Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Call your representatives and senators and let them know what you think while you still can.



There is a program going on in my nephew's and niece's school that is seeking to socialize every child with a bunch of ill-conceived psychobabble. The teachers are being forced to take instructional time away from class - EVERY class - to teach this rubbish.

If the teachers don't hang the posters for this initiative they can be fired. If they don't lead the class in the song and hand motions for the initiative they can be fired. ALL of the children are being forced to participate. Any child refusing to participate - even if they merely refuse to do the hand motions MUST be sent to the principal's office. If the teacher doesn't send them to the office the teacher can be fired. Complaints are met with reminders that there are plenty of people who would love to have the teacher's job.

This is the kind of crap that our government is trying to force on us. This is not the way America does things! It is the way the Nazis did things and the way that the Soviets and Chinese did things. If we don't learn to stand up and say, "NO!" then they will keep on pushing until they take every last ounce of freedom and dignity left to us.

But will we be courageous enough to be the first one to stand up and say no? Will we be courageous enough to join the others who have stood up against tyranny and suffer the consequences? Are we willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor? If we hang together, we won't have to hang separately. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!!

Thursday, June 04, 2009

20 Years Ago Today...

Lone protester resisting Chinese tanks in the Tiananmen Square Massacre20 years ago today, the communist Chinese government violently crushed a peaceful demonstration by thousands of Chinese people at Tiananmen Square who were petitioning for democracy. Last year I wrote an article titled Remember Tiananmen Square! I think the words that I wrote back then are just as relevant today - perhaps even more so.

Since his election, President Obama has hastened our nation toward Marxism at an alarming speed, with many in the media nodding and applauding right along. It was telling when I overheard a report on the news the other day that people (I think it was in China, but I am not sure because I only caught the tail end of the segment) were asking the reporters if President Obama were a Communist or a Democrat. I've been wondering the same thing.

Leading up to the anniversary of the massacre the Chinese government clamped down on anyone who could possibly draw attention to the significant anniversary. According to an AP report today the Chinese government is taking a similar approach to Tiananmen as the Japanese have taken toward Nanking: they are pretending that it didn't happen, and have been quite terse with foreign governments that suggest that they should acknowledge what happened there.

But how could they acknowledge what happened? Acknowledging it would be to concede the wrongness of their response. To admit wrongdoing would cause the government to lose face and would preclude the utilization of the same response in a similar circumstance. It seems clear from the government's approach to this anniversary that they fully intend to reserve the option to use the same draconian tactics again. Little seems to have changed in the way that the Chinese government does business. It is too bad that the Chinese government hasn't chosen to lead the way by acknowledging what they did. Perhaps it would have helped to encourage the Japanese to acknowledge Nanking.

As for America, the clock is ticking. It is time for us to rise up NOW and begin to protest the theft of our freedoms and demand that the Bill of Rights be held sacred. If we don't have the courage to fight now while we are armed, will we have the courage to face our own tanks when we're as unarmed as the demonstrators at Tiananmen were? Wake up, America!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Um, Can They Do That?

In an article titled Livid Democrats Demand AIG Return Bailout Bonuses I read today,

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money — generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees — belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

I don't think that they can do that. How can the government legally target specific individuals for taxation penalties? If they can, then things are worse than I thought, and we might as well change the flag to a solid red field with a gold sickle and hammer crossed in the upper left hand corner.

If the people in Congress and the White House had intended for these funds to not be used that way then they should have had the foresight to stipulate that. Or even better they should have let capitalism do it's thing, letting the companies that have been competently managed thrive and the ones run by boobs sink. The share holders in these companies ought to be out for scalps.

According to the article it would seem that these bonuses were contractual.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

How do I get in on a contract that will pay me million dollar plus bonuses if I run the company into the ground on top of a multi-million dollar salary? I need to get me some of that. How is it that the share holders allow this sort of thing to go on? Something stinks like five-day-old road-kill. The "little people" don't get deals like that. No wonder American business is floundering. Toddlers are sailing the ship. Wait, toddlers would probably do a better job.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Joe The Plumber

Barack Obama
I just saw an excellent video that encapsulates very well why I do not support Barack Obama's economic "plan." (Scheme seems a more appropriate term.)



If you want to see most of the conversation between Barack and Joe you can see it HERE.

Neil Cavuto of Fox News interviewed Joe. It was also worth viewing.



Barack Obama is a master of obfuscation. In another video that I saw today Charlie Gibson pointed out that in both cases when the Capital Gains tax was lowered (by Bill Clinton and by George W. Bush) that tax revenue increased. Barack objected that he didn't care about revenue he cared about fairness. Then, of course, he turned around and said that you have to have enough revenue to "pay as you go."

I have a real problem with this Obamanomics. First of all, it is utterly socialist for the government to redistribute wealth. In fact, it really goes beyond socialism - that is more a tenet of communism. The communists "redistributed the wealth" by taking all of the wealth so that everyone (except for those in charge) were dirt poor. Odd thing was - it still wasn't fair. And it deincentivised the workers in the society by removing any reward for their labor.

This is what Barack Obama proposes: The government is all-knowing and all-wise and knows what a "fair wage" is far better than you do. If you (or your business) get above that level of income the government should knock you back down to size and take your "excess" because it can waste money far better than you ever imagined was possible.

As a former small business owner, I can testify that the amount of revenue that a company brings in is in NO WAY a reflection of the income that the owner takes home. My "prosperous" real estate business bled out three times what I took home in expenses. In one good year where I actually managed to make about $10,000 more than the average my taxes knocked me back down to making LESS than I had the year before. Even with revenue over $100,000, my take home pay was not enough to make ends meet, and I do not live an extravagant lifestyle by any means. (I live in a modest home under 900 square feet. I own one vehicle. I don't have any "toys" like boats or 4-wheelers or things like that.)

This will only get worse under Obama's "brilliant" plan.

In fact, Obama's many assurances that he plans to lower taxes for us peasants appear to be prevarication. According to a recent email that I received:

Obama plans to charge 28% Capital Gains Tax on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) How well do you think that will help the housing crisis? Funny how he didn't mention that part in his discussion with Joe.

Obama plans to raise the dividend tax from 15% to 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') Remember what Charlie Gibson said in the debate? Lowering taxes INCREASED tax revenue.

This increased dividend tax will also hurt small business owners who have incorporated under an "S" corporation. They are able to reduce their tax liability by paying themselves dividends instead of income. Yet one more way Obama is planning to pillage the little guy.

Obama also wants to reverse the Bush Administration tax cuts in the income tax. Currently these liabilities are as follows:

Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250


Under Obama's plan?

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!


And Obama wants to bring back the inheritance tax too. This tax was never fair. All of the items in an inheritance have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime. Yet the government decided that they could rape the heirs by stealing the estate that a person worked so hard for all their life through taxes. Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. This is basically the government playing God. By this tax they are saying, "I have given you all of these things and so I deserve to take them back."

In addition to these tax increases, Obama plans to penalize people for buying houses that are too large (new government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.) The government under Obama will suddenly have the right to determine how big a house you should have. He also plans to add new taxes for natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) because the government should also save the world from "global warming," no doubt. Communism, my friends.

Oh yes, and then there is the increase that Obama plans for the gasoline tax. And plans to tax your retirement accounts. And new taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

If Barack Obama was interested in "fairness" over revenue, then he should be talking about the fair tax plan proposed by Mike Huckabee and others. Why not have a flat tax based on consumption rather than based on income? Think of the reduction of government expense if they didn't have to employ an army of auditors to keep the people of our country afraid to do their taxes. Turn those auditors against the government bureaucracy! Let them find the waste in the government and root out the dead wood. That would account for a huge reduction in revenue needed to run the government.

Wouldn't it be much nicer if no one had to worry about doing taxes? If they were handled whenever you made a new purchase? Those who spend less will pay fewer taxes. Those who spend more will pay more taxes. Makes sense to me. Accountants will be able to keep normal hours throughout the year and focus on other aspects of their business that are more enjoyable and incur less liability than personal and business income taxes do.

Barack Obama's economic/taxation policy will bankrupt America. It will take a shaky economy and send it in an unrecoverable tailspin. I pray to the Lord that he never gets his way.

(The text in italics is taken directly from the email that I received. A couple links were offered as verification for the claims made, but there are about 50 articles between the two links and I have not had time to fully investigate. And both links take you to CNN sources, which I hardly trust as unbiased or trustworthy. Is everything contained in this email true? I don't know. The articles that I have tried to scan seem to be all over the place, just like Obama's answers to every question that is asked him.)

In the end, regardless of whether this data is completely true or not it does not influence my decision one iota. I had already made up my mind before I saw this, and it only serves to reinforce that decision. I may take the time to verify all of this data, but realistically I probably won't. I don't have the time, interest, or patience to deal with a whole lot of political hooey right now. You can check the links that I provided above if you have an inquiring mind.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Remember Tiananmen Square!

Lone protester resisting Chinese tanks in the Tiananmen Square MassacreToday is the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. For those who do not remember the events surrounding this draconian power play by China's communist party, you can read more about it in this article at The Free Dictionary.

The massacre followed an amazing peaceful demonstration that had lasted about 51 days between April 15 and June 4, 1989. I remember watching it unfold day by day on the news and hoping that the Chinese people were about to peacefully earn their freedom and democracy. However, that was not to be the case.

On June 4, 1989 the Chinese government managed to roll into Tiananmen Square with its tanks (in spite of non-violent attempts to prevent them from doing so) and began killing its own unarmed citizens, effectively ending the protest. Student leaders were rounded up, and based on the treatment given to Chinese Christian leaders that fall into the hands of the government, were most likely tortured and/or murdered by the government.

Chinese sources downplay the lives lost in the massacre saying that there were only 200-300 people killed. (Only?! Compare this to the Kent State shootings in the 60s and the outcry that erupted over that.) However, Chinese Red Cross reported numbers of 2,000-3,000 killed.

I remind you of these events for a number of reasons. First of all, I want to to realize that if the Chinese government is willing to do this to its own people then it will do even worse to its enemies.

Secondly, I want to point out that freedom of speech cannot survive in a land without the freedom to bear arms. The students had no recourse other than to run away and toe the line after the government appeared with its big stick. As George Washington said, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

Finally, I want to encourage you to remember Tiananmen Square when some politician starts talking about how the American people should be unarmed (or that their right to possess arms should be diminished.) First they will use fear to get you to give up your right to self defense, then they will use fear to rule you with a rod of iron.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Calling The Low Down Varmint Out...

Two gunslingers facing off in the desertA voice of reason has appeared from an unexpected place. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has challenged alleged global warming 'expert' Al Gore to a debate about global warming. Not surprisingly, Gore isn't willing to intelligently discuss the evidence for or against global climate change or its possible causes. (Perhaps he is unable to do so?)

Klaus said, "It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda." Ahh, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler would be so proud!

The Czech President has recently written a book that questions the true motive of the climate change propagandists titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Klaus says that the thing most endangered is basic human freedoms and prosperity.

Klaus compares the tactics and aims of the environmental alarmists to the tactics used by the communists in his country during his lifetime.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change....

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.
Sound familiar? It is basically the same thing said by the founder of the Weather Channel months ago.

I have said many times (even in the midst of last summer's blistering heat) that I do not believe that any permanent global warming is taking place. I believe that any heating trends can be more easily explained by solar radiation patterns than by carbon emissions. This seems evident to me from a comparison of the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted into the atmosphere by humans as compared to that given off by nature itself. A single volcanic eruption contains many times more "greenhouse gas" than all of mankind's pollution combined. Thus, you will have a hard time convincing me that any warming (or cooling) trends are being caused by man's usage of carbon.

But lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these Chicken Littles were right. Let's consider how life would be if the environazis got their way and took us back to the Stone Age. Even then it would seem that there isn't any feasible way for humans to avoid carbon-based environmental impact. Humans need heat to survive. Anything below 98° F and we start needing some supplemental heat. And there are precious few places on planet earth that are 98° F night and day year round. (Thank God!)

Clothing can allow us to take that number down much lower, but manufacturing clothing in a modern society requires machinery, machinery requires electricity, and the most common source of electricity is combustion. Of course we could go back to using animal skins for clothing, but the environmentalists won't like that either.

There is also the problem of cooking food. Even vegetarians typically cook their food. And if we were to use animal skins for clothing, wouldn't it be wasteful to kill an animal just for its skin? (Seems like I have heard that argument somewhere before....) Thus, if you are going to eat yon mastodon, you'd best have a way cook it. Once again, combustion is going to be required.

Then there's the problem of shelter. Last time I checked there weren't that many habitable caves in the North Carolina Piedmont. That means we are going to have to figure out some place to stay. Well, we can go back to animal skins. (I can hear the animal rights folk howling even now....) There is also lots of nice red mud around here, but to make mud into brick requires baking it - more carbon. We could cut down trees to make cabins, but that reduces the number of trees which help to remove the carbon from the air. It would seem in our environmental Utopia that shelter may be a problem.

There is another problem that we have learned about too: animal flatulence. All those cows are farting the place up and pushing us towards global catastrophe. I guess it is good that all those cowboys nearly wiped out the bison herds back at the turn of the century. Millions of gassy buffalo would have probably pushed us over the edge.

I suppose that many who have read my rants against global warming might assume that I don't care about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very much about it. My problem with most environmental issues is that they tend to tilt at windmills.

The issue of global warming is a hoax. It isn't an issue, but is something that is being greedily exploited to further other ends. Al Gore is exploiting "global warming" to put himself in the limelight and assuage his wounded ego after being rejected by the American people. He also, by the way, is exploiting it to make himself filthy, stinking rich through his investments in these "green" companies.

Politicians are exploiting it to line their pockets with bribes from companies that will benefit from new regulations and from those that would be hurt by new regulations. They are also using "global warming" to line their pockets with revenue from bogus carbon offset programs. And of course, let us not forget that it gives them a leverage point to obtain power over the people, exploiting this lie to induce people to give up their freedoms and prosperity.

Finally, environmentalists are exploiting "global warming" to make some marginal gains toward their agendas, and "scientists" are exploiting it to bilk grant money from various governments. These reasons are why I so vigorously oppose "global warming."

There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns with real-world practical solutions. Pollution is a huge problem. It is clear that air quality has suffered as our cities have grown. Some progress has been made at reducing automobile emissions, but why don't we push on and see if we can't break away from petroleum and find a cleaner alternative? It will take some time, but if we can put a hunk of metal on Mars we should be able to collectively figure out a way to tell the gas companies bye-bye.

Why do we allow companies to dump their waste into our rivers? We should use the same policy with manufacturers worldwide that Momma did: "If you make the mess clean it up." Companies should have to have waste mitigation plans before they are allowed to manufacture the first widget. Would it be more expensive? Yes, it would. But I'd be willing to bet that manufacturers would find a better way to do it if they were forced to. Once they had discovered that way I'd be willing to bet that the prices could come down. (Whether they would or not is a different rant for a different post!) But what about the countries that wouldn't adhere to that standard?!! Don't trade with them. DUH!

Or perhaps on a more personal level, why do we allow people to litter? (This includes throwing cigarette butts out of cars, by the way.)

Why do we allow companies to use packaging materials that are not environmentally friendly? Why are we so addicted to plastics when glass, paper, and metal are much more easily recycled?

There are also water quality issues that are being raised by the irresponsible development taking place throughout the country. In North Carolina these practices threaten to destroy the state's only native trout. (Indeed, Brook Trout are threatened throughout their native range along the entire Appalachian Range from Georgia to Maine.)

All of these issues would be much easier to fix than "global warming." (Especially if it turns out that this purported climate change is being caused by the sun!)

North Carolina's Wildlife Commission has done a stellar job in reclaiming severely damaged river ecosystems. With the work that they have done they have begun to see very encouraging results in the resurgence of threatened flora and fauna. Their re-introduction of deer and turkeys have been wildly successful, and I have hope for the successful reintroduction of the red wolf and elk. It would be wonderful to see these animals thriving in our land again. (Although they will create their own problems too as we have seen with the invasion of coyotes.) I have also seen surprisingly quick results from the size and creel limits imposed on many saltwater fish species. There seem to be far more fish available in just a few short years following the introduction of these limits.

My point is that the real environmental problems facing our world can be dealt with successfully when they are approached with intelligence and TRUE scientific inquiry instead of the junk being passed off as science by so many. There are plenty of resources in our world to allow us to take advantage of them if we will be wise about it and not succumb to greed. It is high time that we start using our own brains and questioning why so many "scientists" are afraid of debate on issues like climate change and evolution. It is time that we stop giving these people money to perpetuate their lies. We cannot keep accepting that what "they" say is true. Too often it isn't. The money that will be wasted on "preventing" global warming would be much better used addressing real problems.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Congratulations and Condolances

Congratulations to the people of Venezuela who told Hugo Chavez to stick his Socialist/Marxist Constitutional amendments in his ear. Bravo to you for standing up for freedom and democracy. I will admonish you to not give up. Chavez won't give up. He'll keep pushing for the changes that will allow him to set himself up as the new Joseph Stalin to your country. Be strong and courageous!

Condolences to the people of Russia who seem to be slipping back under the heel of totalitarianism. I predicted months ago that Vladimir Putin would not leave office at the end of his term, and my suspicions seem well founded. I pity you truly, for I have no confidence that the voting results in Russia are valid. If they are then you deserve no pity. Freedom has a cost. I feel certain that you cannot have forgotten already!

My charge to the people of America: observe and learn.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Back In The USSR...

It looks like Putin is playing things "old school" over in Russia:

Bush 'Deeply Concerned' About Russian Political Arrests

Apparently they arrest you in Russia if you campaign against the incumbent. It's a good thing that it hasn't gotten that bad here. I'd NEVER get out of jail with all the stuff I have posted here! Putin has been warning President Bush to not interfere in their "elections." Ah, 'democracy' at work!

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Coulter On McCarthy

Ann Coulter has an interesting article out about McCarthy sparked by a new book written on the subject. You can read the article HERE.

I was once talking with a friend about McCarthy and she stunned me by asking me what was wrong with Americans choosing to support Communism. The question struck me as absurd because there is nothing more antithetical to Democracy than Communism. The very pursuit of the one undermines the other. How could anyone pursue a communist agenda in America without committing treason?

Admittedly I need to learn a lot more about what happened during "McCarthyism," but my suspicion is that he was stopped too soon. I plan to read Coulter's Treason and the book Coulter referenced in her article, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans.