that that rate measuring how many working-age Americans have any chance whatsoever of getting a job will continue to plunge.

P.S. The funniest damn thing of all is what I read after I got through writing this article but before I published it: that Obama is advising Hollande NOT to raise taxes and increase spending for the sake of the European economyWHILE OBAMA HIMSELF IS CAMPAIGNING ON DOING THE VERY THINGS HE’S TELLING HIS FELLOW SOCIALIST NOT TO DO.

As We Stare Into The Abyss Of A Great Depression, Let Me Ask You: WHO WAS RIGHT?

August 9, 2011

This is actually the concluding paragraphs of an article I wrote yesterday, but I thought the question merited its own title:

Let me ask you something. I’ve said repeatedly that Barack Obama – the president of God damn America and the symbol of God’s wrath on this nation until this disgrace leaves office IN disgrace – would lead us into a Great Depression with his reckless and depraved spending. Meanwhile, Obama, the Democrat Party and the left said that Obama would lead us unto a glorious recovery.

I’ve been pointing out since December 2008 right after Obama was elected that we would be staring into the abyss of a Great Depression due to this evil man’s failed policies. I pointed out in that article that the Great Depression began with a market tank, followed by a series of failed liberal-progressive policies that were like sugar for a diabetic; at first things seemed to get better, and then we had the real crash. You look at what I wrote in that article and tell me that we aren’t right on schedule.

We have the worst economy since the LAST time a failed socialist ran it into the ground in the 1930s. Surprise, surprise.

Let me point out that as early as October of 2008 I was pointing out the FACTS that CEOs “went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” Let me point out that I pointed out that same fact again in February 2009 after Obama’s foolish and wicked policies started taking shape.

Who was right? And who has been totally full of CRAP from the getgo?

Conservatives have been right again and again and again and Democrats have continued to demonize us even as their own failed policies have kept failing just like we said they would.

Why didn’t Obama’s stimulus plan work?  Because the government sucking money out of the productive marketplace and squandering it has NEVER worked.  And so surprise surprise, a little over a year after Obama’s destined-to-fail Keynesian spending binge was implemented, economists acknowledged that it had failedJUST LIKE WE CONSERVATIVES SAID IT WOULD TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LISTEN TO REASON.  And about that same time investors were starting to scream that Obama was pathologically anti-business.  But liberals said “We don’t need no stinkin’ business.” 

History repeats itself when fools don’t pay attention to it.  And America in 2008 was a nation of fools.  We elected a man who represented the policies that created and sustained the Great Depression.

And as I’ve been warning over and over, we’re going to pay dearly for it.

Don’t get me wrong here. We’re going to have a sucker’s rally at some point. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF STUPID PEOPLE.

Democrats ran both the House and Senate since the November 2006 elections when unemployment was 4.6% as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Democrats took over Congress.  Most Americans have no idea whatsoever that the LAST budget that Republicans passed (and I note that it has been 833 DAYS since Democrats have bothered to pass a budget) had a deficit of only $161 billion dollars.  Democrats have since utterly skyrocketed our reckless deficit spending into the trillions of dollars.  And all the while they have done nothing but blame and demonize Republicans.

I made a point in an article I wrote recently:

Now, let’s just say for the sake of argument that you were watching the Democratic National Convention in August of 2008 and came to the belief that the mainstream media coverage was so blatantly biased and dishonest that Barack Obama was going to win the election. And you had a vision of the sheer smackdown that would happen in this “God damn America.”

So you made an appointment with your portfolio manager and told her you wanted to cash out all of your stock holdings so you could put your investment nest egg into silver and gold.

What do you expect your portfolio manager would say? Do the words, “This is a big mistake. Trust me, the stock market is not going to collapse. The average gains of the stock market invariably outperform gold indices. Blah blah blah.” The bottom line is that if you pull your money out of the fund she manages, she’s not going to get any more of your money.

Well, the fool who did that would have bought all kinds of silver at about $13 an ounce and gold at about $825 an ounce. And that fool would have more than doubled his money while everybody else lost their shirt, then got part of their shirt back if they played the game right, then lost their shirt again.

I describe that individual who bought silver and gold because he truly believed Obama would be a total disaster who would create a second Great Depression and put America into food riot conditions (and see I was saying that after the Obama victory in November 2008).

And so “the fool” bailed out of the economy of the most evil man who has ever led this country and bought the only thing that made any sense to buy if he was right.

And who was right?

“The fool” who bet against Obama bought gold at $825 an ounce and that same gold is worth over $1,700 an ounce as of COB Monday.  That fool bought silver at about $13 an ounce and that same silver is worth nearly $40 an ounce Monday.  Then that fool went to bed and woke up this morning and saw that gold was saying good morning to him at $1,770 an ounce.  And silver was down slightly from the previous day so he’d only tripled his money from the day he bought the stuff by the pound.

Who was right?  The fool who bet Obama was a fool or the downgraded president who has now been factually proven wrong a ten thousand times times ten thousand times???

[Update, 8/9/11]: The above was written on August 8 and pulished early this morning; what follows is written in the hindsight of the market rebound today.

Well, I knew we’d get a sucker’s rally, and we sure got a sucker’s rally today.  After plunging to its sixth worse loss ever, the Dow rallied to its eleventh greatest gain ever.  I didn’t think we would see such a rally so quickly and I certainly didn’t think the Fed would throw this kind of a hail Mary pass by announcing that already rock-bottom interest rates would remain the same for two years.

Obama and his teleprompter showed up yesterday and neither one of them had any plan or any clue as to what to do. Fortunately, I suppose, Ben Bernanke DID have a plan. It’s not QE3, but it’s kind of like a QE3; basically, by enabling the banks to borrow money at near zero percent interest, banks (which were absolutely CLOBBERED in yesterday’s bloodbath) can make a ton of money by loaning that same money at a higher interest rate.

This was virtually the only trick the Fed had left.

The risk of this dramatic and basically UNHEARD of two-year freeze on rock-bottom interest rates is summed up in a very short paragraph expressing the concerns of the three Federal Reserve heads who voted against Bernanke’s aggressive move:

“Fisher and Plosser have warned repeatedly that the Fed risks stoking inflation or another asset bubble by keeping money too easy for too long.”

This seems to be the right point to state that we haven’t had dissent at the Fed since November 1992.

So why do the three Fed heads disagree with this policy?  Basically,  they understand that the artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve are a rigged game.  The co-owned Federal Reserve, banks, and Wall Street firms benefit from the policy, while people who are trying to save money lose out because the artificial interest rates simply do not honestly reflect the weakening dollar and the rising prices we are clearly seeing all around us.  It amounts to a tax on savers and a subsidy for spenders.  Here’s an article on that gimmick by a writer pleading with Bernanke to allow interest rates to reach their market equilibrium well before his ploy today.

And artificially low interest rates also clearly increases the risk of an asset bubble (e.g., that’s what blew up our economy in 2008 with said “asset” being real estate) because it incentivizes people to increase their debt load far beyond what they can afford.

Ultimately, what Ben Bernanke did was kick the can down the road.  Because in two years (hint: AFTER Obama is up for re:election) we’re going to HAVE to see a spike in interest rates that will absolutely slaughter both the bond markets AND the stock markets.  We always selfishly think that whatever crisis we have now justifies setting up an even worse crisis later, just as we always foolishly believe that in a couple of years we will have developed the will to embrace tough choices that we clearly don’t have the will to face now.

A year ago now I pointed out that:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs. And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation. Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate. Why? Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued. There’s simply no way it can’t be. If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire. The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems. If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency. And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins. Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

What I am essentially saying is that the government’s constant monkeying around has created a dilemma: as long as we remain in recession conditions, things will continue to suck as we slowly grind along.  But if we actually start to experience a real recovery, we’re going to very quickly get a crippling punch in the gut as the interest rates we’ve been holding down for FAR TOO LONG begin to rise in an out-of-control manner.  I’m not talking about “politics” or “economics” when I say this: it is simply the grim reality of physical math on a balance sheet.

The Bernanke move will ultimately hurt us badly.  Just not today.

Meanwhile, nothing else has changed.  The horrible fundamentals of our economy and the greater world economy are still just as horrible today as they were yesterday.  Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is still spiralling out of control. with France and England joining Italy and Spain as being both broke and “too big too bail”; and nothing whatsoever about our ravaged and dysfunctional economy has changed in any way, shape or form from the moment that the market began to take off after the Fed announcement.

In explaining its move today, the Fed wrote:

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that economic growth so far this year has been considerably slower than the Committee had expected. Indicators suggest a deterioration in overall labor market conditions in recent months, and the unemployment rate has moved up. Household spending has flattened out, investment in nonresidential structures is still weak, and the housing sector remains depressed. […]

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee now expects a somewhat slower pace of recovery over coming quarters than it did at the time of the previous meeting and anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Moreover, downside risks to the economic outlook have increased. […]

Which is to say that 1) Growth has been “considerably slower” than expected; 2) Labor market conditions have deteriorated substantially; and 3) Household spending has “flattened” (actually it has tanked); and 4) The housing sector remains depressed (and is literally more depressed than the Great Depression).

Anybody who believes that today’s Fed action or the stock market’s immediate reaction to it is simply a fool. The very reason the Fed even resorted to this dramatic and risky move was because things truly suck, and are expected to remain terrible until at least 2013.

The Fed, essentially in desperation, is now going to attempt to force bond yields to remain low while trying to keep stock prices high – which they define as “price stability.”  This entire process will in fact virtually REQUIRE the Fed to do a QE3 (which they did not feel they could do now because it was far too early after just-ended QE2), according to analysts from CNBC.  And the Fed is simply not worried about inflation at this point because they think they have bigger fish to fry.

When they get to the QE4 point – which QE3 itself will guarantee just as the ending of QE2 itself guaranteed QE3 – they will simply forgive their own debt and the system will run amok until it completely crashes due to hyperinflation.

I know I make all this sound so cut and dry that, if I’m right, any fool ought to be able to see what I’m describing and avoid the pitfall I predict.  And so it is easy to conclude that I simply can’t be right. 

I don’t doubt that the thinkers at the government and the Fed and Wall Street who are making these ruinous decisions are well familiar with the history of hyperinflation (e.g. the Weimar Republic or Africa); and they know the dangers of their policies.

But there’s another attribute these decision-makers have in addition to their pathological refusal to accept responsibility when they can kick the can down the road and make the future pay for their actions now instead; and that attribute is hubris.  Which is to say they reason, “Yes, that problem always happened before when a government did what we’re doing now, but we’re smarter.  And we have computers.  And so what happened to everyone else who did what we’re doing now won’t happen to us.”

And the thing about computers that has always been true is garbage in, garbage out.  The economic models these thinkers are plugging into their computers are filled with preconceptions that are in fact basically the same preconceptions that failed so wildly in the Weimar Republic.  And it doesn’t matter how many digits to the right of the decimal point your computer can calculate; when your assumptions are wrong, your model will turn out wrong.

By the way, “the fool” who bought so much gold was quite happy today.  That is because there is no point saving money, and the only two basic options are to risk your money in risky equities or to buy gold; so gold will continue to increase in value, baby.

They talk about “fool’s gold” (iron pyrite), which fools think is real gold.  But real genuine gold has the property of revealing fools in another way: consider that gold has spiked twice since 1970: during the misrule of the fool Jimmy Carter and now during the misrule of the fool Barack Obama:

What I said back in May seems to remain true: “Everyone But Obama And Obama’s Fed Knows That Prices Are Rising Drastically.”  And given our massive and wild market fluctuations the picture I provided in that article continues to describe Obama’s roller coaster economy:

As an American Thinker article correctly predicted shortly after the national disaster a.k.a. the Obama victory in 2008: “Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.”

Who was RIGHT?

[Update, 8/10/2011]: Oh, oh.  It looks like that wild roller coaster ride is going DOWN the steep track again.  The DOW was down 520 points – more than erasing the gains from the previous day and putting the kibosh on the television talking head narrative that we were about to enter better days because the Fed had saved us.

I didn’t know we’d go up 430 points yesterday on the Fed’s hail Mary.  I didn’t know it would tank 520 today on the most radical market roller coaster in my lifetime.  But I know that Barack Obama will fail and bring America down with him unless the people stand up and STOP HIM.  This is God damn America now under Obama.  And God damn America is going to go down hard unless we stand up and repent of the evil that is the Obama agenda.

And that “fool” who bet that Obama would wildly fail is thrilled with his bet that Obama would ruin America, with gold soaring to over $1,800 an ounce today.

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

June 20, 2011

John Edwards ran a campaign of “two Americas” in 2004 and again in 2008.  This particularly disgusting species of vermin could have been our president; he certainly could have been our vice president.

Now decent Americans know they would NEVER want to belong to “John Edwards’ America” if there was any possible other one to belong to.  The man is pure slime, as are the “values” he ran on.

John Edwards was right, though: there REALLY ARE “two Americas” being fought over right now.  They are the United States of America that our founding fathers fought for and created based on a profound Judeo-Christian view of the world, versus the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America dreamed of by the left.  The former has an economic basis of free market capitalism; the latter has an economic basis of a hybrid mixture of crony capitalism (i.e. fascism) and communism.  The former is based on individual liberties balanced by duties based on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition; the latter is based on a Marxist/fascist notion of statism balanced by nothing but their own lust for power.

On June 17 a union leader denounced New Jersey Governor Chris Christie compared Christie to Adolf Hitler and threatened to start World War III to destroy him:

At a rally in New Jersey protesting Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s deal to reform New Jersey’s state pension system, a union leader charged Christie with acting like a Nazi. And not any ordinary Nazi, but Adolf Hitler himself.

“Good afternoon brothers and sisters. Welcome to Nazi Germany,” Communications Workers of America District 1 Vice President Christopher Shelton is seen raving at a Thursday rally in a video posted on YouTube.

“We have Adolf Christie and his two generals trying to make New Jersey Nazi Germany.”

After ranting more about “Adolf Christie,” the YouTube video shows Shelton comparing the pension battle in New Jersey to World War II.

“Brothers and sisters, this is not going to be an easy fight,” he shrieked. “It took World War II to get rid of the last Adolf Hitler. It is going to take World War III to get rid of Adolf Christie. Are you ready for World War III?”

Rally attendees are seen wildly cheering Shelton’s speech in the video.

There’s a couple of major problems with Christopher Shelton’s thesis: one is that Adolf Hitler was a socialist: “NAZI” stood for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party“; and the second is that it was Adolf Hitler and those who thought like him who started that terrible war.  Just like the REAL Nazis in Shelton and the leftists who think like him are angling to start the NEXT world war.

Who is starting the wars going on now?  Look at Greece, where leftists are violently rioting because there isn’t any more money to pay for their socialism.

When you look at the Nazi Party platform, you see hardened socialism all over it:

  • The abolition of unearned income;
  • Nationalization of trusts;
  • Inclusion into profit-sharing;
  • Increase in old-age pensions;
  • Creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class;
  • Aguarian reform, which included the siezing of land without compensation;
  • State control of education;
  • Creation of a “folk” army to supplant or replace the regular army;
  • State control of the press

Leftwing socialist is in the Nazis’ own words:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

You look at this platform and you explain to me how “the National Socialist American Workers Party” wouldn’t be the DEMOCRATS.

Unions HELPED Hitler rise to power.  Homosexuals DOMINATED Hitler’s SA which he rode in his rise to power.  Both were purged when they had outlived their usefulness.  Hitler didn’t want “unions”; Hitler wanted THE union of all Germans in a greater German Reich.  Hitler didn’t abolish unions; he created one big giant union by unifying themHitler had said of the trade unions:

“I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”

Read up on the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF): “DAF membership was theoretically voluntary, but any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member.”  That is NOT the “right-to-work” policies of conservatives; IT IS THE UNION AGENDA OF LIBERALSRead up on the Obama NLRB lawsuit against Boeing for daring to open a plant in a non-union right to work state and explain how we’re not seeing the same story all over again.  Obama is dictating (like the dictator he is) to a private company while unions say “if you aint union, then you don’t get no job.”

Nietzsche – a hero of Nazis AND leftists ever since – put it best.  He pointed out that the artist was not only the creator of beautiful objects but of values.  He pointed out that cultural change requires artistic change: “Change of values – that is a change of creators.”  And this change to new values had to involve the breaking of old values.  As Nietzsche put it, “Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.”  Destroying the old order and giving birth to the new attracted ALL the cutting-edge leftists of the day.

Homosexuals, artists, and all the other leftists and leftist movements of the day joyfully joined Hitler.  But once Hitler gained power and forged his own social order, many of these began to encounter brutal censorship.  Why?  Simply because when these people and movements were attacking the old order, they were useful, but once Hitler began to impose his own order, they who attacked order became a threat to be repressed.  To put it in other words, they were hung on their own petard.

To whatever extent that Hitler crushed the trade unions that had eagerly helped him gain power, he crushed many other useful idiots the same way.  That participation in their own destruction is part of the ultimate death-wish that is liberalism.  We’re seeing it now as liberals routinely support Islamic radicals who would gleefully murder every single one of these tools the moment they gain real power.

That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left.  If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations.  But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS.  They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda.  They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.

And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.

The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America.  Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example.  Whad did she say of the oil companies?

“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”

THAT’S what Hitler did, too.  Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has repeatedly done.

And then consider how willing Maxine Waters used “crony capitalism” (which is the essence of developing fascism) to directly personally benefit even as she shaped the banking industry.

The Democrat party is the party of socialism.  It is the party of Marxism.  It is the party of fascism.

Here are some pictures from the latest May Day rally, along with a brief description of what is going on.  For the record, this is from an email that was forwarded to me.  I did not write it or generate the pictures, but could not provide a “link”:

Pictures taken on May Day, May 11, 2011

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


When I tell people that public political rallies are
more and more being led by communists and socialists, most folks simply don’t
believe me. Aw, come on, you’re just giving decent protesters an extreme
label,
they say. No, actually, I’m not: The communists freely and proudly
declare their affiliation.
And the SEIU has no problem marching arm-in-arm
with them.

“Smash Capitalism” is a slogan the SEIU apparently
endorses — or at least doesn’t mind marching behind.
In case you think the
SEIU is some peripheral out-of-the-mainstream organization:
The SEIU
devoted $28 million to
Obama’s campaign
, making the
SEIU “the organization that
spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president
.” Furthermore, who is Obama’s favorite White House guest and one of his
closest confidants?
The individual who has visited the Obama White House the
most: SEIU President Andy Stern, who has visited
53 times
.
Obama is closely linked with the SEIU.
The SEIU is closely
linked with communists.
You do the math.

Did I say communists? Sorry, I meant Communists (with a capital “C”).
Note how the
Communists that day (like the women on the right in this photo) carried solid
red flags symbolizing their ideology. Keep that in mind as you view the next
photo…

One of the SEIU leaders picked up a Communist flag and
led a contingent of rank-and-file SEIU members. Everyone was OK with
that.

The way you can identify the SEIU members in all these
pictures: They’re the ones in purple t-shirts carrying blue-and-yellow
signs.

So, as you can see, the communists and the union
members intermingled as the march progressed.
In case you were wondering what
the SEIU was saying during all of this, here’s a video of the SEIU
chanting “Legalization or REVOLUTION!” Clear enough?

And it wasn’t just the SEIU at the march — other
“normal” unions like the AFL-CIO were on hand as well.
There were plenty of
teachers’ unions attending too, and they brought along many of their public
school students for some good old-fashioned communist indoctrination,.

Most of the idiots in the US who walk around with Che
buttons or Che shirts do so simply because they foolishly think he’s “cool.”
These hardcore communists carry his image not because he’s “cool,” but because
he was one of the most radical revolutionaries who ever lived. Right up there
with Lenin, apparently.

In order to have a more “civil dialogue” with their
political opponents, the marchers made a puppet of a demonic Statue of Liberty
aligned with the “Tea Bag Party.”

OK, I guess Hitler comparisons are off the table for
now — too many people have called it taboo. So what’s second best? The
Devil!

Tell me the honest truth: If the Tea Party had marched in a rally
behind a banner held up by fascists or neo-Nazis, don’t you think it would have
been national news? But the nation’s biggest Obama-supporting political
organization marched behind banners like these, and not a peep about it in the
media. Hmmmm….

Until recently, the average American has regarded
fascists and communists as equally noxious and equally malignant. As well they
should have. But the drive these days by the left side of the spectrum is to
make communism and socialism somewhat less remarkable and more palatable. For
two years they angrily denied the Tea Party accusation that Obama’s policies and
supporters had a socialist bent. But in recent months, as the accusation had
started to gain traction, the new leftist tactic has become: “What’s so bad
about socialism after all? You’re demonizing a very popular and respectable
ideology!”

The very first picture above brings the riots of the left in Wisconsin to use fascist tactics to block the elected democratic process in that state.

The war has already started, and the people who say today – “Because workers of the world unite it’s not just a slogan anymore“ and “We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power “ – are the ones who started it.  They are saying to one another:  “There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement“; and “you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.“

These are people with no morals beyond the morality of fascism.  They want to impose their will on you.  They want to take what is yours and give it to themselves.  They want to make the state god while THEY run that state; and then force you to come to them and devote yourself to “the state” in order to have a job, health care, food, life itself.

The beast is coming.  And when he comes, Democrats will be the Party that cheers him and votes for him.

The Democrat Party has become the party of genuine evil in America.  A vote for Democrats has become a vote for hell itself.

Stop and think about why the union leader in New Jersey demonized Gov. Chris Christie: Christie wants to save his state from certain financial implosion.  He wants to restructure government union benefits that are giving many “public employees” a hundred thousand dollars in benefits a year while they are retiring in their mid-fifties.  These unions want to leach off the system until it collapses.  And it WILL collapse: in California ALONE the public employees’ accumulation of unfunded liabilities is $500 BILLION.  The unfunded liabilities of all the states easily exceeds $1 trillion.

Which of these “two Americas” is fascist?  The one that wants to kill America and impose a totalitarian system in its place, or the one that is trying to embrace the vision of our founding fathers just short of way too late?

Update, June 20: The overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled New Jersey Senate just agreed with Governor Chris Christie on the reforms that he was called a “Nazi” for proposing.  If you want to see the Nazis in the story, look at Christopher Shelton, look at his union and look at the Democrat Party that is controlled by these unions.  THAT’S where you’ll find all the Nazis.

Remark Of The Night In South Carolina GOP Debate: Barack Obama IS A Socialist

May 6, 2011

At some point during the GOP debate in South Carolina, Rick Santorum made the comment that Barack Obama was a socialist.

In his after-debate panel that appeared on the Sean Hannity Program, Frank Luntz listened to a woman who pointed that out and said she believed it was true, and then asked the panelists (after saying, “I’m going to get in trouble for this”), “WHY is Barack Obama a socialist?”

One old man immediately said, “Ask Joe the Plumber.”

I can only tell you what I would have said, given the pithy answer that was demanded (although that old man’s was arguably even better):

“Karl Marx expressed the essence of his Marxist communism as, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the mainstream media demanded that Barack Obama refute that statement, and explained how his policies were (somehow) the opposite of that?”

And so, yes, that old man on Frank Luntz’s panel nailed it: when Barack Obama said

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

– There is no question whatsoever that Obama was patiently explaining that, yes, he is without any question whatsoever, a socialist.

For those who would try to argue that statement by Karl Marz is NOT the essence of Marxism, allow me to reproduce Karl Marx’s statement in context:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Which is to say that it is not merely the essence of communism, but in fact it was the destination that Karl Marx was striving to attain to in his “higher phase of communist society.”

So, given that liberal Democrats affirm this same exact ideal – which was the ultimate ideal of Marx’s “higher phase of communist society” – just how precisely are they not Marxists?

And yet whenever a conservative makes this accurate accusation, all we ever get from the media is a poo-pooing; as though pointing out and declaring the truth is an extreme thing to do.

U.N. Seeks To Give Human Rights To ‘Mother Earth’

April 19, 2011

Just to make sure we understand, human babies in the womb do NOT deserve human rights.  But that tree over there, those bugs under that rock, do.

This is raw paganism (which also was quite characteristic of the Nazis, for what it’s worth).

And it’s nothing new at the United Nations, either.  Just recall the recent conference in which the U.N. officially affirmed that their “global warming” agenda was really all about socialist wealth redistribution (which was good) and invoked pagan Mayan goddesses to bring that agenda to fruition.

U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether ‘Mother Earth’ Deserves Human Rights Status
By Jonathan Wachtel
Published April 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”

A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.

Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community — plants, animals, and terrain.

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding — an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

“The concept ‘Mother Earth’ is not universally accepted,” said a spokesman from the British Mission to the U.N. about Bolivia’s proposal. “In general, our view is that we should focus on tackling important sustainable development issues through existing channels and processes.”

The General Assembly two years ago passed a Bolivia-led resolution proclaiming April 22 as “International Mother Earth Day.” The measure was endorsed by all 192 member states. But Bolivian President Evo Morales envisioned much more, vowing in a speech to U.N. delegates that a global movement had begun to lay “out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

Morales, who repeatedly says “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism,” called for creating a charter that defends the right to life for all living things. Morales, who was named World Hero of Mother Earth by the General Assembly, has since made great strides in his campaign.

In January, Bolivia became the world’s first nation to grant the natural environment equal rights to humans. Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth is heavily influenced by the spiritual indigenous Andean world outlook that revolves around the earth deity Pachamama, roughly translated to Mother Earth.

The Bolivian law establishes 11 rights for nature that include: the right to life and to exist; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered; the right to have nature’s processes free from human alteration. The law also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth to act as an ombudsman, which will ensure nature is “not being affected my mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.”

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet.

Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6. U.N. critics slammed the decision to devote an entire day debating Mother Earth legislation as not only a waste of time and resources, but a major blunder.

“The UN is a one-act show,” said U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the U.N., in which “Western democracies are responsible for the world’s ills and developing countries are perpetual victims.”

Bayefsky said the General Assembly’s focus on Mother Earth distracts from more pressing issues and problems at the U.N.

“The rights of inanimate objects violated by developed countries are considered a useful focal point this month,” she said, adding that, “Syria is scheduled to be elected next month to the U.N.’s top “human” rights body, and Iran is on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.” Syria is one of the sponsors of the “Mother Earth” treaty.

Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N., Pablo Solon, who will represent Morales at the debate and ‘expert’ panel discussions at U.N. headquarters, said, “Presently many environmentally harmful human activities are completely legal,” including those that cause climate change.

“If legal systems recognized the rights of other-than-human beings,” he says, such as mountains, rivers, forests and animals, “courts and tribunals could deal with the fundamental issues of environmental contamination.”

It is not clear if Bolivia’s new tough environmental laws will actually go as far as to protect life forms like insects, but the legislation does include all living creatures.

This is the “wisdom” of men.  But professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22).

We are living in the last days, that should be readily evident to anyone who has ever read the book of Revelation with an attitude of belief.  2,000 years ago John saw the entire earth shaking its collectivist fist at God and exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Most of the people pushing this socialist, virently anti-capitalist movement really couldn’t give a fig about “Mother Earth.”  Do you think Evo Morales is going to find another place to sleep if he finds a bug on his bed?  How many of them are like Al Gore, urging world leaders to impose fascistic totalitarian policies in the name of saving the planet while they personally spew out hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon in their own personal lives as they jetset from here to there?  For them, it is all about power and the ability to control the lives of billions of people.  They want to be able to decide (“dictate” really being a better word) who lives and who dies, who wins and who loses, who pays and who receives.  All based on who supports them and who opposes them.  Or as fellow socialist traveller Barack Obama put it:

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

And the ultimate goal is to have far-leftist socialist environmentalist whackos “chanelling” Mother Earth and telling the courts that she wants all the capitalists to die and be used for fertilizer and a good firewood substitute.

And the United States under Obama and Democrat leadership is very much a part of this.  As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi shrilly declared, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet!”  And Barack Obama was waxing megalomaniac, saying, “This is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for… I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”  Because Obama ALWAYS claims to want to return to our “best traditions” when they never WERE our traditions and never SHOULD BE.

Maybe the U.N. can make Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the “channeler” for Mother Earth.  And he crouch down and put his ear to the ground and then solemnly tell us that:

“coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And if your family starves because you can’t drive to work anymore, well, too bad so sad.  Mother Earth has rights.  And both she and the socialists who are interpreting her cries are both far bigger than you little human beings.  Why, you’re practically as small as babies in the womb compared to them.

And, of course, it becomes readily apparent why socialists don’t dare give those precious little human beings in the womb human rights.  Because someone could channel their cries and complain that America (as just one particularly reckless example) must stop borrowing $188 million dollars every hour that they will be forced to repay when they grow up.

One of the major themes that erupts from this article is “Don’t compromise with these depraved fools.  Don’t give them anything.  Because it will only embolden them to keep pushing for more and more and more.”

Oops.  Just like those Nazis, again.

How Big Government Works, In Just Seven Paragraphs

April 11, 2011

Ronald Reagan put it this way: “Government isn’t the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.”

Here’s the perfect story to better understand how government works:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.  Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.”  So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”  So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?”  So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?”  So they created two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?”  So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, an Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one year, and we are $918,000 over budget.  We must cut back.”

So they laid off the night watchman.

And all the myriad levels of government, and all the bureaucrats who scurry around like the little rodents they basically are, do so by parasitically leaching off the once-productive but now dying private sector.

Now, as you ponder that, read this Wall Street Journal article: “We’ve become a nation of takers, not makers,” and understand that the above story came true in the liberal big government takeover of America.

Remember to continue voting Democrat: you’re too mindless and helpless to do anything else.

Obama Causes Official End Of The Nation Of Makers

April 4, 2011

This is something that conservatives saw coming from the very fist days of the Obama administration.  From Cato, February 26, 2009:

Cato begins that article with a quote from Obama from a couple of days previous: “As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day… Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

But like virtually everything else, it was a lie.  Obama’s own proposed massive increase in federal spending proved that.  And since Obama took office, he has spent as no government has ever spent in the history of the human race.

And thus is it utterly no surprise at all to anyone but ignorant fools that we are now here:

APRIL 1, 2011
We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.

By STEPHEN MOORE
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida’s ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York’s.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That’s less than half of the state’s 1.48 million government employees.

Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn’t pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we’ve gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to “win the future.” The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

California?  Unions?  Consider this from the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

The People’s Republic of Kalifornia was cursed with a R.I.N.O. governor who championed abortion, a $6 porker giveway for stem cell research, gay marriage, and a whole bunch of other liberal crap.  And the legislature is one of the most overwhelmingly Democrat in the country.  And the only things that have changed is that the People’s Republic is now officially under a Democrat Governor (Jerry Brown) and they actually added a Democrat seat in the legislature.

Illinois was described by NBC as having the worst unfunded pension crisis in the country.  Maybe they didn’t know how bad California’s really was when they reported that.  But more likely, they probably had no idea how bad Illinois’ problem truly was and is, either.

The United States is so screwed it is absolutely unreal.  And that is largely due to unions and the Democrats who support those unions in exchange for votes.  It’s an unAmerican scheme that works like this: labor unions give Democrats big campaign donations and provide the muscle and infrastructure for the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.  And in exchange, Democrats give unions other peoples’ money to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  They don’t give a damn about the 88% of Americans who AREN’T in unions.

Unions are parasites that have sucked the blood out of every industry they have ever seized their vile little talons onto.  Autos, airlines, manufacturing, education government at every possible level – you name it; they’ve ruined it.  And the rest of America is the host that the parasites feed off of.  And Democrats care about the parasites, and not one damn about the rapidly dying host.

And Barack Obama is far and away the most pro-union president ever.  And that was true BEFORE he signed three new hard-core union-agenda executive orders into law.

Obama has just gotten caught red-handed using his ObamaCare to give huge payouts to unions and corporations that advanced his agenda (fascism alert).  Remember that G.E. – one of the corporate beneficiaries of ObamaCare, not only paid zero taxes but actually got money from the taxpayers.

Do you remember Obama’s preacher for over twenty years said, “No, no, no, not God bless America.  God DAMN America.”  And then said that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”???

You need to understand our actual situation and look at our real debt to understand that AMERICA is the chicken – and Obama has cut its head off and thrown it into a pot of boiling water:

News from globeandmail.com
The scary real U.S. government debt
Wednesday, October 27, 2010

NEIL REYNOLDS

Ottawa — reynolds.globe@gmail.com

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling. […]

Without drastic reform, Prof. Kotlikoff says, the only alternative would be a massive printing of money by the U.S. Treasury – and hyperinflation.

As former president Bill Clinton once prematurely said, the era of big government is over. In the coming years, the U.S. will almost certainly be compelled to deconstruct its welfare state.

Prof. Kotlikoff doesn’t trust government accounting, or government regulation. The official vocabulary (deficit, debt, transfer payment, tax, borrowing), he says, is vulnerable to official manipulation and off-the-books deceit. He calls it “Enron accounting.” He also calls it a lie.

Every single one of these massive entitlements that is poisoning America they way Japan’s tsunami has poisoned her nuclear reactors with toxic meltdowns came from the vile minds of DEMOCRATS.  And it is DEMOCRATS who will cause the once mighty America to shortly go the way of the Dodo bird.

Social Security was a ponzi scheme from the outset.  And the only thing that has kept it going was that it is a really, really BIG ponzi scheme.  We find out that FDR – who wanted a massive takeover of the private sector by the federal government – worked hard to kill an amendment offered by a Democrat (Senator Bennett Champ Clark): ” It would have allowed workers to go with the new government system or, if they wished, to have their money put into a private-insurance plan. Either way, the contributions would be mandatory.”  Had that amendment been allowed to pass, it would have forced the government’s filfthy paws off the “trust fund” that they subsequently ripped off for the next seventy years and beyond:

We wouldn’t be saddled with today’s fiscal disaster. Hundreds of billions of dollars that politicians have “borrowed” from the Social Security trust fund for all sorts of pork spending would not have disappeared. Instead, all that capital would have been invested in the economy, leaving us a lot more prosperous. Moreover, the Clark Amendment would have been a model for state pension plans, which are now bankrupting local governments, as well as for other nations.

There was a much better idea from the private sector – but in the end Democrats wouldn’t have it.  They wanted their government fascist control instead.  They didn’t care about the American people; they wanted to be able to raid those retirement funds for their own partisan ideological ends.

Then there was the much more colossal failure known as Medicare.  Ronald Reagan famously warned America about that fraud in 1961:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Medicare now represents the largest share of our unfunded liabilities today.  The private market could have done a much better job at a much lower cost, but again, Democrats wanted socialism, and they were hell bent upon getting their socialism.

Now we face collectivist bankruptcy.  We were previously told that if current trends held, Medicare would go broke by 2017.  But current trends didn’t hold, because Obama robbed Medicare of $500 billion to fund the ObamaCare boondobble that bears his name.

As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And voilà, here we are.

When it comes to how John F. Kennedy viewed the socialist redistribution of wealth via “progressive taxation policies,” you will find that Kennedy was solidly on the side of fiscal conservatives today.  As it stands, today’s vile Democrats are fundamentally at odds with the man widely recognized to be the greatest Democrat president.

As we speak, Republicans are trying to cut a tiny fraction of the bloated, totally-out-of-control federal budget.  And Democrats are demonizing them at every turn for it.  Because Democrats have been using government spending to massively pad the coffers of the government-sector unions who make their elections possible.  And to be a Democrat means you don’t give a damn about America’s future; you only selfishly want – to put it in John F. Kennedy’s famous words – “what your country can do for you.”

God HAS damned America in the person of Jeremiah Wright’s parishoner for 23 years.  And the most ignorant generation in America’s history voted for it.