Remember the days when we used to look skeptically at anything in the Russian / Soviet media, knowing the pressure they faced to issue propaganda? Well, how's this for a turning of the tables. Now it's the U.S. media that is a state-run propaganda machine, and Pravda's doing their job:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

More here - and well worth the read.

Labels: media coverage, socialism

Well, it's over. The people have spoken, and they've chosen Socialism. The country we had is not the country we have. I know that some may accuse me of being melodramatic, but the election of Barack Obama represents a fundamental, critical, potentially fatal shift in our government. Both the winner and the loser talked of bringing the country together. However, the manners in which those opposing philosophies would seek to do so couldn't be more different.

Harry Reid referred to last night's vote as "a mandate for change." Given the numbers, the vote was far from a mandate - many states were quite close. Frighteningly, those margins were well within the danger area of the numbers of fraudulent voters reported in some areas. And the election was far from smooth - from Black Panthers with nightsticks, to broken machines (one of them in my town), to wet ballots causing a problem, there were a significant number of issues. And forget the military vote - many of those won't count. John McCain had talked of suing to try and make sure those were counted, but that seems unlikely.

There is some theoretically good news - it appears that the Democrats will be short of the 60 seats they needed to have complete power, but then again, that only means that every failure will be blamed on the Republicans. And as of right now, it looks like Al Franken lost. The race has been called, but the margin is extremely thin, so who knows.

The most nauseating story is that John Murtha keeps his seat. A man who called our Marines cold-blooded murderers, who called Pennsylvanians racists, remains in Congress. The one Republican Senator in New England - Chris Shays from my state of CT - was not so lucky.

If you take away the close margins, and you accept the vote as legitimate, the victory is pretty numerically significant. Voter turnout was extremely high, and the electoral margin was large. As far as making history goes, though, I don't see it the same way as most of the media does. They call it a great victory because he's an African American. I don't see progress in that. Many people voted for him because of his race; some undoubtedly voted against him because of his race. How is that progress? How is that success? Far better would it have been to have seen the vote completely ignore his race. Far more indicative of progress would it have been to see this campaign be absent of any factors other than the content of character, and the values of the platform. This has not been the case.

At any rate, this country has chosen the most liberal Senator we have as President, and number three as Vice President. So liberal, in fact, that voters have happily, knowingly, chosen Socialism. At best, we'll have a President who talks a good game, has high approval ratings, but accomplishes little while blaming it on the party in the minority. At best, we'll have a Congress that talks and talks of fixing problems, but enacts only window-dressing legislation, and takes no risks in a desire to protect its butt at all costs. At best, we'll be looking at a controlled withdrawal from Iraq before things are completed, but without tragic consequences. At worst, we could be looking at the Fairness Doctrine, Universal Healthcare, historic tax increases, and another generation of Heroes who are treated as if they lost a war despite the military realities.

The Progressives rule now - White House, Congress, and in all likelihood, they'll soon rule the Supreme Court, too. Let's face facts - Progressive is the name the Socialists chose for themselves when they realized years ago that no one would vote for someone who called themselves a Socialist (not sure that's the case now). So we have now become a Socialist country - the United Socialist States of America. Welcome to it. And so you're not surprised when you see what we're in for, here's what Socialists believe: (opens in new window)


"In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx

True socialists advocate a complete lack of societal class. Everyone is equal, and the government controls all production and distribution - in order, of course, to eliminate the evil of competition, and to ensure that no one is any more successful than anyone else. Everyone is equal - except, of course, for those in power.

But they go further than everyone within a country being equal. True Socialists seek to make everyone equal, and see this as transcending race, religion, gender, nation, or any other differentiating factor. Socialism, in essence, seeks to eliminate individuality in favor of communal thinking. It is not 'my' - it is 'our.' It is not 'I' - it is 'we.' No individual's success is celebrated - any achievement is everyone's achievement.


"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." -- Karl Marx

Socialism, very closely tied to Communism (and having that as its goal, according to Lenin), seeks the elimination of the concept of private property. Private property means that some have what others do not. That sort of thing makes people see some things as "theirs." Not what you want if you want people to be happy while the fruits of their labors are taken and "redistributed" to others. Socialism advocates 'work for use, not for profit.'


"Without doubt, machinery has greatly increased the number of well-to-do idlers." - Karl Marx

Socialism seeks to employ everyone - for the good of 'society.' People do not work for their own success. They do not keep their own profits. The government knows best how to distribute the goods and funds achieved.


"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand." "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 [masses]." - Karl Marx

Socialism has a deep and abiding contempt for religion. Functionally, this makes sense. Socialism, like Communism, requires an individual to see nothing as higher than 'society' or 'the state.' Religion teaches a higher value, and a specific set of morals. When religion conflicts with the state, religion views itself as higher. After all, you're talking about eternity versus a fleeting time on Earth. Where religion flourishes, Socialism and Communism historically have not.

New versions of Socialism, or "Democratic Socialism," add in the responsibility to love the Earth, to protect the environment, etc. (Can you say, Kyoto?)

There are other basic tenets, each of them scary. Socialism espouses a hatred of violence and war. Nothing is worth fighting for, because everyone is exactly the same, and has exactly the same things. Individual freedom is nonexistent; it is replaced by communal achievement. And how could a truly Socialist society allow private gun ownership? That would make some citizens capable of enforcing their will - or defending themselves from others seeing to do so.

Socialism, as Ayn Rand describes it, "is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." In other words, Socialism is the antithesis of the principles this country was founded on.

Of utmost importance to our founding fathers was the right to own property. Also highly prized were freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Under Socialism and Communism, those are smothered - they have to be.

This is the government we as a country have now chosen. It is not a mandate; it was not a landslide. But it was a choice for change, all right, and a scary one for people who believe as I do:

"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

Hang on to your Bibles (or whatever else represents your religious beliefs), your guns, and your wallets, folks - this could be a wild ride.

Labels: Barack Obama, Election 2008, government, politics, socialism

So here we are, less than a week from an election that could quite literally mean the end of the United States of America as we know her. Paranoia? Perhaps. I never would have believed that my nation could truly be on the verge of voting itself out of existence. But here we are.

The golden child of this presidential election has deep, obvious cracks in his hallowed facade. There are signs that few could miss if they actually look - signs that indicate severe issues. Besides his associations with radicals and terrorists, there are scores of trouble markers.

He appears not to care who supports him. His website does not utilize credit card matching for donations; a test using the names Osama bin Laden, John Galt, and Saddam Hussein to make donations with the same credit card revealed that all the donations went through. In fact, a lot of interesting people have been donating to Obama; and foreign credit are also being accepted. Donations have come from Palestine. Good Will, Loving, and Dela Ware have also made donations. Obama also accepts donations from largely untraceable pre-paid credit cards. His campaign’s response to questions was that “no campaign can fully insulate itself” from these types of issues. John McCain and Hillary Clinton used computer matching (ABS) and citizenship checks for their donations. Obama checks neither.

Barack Obama reflects the far Left in this country - a political sect that wants to cut the military 25% during a time of war. He advocates negotiating with dictators who vow to see Israel and the United States eradicated. He goes to a country where we are fighting a war, and urges them to delay a deal on withdrawal of American troops - so that he can be sure to get the credit for that withdrawal.

Barack Obama doesn’t want you to use his middle name. He doesn’t want you to ask questions about his Marxist leanings, or his radical ties. Yes, he advocates redistribution of wealth, and thinks it’s too bad that the essential restraints of the Constitution limit the ability to act at will. Yes, he intentionally (and “carefully”) chose Marxist professors and friends. But don’t call him a Marxist. Don’t call him a Socialist - or you will be banned from any contact. Yes, he has ties to terrorists. But don’t talk about it. Don’t dare ask about it.

If you do, like "Joe the Plumber," you may find your DMV and other government files illegally accessed, and your life open to investigation. You may, like Sarah Palin, find your private email hacked and published. You may, like reporter Barbara West, be denied any further access to the campaign. Don’t cross the line, or you will see the consequences. And the Left doesn’t just want to restrict certain speech - it wants to go much further. The Left seeks to mandate speech (the Fairness Doctrine). The Left seeks to ensure that you hear what it wants you to hear - and only what it wants you to hear. If the Fairness Doctrine passes, blogs like mine may be required to publish “both sides” of the story. Even if “both sides” means the truth, and the lie from the Left. I have already decided that I will not comply. If I maintained a bigger blog, with a larger audience and a voice that might make a difference, I might openly defy the order. Realistically, though, I’m not that big. I will simply cease to blog. Much bigger voices may be silenced - the prime target of the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio. Barack Obama may not be a leading voice for the Fairness Doctrine, but if the Left has the House, the Senate, and the White House, do you really think that it won’t get passed? Can you see him using a presidential veto to prevent it?

Barack Obama wants you to stay away from examining his wife’s anti-American statements, associations, or political leanings. He says that family is off limits. Unless, of course, you’re talking about his opponent’s family. How has this campaign been to Sarah Palin’s family? To John McCain’s wife? The press is almost universally in the tank for Obama. CNN distorts quotes to portray Sarah Palin as negatively as possible. Other outlets refuse to cover stories that are negative to Obama - even to the point of refusing to release a tape where his own words might harm his campaign. Those who expose him are detained by countries where he has ties. How do you think people who oppose him will be treated once he is in power?

Barack Obama promises that the poor downtrodden masses will be lifted up, and that the evil rich will be taken off their pedestals. So did Lenin. Barack Obama promises that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But only about half of those he’s promising tax cuts to actually pay taxes. Barack Obama will take your money and decide that someone else who has less deserves it - though you’re the one who worked for it. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need - not his worth, but his need.

Barack Obama promises to restore our standing in the world. We will be liked by a world filled with terrorists, socialists, communists, sellouts, and radicals. What will we have to sell to earn their praise? What is the value of our soul?

Well, it’ll only be four years, you might say. Eight, at most. And then the Left will have screwed things up so badly that they’ll be out of power for a long time. Maybe. But maybe not. During beloved Bill Clinton’s presidency, there was a movement to lift presidential term limits. It died then, but now there’s precedent. In New York, a lifting of term limits is allowing Bloomberg to run again (despite two referendums enforcing a two-term limit). After four years of nothing but positive press, nothing but the pap of propaganda, who will there be to oppose lifting presidential term limits?

If elected, Barack Obama has the potential to make us long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. A Barack Obama presidency will be far, far worse. For the first time, we will have a socialist president, presiding over a legislature where the Democrats - a party with a significant number of like-minded socialists - rule.

The Republicans, with few exceptions, don’t have the guts to stand up to him. Even if they did, it would likely not do much good - they will not even be able to count on the filibuster. We are headed for a period of time where the checks and balances that form the basis of this government may mean nothing. Elect him, and we will likely have a Socialist president, a rubber-stamping Socialist legislature, and eventually, a rubber-stamping Socialist Supreme Court. We also have a fawning, socialist media - the type that refuses to air a tape in which Barack Obama praises PLO-linked Rashid Khalidi as having views that “the whole world“ should hear (for example, that Israel should be obliterated).

How much damage do you think all of that can do in four years? Eight years? Longer?

Recently, a growing chorus of voices are priming the pump. How bad is socialism, really? Would it be so bad to be liked by other nations? Would it be so bad to have those less fortunate lifted up? Would it be so bad if we tried something different? But the beautiful picture they paint of socialism is, and has always been, a lie. And make no mistake - Barack Obama is a liar. He is, like many charismatic leaders before him, one person on the surface, and another when you look any further. Barack Obama is a socialist. He is a radical. He is dangerous. And if he is elected, it could very well mark the beginning of the end for this country as she was meant to be. He says that his opposition is trying to scare you. It doesn’t take that much effort. He’s a pretty scary person.

Some elements of the Left will tell you that to not vote for him means that you’re a racist. But just because they say something, it doesn’t make it true - the Truth and the Left aren’t close friends anyway. I am not voting for him because I am an anti-socialist. I view redistribution of wealth as an evil. I view unbridled altruism as evil. I view restriction of free speech as a violation of the principles on which this country was founded - principles which formed the basis of the greatest form of government to ever exist on Earth. I define social justice as ensuring that everyone gets a fair shake - that they rise or fail based solely on their own merits - and not because someone propped them up or ensured that they would have what someone else earned. I am not voting for him because I believe him to be a radical, diametrically opposed to what this country stands for - or used to, anyway. I view him as someone who will sell our country out to whomever he sees fit. I am not voting for him because anyone who would enter into a dialogue with Iran deserves contempt, not a seat in the highest office in the land. I am not voting for him because he lacks the character and qualifications to be president.

Maybe the country that I believe in is already gone. Maybe political correctness, socialism, and self-loathing are the values of the new America. I hope not. I hope that this country takes a long look at Barack Obama before next Tuesday, and realizes the threat that he poses to its survival.

We will know shortly. We have already started down the slope, but our fingers are still desperately clinging on the edge. Take a moment to fix in your mind the country you have on Monday. You may never see it again.

Paranoia, maybe. But then again, maybe not.

Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, opinion, politics, socialism

...to make me buy into the Global Good Neighbor Initiative.

And not enough sedatives to make me stop laughing at this video, either. Who knew that the only reason we have any concerns in the world was G.W.B. and his Meanie Machine? The IRC Global Good Neighbor initiative, that's who!

I'm not really sure what the rest of the video is getting at, but I'm thinking it has something to do with their getaway plan for the when some terrorist - or Ahmedinejad - nukes us after we've become complete wusses under the Good Neighbor plan (which is looking like it'll be sometime around next January or so). Hooray! We'll just fly away on clouds of hope...

You can download their talking points - and nominate a Good or Bad Neighbor, or at least you could, if their site wasn't rife with dead links. Damn Meanie Machine.

But just who is the IRC? Well, according to them (comments in black italics are mine):

We are proud of our history. --if not of the loser "bad neighbor" who is responsible for all of those dead links -- The IRC was founded in 1979 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The plight of undocumented Mexican workers -- oh, you mean illegal aliens...Undocumented workers to me means some dude at the Tasty Freeze who forgot his wallet on Tuesday -- and the impact of energy development on indigenous communities in the Southwest were the focus of the IRC's early work.

OK, this is NOT sounding good. Let's read more, shall we?

Through our work on U.S. policy toward Mexico, we developed projects on cross-border organizing and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands, including our U.S.-Mexico Project and our Border Information & Outreach Service (BIOS). The work carried out under both of these projects is now consolidated into our Americas Program. Cross-border organizing? Is that some sort of 'good neighborly' way of saying aiding and abetting? This is starting to sound suspiciously familiar...

The acceleration of the globalization process during the 1990s prompted us to establish our Global Affairs Program and its flagship project, Foreign Policy In Focus project (FPIF). A collaborative effort between the IRC and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF offers policy critiques and prescription aimed at making the U.S. a more responsible member of the global community. -- Because the billions of dollars we spend helping out other nations - including those who hate our guts - just isn't cutting it.

Over the course of the past two decades, the IRC has confronted the ever-changing landscape of U.S. foreign policy to ensure that alternative information and analysis -- a.k.a. blatant b.s. and anti-war rhetoric -- are available to those committed to social change, -- a.k.a. socialism -- winning recognition for our ability to bridge the gap between academic research and popular education and between the policy community and activists.

From its early days of planning around the kitchen table and late-night envelope-stuffing sessions to its current use of PDF files, -- none of which work -- dedicated internet connections, -- woo hoo, we have internet -- and conference calls, -- and they're probably trading in the carbon machine for a 'photocopier' next week -- the IRC has creatively adapted to political and technological changes -- except for that linking thing -- in order to more effectively feed the progressive agenda --ah, there we go -- into policymaking circles and provide activists with crucial analytical tools -- well, except the afore-mentioned PDFs -- to make informed decisions, influence public policy, and be instruments of social change. -- a.k.a. Moonbats

Yep. "Social Change" and "progressive agenda." 'Nuff said. Wait, though, maybe I should give them a chance. They do have a bunch of nice new ads. Like this one:

The Golden Rule
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Simple. Very simple. Mutual respect and understanding. Should those Golden Rule values guide our foreign policy? If you think that the United States can be a global good neighbor once again, then let's work together to make that happen. Go to www.globalgoodneighbor.org. -- and pay no attention to the hordes of illegal immigrants crossing the border

OK, that didn't work. Let's try another one:

Fear Itself
Are you afraid? Very afraid—of terrorism, -- with ya so far-- global warming, Um....no. Not afraid of werewolves either. Wanna know why? NEITHER EXIST -- rising energy costs, the forces of globalization? -- Dun Dun DUNNNNN -- But the politics of fear only make us more afraid. -- No.....Ahmedinejad with his finger on the button makes me afraid -- President Franklin Roosevelt rejected the politics of fear. -- in favor of "democratic socialism" -- He changed the course of foreign policy by launching the good neighbor policy of mutual respect among nations. -- except for those Japanese internment camps. Then again, he did have the unique advantage of the undivided attention of the rest of the world, seeing as how we were kicking half of its butt. Funny how he abandoned that 'good neighbor' thing once Japan proved to be a really 'bad neighbor', ain't it? -- He rallied the country with his vision of a world free of fear, want, and tyranny. -- and the Japanese -- If you believe the United States should once again be a global good neighbor, if you believe mutual respect and freedom from fear should once again guide U.S. foreign policy, then let's work together. Go to www.globalgoodneighbor.org.

You can hear all the ads here. Well, at least you could, if the Meanie Machine hadn't nuked those, too. You can still read the text.

Whatta bunch of fruitcakes.

So before you sell all your stuff and climb on the Peace Train after hearing those catchy new radio ads, just remember that when it all boils down to it, the Good Neighbor Initiative is just one more desperate attempt by the Socialists to feed you bullpucky and call it filet mignon.

Labels: communism, progressives, socialism