Archive for the ‘Communists, Socialists, and Liberals, Oh My!’ Category

Zo is right: Whites aren’t to blame, democrats are

July 10, 2015

Zo brings up a really good point: Liberals aren’t consistent. They talk all about giving every child a future, but abort babies, which pretty much eliminates any future the child had.

He also points out that the democrats are trying to get America to pay for the sins of their past. For instance, with slavery, the Republican Party was formed for the very purpose of abolishing it, and the Democratic Party was there for the very purpose of preserving it. The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, used to kill republican “carpetbaggers” and blacks alike. The Stars and Bars are a flag flown by democrats and has nothing to do with the republicans, except that republicans will defend the liberty of their enemies to say things they don’t like.

It got me to thinking about why people are even poor in this country. Why, in this land of freedom and prosperity, can’t everyone rise up from poverty into wealth? The answer lies in democrat policies.

The US Made Cuba Poor?!?

July 14, 2012

Cuba received their first shipment in a long time from the US: humanitarian goods.

Liberals point to Cuba and say, “It’s not a failure of communism. It’s because the US cut them off!”

This is horrible reasoning, not that liberals are strong in reasoning. It’s horrible because it you built a wall between two people, and one person thrives while the other dies, what does that tell you about the relationship between the two people?

It’s rather obvious that the US has been an economic producer, while Cuba has been an economic consumer for the past 50 years.

That brings me to another point. People whine that the US consumes the vast majority of the resources in the world. This sounds terrible! It sounds like we’re stealing food and clothing from other people! The truth is rather more simple: America outproduces everyone else, and so we simply have more stuff than anyone else because we make more stuff.

It’s like you walk into a village, and you see one guy has all the iron tools in his shed. You wouldn’t think it’s because he’s hoarding them. No, you’d probably assume he’s the blacksmith, and he has all those tools because he made them himself.

Anyway, the thing that brought Cuba down wasn’t America. It was a murderous communist regime that vilified wealth and property, kind of like the president we have today. Remember that next time he attacks the rich: We would be like Cuba if it weren’t for the fact that the rich are just as welcome in our country as the poor.

Taxes Hurt the Poor the Most (The Rich can Flee)

April 17, 2012




Taxes inevitably end up hurting the poor.








Monarchism in the United States

February 3, 2012

One of the things I admire about the military is their complete willingness to totally subjugate themselves to the civil government. Generals and admirals may disagree with Congress and the president, but they have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, which means when Congress and the president tell them to jump, they ask, “How high?”

The president is our “king” in the United States. One of the reasons why we adopted the Constitution of the United States is because the Articles of Confederation did not provide for a king-like administrator, which means our government was inept. Of course, we limit the powers of our “king” with checks and balances. The senate must approve any appointment, and the Congress writes the budget and legislates what parameters the administration can operate under. The House can impeach anyone from the administration it pleases, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and the Senate must try such impeachments.

This kind of behavior by Eric Holder troubles me. Eric Holder is our Attorney General of the United States. This is a position which the senate has approved him for, and which he holds until such a time as the House decides he has done something worthy of impeachment and impeaches him, and the senate convicts. It is also held within the confine of the laws that the Congress writes, and the budgets that the Congress passes.

In other words, they serve at the whim of the Congress, and under the direction of the Congress. Every red cent of spending is their business. Every official action is their business. Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are their business.

When Congress asks Eric Holder to come testify, they are asking him to explain why they should not impeach him, or defund him, or write new rules making his life more difficult. The proper attitude that Eric Holder should have is the same attitude someone going before his boss should have.

Eric Holder’s outrage at being questioned about Fast & Furious is troubling. Does Eric Holder think that his position gives him power over congress, or that he is free to do as he pleases without congressional oversight? If so, does the think that the limits the constitution has placed on our “king” do not apply to him? If he really believes this, then he is an enemy to our people, or at least, those of us who still value the constitution. Perhaps he imagines Barack Obama as some sort of king who answers to no one but God for his behavior, and has the right of rule given to him by God. With his official position given to him by King Obama, Eric Holder supposes he too is a sort of king in his position, answerable only to God and the king.

It’s this sort of thing that really troubles me. Has Eric Holder never heard of English history? Does he not know about Roman history, or Greek history, or any history of any country that ever had a king?

Or does Eric Holder think he is somehow exempt from that sort of thing. Are we a new people, fundamentally different than our ancestors from 200 or 2,000 years ago?

Maybe he thinks he is a superior human being, Homo Sapiens Sapiens Superior. He has somehow evolved the right to rule over the inferior Homo Sapiens Sapiens race, and how dare anyone, let alone a lowly representative from Idaho (of all places!) question his behavior!

Sure, we can handle things like this. If someone rises up proclaiming a right to rule, then someone else must rise up claiming the same to throw down such a ruler. We call those things civil wars, and they are nasty affairs. The Constitution of the United States was designed to allow us to overthrow our governments without blood. The reason why our past elected officials are not dead is because the Constitution of the United States saved their lives from the people who would organize and overthrow them.

Viewed this way, Eric Holder should be hiding behind the constitution the same way soldiers hide behind hard cover in a firefight. If he has some beef with the representative from Idaho, he should be citing article, section, and paragraph to explain why he gets to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal.

Of course, rational thought isn’t a strong suit among liberals like Eric Holder. It’s why they’re liberals in the first place.

What is Communism?

February 3, 2012

This flyer was found in an American high school:

(Hat tip: TheBlaze)

If you don’t see the absurdity of this, it’s because you’re probably not looking at the big picture.

One of the immediate questions you should have is: Where did the machine come from that makes money?

This is why Communism tends to be acceptable to those of limited curiosity or ingenuity. Without an understanding of where the machine came from, they think that the workers somehow own the output of the machine.

Those of us who build these kinds of machine, that is, anything which produces things and services people actually want, understand how hard it is to build a machine, and understand that the likelihood of success is very low. It doesn’t help that we have a government that seems intent on making this invention process much harder than it need be.

Also missing from the picture is what the fat man with the cigar does with the money he makes. Not pictured are the millions of other machines being built, each of which requires money and capital to be poured in. Some of these machines are quite risky: medical procedures, medicines, high technology, etc… all entail a fairly high level of risk. When the fat man does happen to fund a machine that actually works, he is going to milk it as much as he can not only to recover his investments, but to fund even more future investments.

Should the fat man decide that he wants to retire from entrepreneurship, what does he do? Why, he spends his money on things he wants: fancy cars, big boats, luxury homes with full staff. The money he spends here ends up in purchasing the products of these machines, some of which end up in the pockets of the workers, and the rest of which ends up in the hands of the owners of these machines. Ultimately, all of this consumption spending filters down until it ends up as wages for someone somewhere.

If he decides, instead, to save his money for a future day, he will do so by putting his money into an offshore bank account, buying secure investments, such as government bonds, or even purchasing commodities such as gold and silver. Again, where does the money end up? In all cases, it ends up in the hands of workers.

The capitalist understands that there is only one natural resource—labor. And he understands that it takes real money, real capital, food, clothing, resources, to purchase that labor. When capitalists have lots of capital at their disposal, they buy up as much labor as they can, and the laborers end up in the middle of a bidding war. This has only positive benefits for the laborer. They are the one thing of actual value in the world, the one thing that every greedy capitalist wants to get their hands on. Just like bidding for expensive works of art, the capitalists bid against each other for your time and effort.

When capitalists do not have much capital, or when people who have the capital decide it is not a good idea to spend the money right now, then the laborers lose in the bidding war. Ultimately, they end up completely unemployed. No capitalist is willing to risk spending their money at that time to hire them to work machines and build the materials and services people want. There are a number of reasons why this happens, not the least of which is that the government is providing the best investment opportunity right now because they are bidding for the same dollars that the workforce is. And when the government spends money, it isn’t ever to create even more wealth; it’s only to buy votes or to actually do the things we asked the government to do for us because we don’t think it’s worth our individual sacrifice to do. In other words, their return on investment is always negative.

Right now, in the US, we are in the middle of one of those great wealth-burning exercises. The private economy has to compete with the statists’ mad power grabs. They are trying to create an ever-large government to fund their every-grander vision of the future. In doing so, they are sucking up all the capital resources they can, and in the process, destroying out private economy.

What needs to happen, and quick, is we need to cut government spending, reduce government regulation, reduce government taxes, and end government borrowing. We need cuts across the board that we have never seen in our nation’s history. If we cannot do this, but instead insist on growing our government despite the faltering economy, we will quickly see how great nations fall.


Republicans Want to Kill Poor People!!!!!!!!!!!!

September 16, 2011

When Ron Paul was asked whether he would “allow” an uninsured patient to die in a hospital, he explained the concept of responsibility in a free society. He also explained that long before the federal government started paying for the poor, private charities, especially churches, were already there to see that the poor had everything they needed.

This point is lost on the leftist, so I want to help you find a way to respond.

When you say something like, “it’s not the duty of the government to take care of the poor,” they will respond with “So you want the poor to die in the streets?!?”

The simple response is: “If you care for the poor, why don’t you spend your own money on them? Why do you insist in stealing from other people to care for the poor?”

The discussion at this point should devolve into who owns what.  The leftist will insist that the “rich” aren’t entitled to their riches, and you’ll insist that the poor are poor because they failed to do the things the rich did to get rich, things like stay off of drugs and alcohol, go to school, sacrifice time and leisure early in their career, etc…

The clincher is this: Americans are the most charitable society in the world, by far. We spend more money on the poor, per capita, before the government even gets a chance to help the poor. If you’re a good republican, you’re probably already throwing thousands of dollars a year in charitable organizations such as your church and local efforts to help the poor. You get to wear that badge of honor now, as you say:

“I, and many republicans like me, care for the poor, and devote thousands and thousands of our hard-earned dollars to help them. We don’t demand that other people help the poor to make us feel good. We pay for our own conscience out of our own pocket. You, on the other hand, don’t care enough for the poor to lift a finger, and trying to save yourself from that guilty conscience, demand people like myself give even more money to the poor. How pathetic!”

You have turned the tables. You have made the leftist realize what he really is: a scoundrel, a thief, and a plague on our society.

I doubt you’ll convince many people who are too set in their ways to see beyond their own nose, but for the vast majority of hard-working Americans, you will win the debate every time.

I Don’t Owe You Anything

June 7, 2011

One of the arguments liberals use for the taxation of the rich is that the rich wouldn’t be rich without them, or rather, the government we have.

I think I have uncovered an argument to dispel that notion once and for all, and help rich people feel comfortable trying to keep all the money they have earned for themselves.

Imagine you lived in a town, and there was a fellow named Peter who offered protection services. He went around and beat up all the thugs, murderers, and thieves, so that everyone else can live their lives free of crime, for the most part.

If the fellow needed something, like a bullet proof vest, or a secretary, or a building with a jail, how would he get the money?

Well, if he was doing his job, and it was exactly the job the people wanted done, then they should be happy to give him the money he needs. In fact, the conversation would look something like this.

First, Peter would meet with the town representative, who the townspeople trusted with to represent their interests properly.

Peter: I need to raise four million dollars to build a larger jail and pay for the salary of my four deputies.

Town Representative: That seems like a lot of money, why do you need so much? Can you get along without the jail or a smaller jail, or perhaps with fewer deputies?

Peter: Well, I’ve looked at the problem as best as I can, and this is what I think I need them for. (Peter and the Town engage in a long conversation about what can be cut, and what the needs really are.)

Town Representative: Well, I’m satisfied. I’m glad we can come to an understanding. See, we value your services, but we like our money too. I believe the people in our town will be more than happy to share the burden for your services.

Peter: Thanks. When can I get the money?

Town Representative: It’ll take about 3 months, but I should have the money by then.

The Town Representative then takes his case to the town itself, proclaiming that he and Peter came to an agreement to raise such-and-such amount of money.

Rather than hold out a hat, the Town Representative proposes various taxing schemes, one of which the people actually agree to. With the agreement in place, the town representative or an agent representing him begins billing all the townspeople and collecting the money, which he gives to Peter.

Problem solved.

Question: If you lived in that town, and were billed $4,000, would you pay willingly or not?

If you wouldn’t pay willingly, is that because you don’t value Peter’s services, you think the price is too much, or you are paying more than your fair share?

Obviously, if you thought you were paying too small a portion, you would be happy, the same as if you got to buy a $40,000 brand new car for only $10,000. But you wouldn’t owe the government anything, any more than you’d owe the car dealership who gave you the deal.

If you felt like you were paying too much, then you’d feel like you were paying $10,000 for a car barely worth $500. Of course, out of a sense of respect for your fellow people, and in the interests of keeping order, you write the check and things go on.

Now, here’s the question: How much do you really owe Peter?

The answer: What you were willing to pay, without consideration for law and order and your sense of duty to your fellow townspeople.

Why do I know this? Because this is how free markets work. A thing is no more valuable to you than what you are willing to pay for it. No one, in their right mind, would pay more for something that is worth less (at the time they buy it). This is how we measure the value of things, not on how much people actually paid for it in times past, but what people are willing to pay for it today.

If you feel like you pay too little taxes, then you can pay a little extra, or find someone who you think pays too much in taxes and pay their taxes for them, or vow to yourself to pay extra when you get a little extra cash. Of course, we know that people generally don’t do that. Instead, they pocket the surplus as profit and life goes merrily on.

If you feel like you pay too much in taxes (which is all of us), then you are saying that you have already paid more than what government is worth for you. You ended up paying more than what it was worth, and so you definitely don’t owe government a dime.

Therefore, anyone who pays their taxes grudgingly doesn’t owe anyone anything. The money we keep which we don’t pay in taxes is ours to keep, the same way the money left over after we buy a car is ours to keep.

I think the logic is a little hard for liberals to grasp, so let me put it to you in a different way.

Let’s say you wanted to buy a hamburger, because you like hamburgers. So you go to McDonald’s to buy the hamburger. When you get there, you see that it is a $500 hamburger, and so you decide, “I’m not going to buy it, because it’s only worth $5 to me.” So you turn to leave the store, but to your surprise! there are a bunch of FBI agents there. “You have to buy that hamburger, you don’t get a choice. You have to bear your fair share of the cost of hamburgers, and if you don’t buy that hamburger, then society will collapse and you’ll be left with lawlessness.” For whatever reason, maybe the threat of jail, maybe because you buy their arguments, you fork over $500 and get the hamburger, which you grudgingly eat.

Do you owe McDonald’s anything after being forced to buy the hamburger that was worth only $5 to you? Of course not. It is rather the opposite: McDonald’s owes you $495, which you are never going to collect on.

The same is true with taxes. We don’t get to choose whether to pay our taxes, because we feel it is more important that order be maintained and we have a duty to each other. Every time we pay our taxes, and we feel like it is too much, it is because we get less back from our government than we have paid for.

And so, in the end, it is not us that owes the government, but the government that owes us. Of course, we’ll never see a dime from the government.

Communists Are Either Stupid Or Insane

May 26, 2011

I don’t believe this is a false dichotomy, because I cannot imagine any other scenario for someone actually supporting communist ideas. They are either stupid, meaning ignorant, incapable of reasonable thought, or insane, meaning they desire that which is not good for themselves or others.

To understand why, you first need to understand communism. The idea sounds simple enough: Let’s have everyone share everything so there is no rich and no poor. Indeed, that’s the idea behind the United Order as revealed by the prophet Joseph Smith. It’s an ideal I aspire to. I want to live in a society where there is no rich and no poor, even if it means that I live a lower standard of living.

However, and this is the key, it is the means by which communism intends to impose this vast equality of economic means that leaves communism as a failed, and outright evil, philosophy. It is this means which the stupid or insane people who support communism either ignore, misinterpret, or pretend doesn’t exist.

Let me help you understand. If you want to have no rich and no poor, then you need a few components to make it happen. One, a way to determine who has more than their fair share, and who has less. Two, a way to obtain the surplus property from the rich. Three, a way to distribute the property to the poor.

Under the United Order, the means are as follows. One, people determine, according to their conscience and input from their bishop, whether they are rich or poor, and how rich or poor they really are. People do not concern themselves with other people’s status, because it is an individual determination between God, that individual, and his conscience. Two, the rich voluntarily give their surplus to the bishop. Three, the bishop gives the surplus to the deserving poor. Meaning, those poor people who refuse to work and support themselves get nothing, whiles those who do are given the means to provide for themselves.

Looking at the United Order in this way, it becomes clear that sloth and pride are both eliminated. Pride in both sense: pride in thinking that you know better than someone else whether they are rich or not, and pride in thinking that you are more deserving than someone else of your own property. Those who live by the order, in their hearts, are rewarded with the blessing of living among people who share their values, and knowing that they have truly sacrificed all they have to the Lord, and what property they have is a gift of the Lord to them.

Under communism, the means are as follows. One, the rich and poor are defined in purely political terms, namely, in those terms which will help the communists obtain and keep power within the government. Two, property from the rich is obtained through government force. Those who refuse to comply are put into prison, slave camps, or executed, along with their friends and family. Three, the poor are given what little is left after individuals in the government and the communist party have taken their share of the pie, which in many cases is not enough to survive.

It doesn’t have to be argued whether or not what I just said is true. We have far too many examples from history, both in our own country and without. Even a casual examination of the facts will expose what I have described to be the truth.

Granted, communists will yell and shout and try to label me an idiot for exposing this truth. This is a demonstration of their own idiocy or their insanity. Being confronted with the truth, they do not argue it logically or reasonably, being open-minded and considerate of the fact that other people besides themselves are capable of higher human thought. Instead, they embrace their own ignorance, or realizing the truth, continue in the march towards communism anyway.

Communism is the most evil philosophy to appear on the face of the earth. The evils of the empire, an absolute monarch who ruled by blood and terror, at least had the veil of securing for the people some degree of liberty. Even the evil Roman Empire, which committed vast acts of genocide and slaughter obtained for the world, at least temporarily, Pax Romana, which made it possible for one tiny man from Galilee to preach against the status quo and form the Christian faith.

What does Communism leave in its wake? Not even peace. Those who live under communism are under constant threat from their masters, the members of the communist party and government. They live in fear, watching every word they say, and doing their best to appear as a good little communist.

One day, I am sure, it will be apparent to all that Satan is indeed alive and well, and he is at the helm of the communist movement. Those who cannot see communism as evil are the same who look over the world and say there is no devil. Being confronted with evil in such absolute terms, and deciding that it is no evil, they can see no devil even though his work is evidence throughout the globe.

The coming election in 2012 is a vote between re-electing a president who obviously supports the ideas behind communism, and is quite open about his support for those ideas, and someone else. I can’t think of any president, not even Wilson or Carter or FDR, that was so open in their detest of the American way and so open in their support of the statist way. I hope and pray our country chooses the “something else” option, to show that we do not want any part nor parcel with communist ideals.

50 Cent Gang

May 26, 2011

An Australian ABC reporter does an investigation in China about the underground Christian movement there. He notices he’s being followed by the same group of people, and then confronts them. Their reaction is priceless.

I installed an add-on in my Firefox, gTranslate, and started going through the comments on YouTube. Most of the Chinese comments are vicious attacks on their state police and spy agencies, calling them scum, garbage, and the whole problem with China.

A few commenters chimed in that the Western media is trying to undermine the whole system of government in China, so that the West can feed like vultures on the chaos that will ensue.

The comments respond to these posts calling them “50 cents”. Of course, they can’t mean the American rap idol! Looking up the slang for that particular Chinese phrase, I discovered that there is something called the 五毛党 — the 50 cent party. They are a bunch of commenters throughout the internet paid 50 cents to post in support of the Chinese government.

This almost seems laughable, really. Yet I wonder what compels so many people to defend the indefensible in our country. For instance, we have for a president, a complete joke and a sham. He has broken every campaign promise, made both to the right and the left. He sets a new record for presidential lows every day.

Just now, his USDA is persecuting magicians for having rabbits, saying they need permits and hand washing stations if they are going to use rabbits in their show. His NLRB ordered Boeing not to move to South Carolina, because that’s a union-busting tactic.

I wish half the things I read about President Obama and his insane administration were made up. I find it hard to believe myself until I see his officials saying those things with their own mouths, and the actual letters people receive from them.

It wouldn’t surprise me if he had his own 50-cent gang trolling the internet, inventing comments to make him look better than he is, spreading the pack of lies he wishes were the truth. Our own representative, Adam Smith, has been feeding us lies about what Obamacare is really doing, and what the Paul Ryan proposal really is, rather than confront the truth and propose a way out of the mess he caused with his own votes to bankrupt America.

Perhaps that’s what the Democratic Party has become today: President Obama’s 50-cent gang.

Marxism is Political Violence

May 9, 2011

I don’t want to share too many details, but last week I had the opportunity to meet a mayor of a Central American town. He was in the United States seeking asylum because his wife and daughter were shot by his political opponents. Luckily, they are still alive, and seem to be recovering well. But it’s become apparent that his political opponents have created an environment where either he has to learn how to fight to protect his simple right to life and liberty, or he has to leave.

What persuasion are his political opponents? What political ideology is there where violence is not only justified, but the preferred method of obtaining your political goals?

If you listen to Marxists and liberals, they will tell you it is the conservatives who believe in violence and regularly use it to further their political goals. This is, of course, an outright lie. The Tea Party movement, the quintessential conservative movement of limited government, had not a single violent issue in its entire history. Yes, there was violence at their rallies, but they were always coming from the Tea Party opponents and directed to the Tea Party supporters. What isolated instances of violence you can find on the Tea Party side are easily attributed to self defense.

In this Central American country, Hugo Chavez is supporting a Marxist movement that believes the path to power lies over the dead body of this mayor’s family. They believe that if they can just intimidate, injure, or kill the right people, they can take control of the cities, provinces, and national government. Since Marxism relies on government force to enforce its ideals (take from those who have, give to those who don’t), it should be hardly surprising to anyone that violence is not its principle method of operation.

Frankly, I detest the Marxists at home and abroad. I believe, by virtue of their political ideology and history, that we shouldn’t feel the slightest intimidated by them. We should stand firm in defense of our homes, our families, our churches, our faith and our governments. We should take up arms and us military tactics, if need be, to protect ourselves.

I hope this mayor will feel like he can return in safety one day. Unfortunately, he will have to tell his political supporters that the way to freedom is going to be through the barrel of guns, pointed at those who threaten their lives and livelihood daily. His mission will be one of training his people to defend themselves and each other. They will have the difficult task of keeping their town free from the influence of violent Marxists.

It’s too bad that we don’t have a president today who stands against Marxism. Those people who desire free markets and freedom from oppression cannot rely on the United States, but instead find themselves fighting against some of our foreign policies, foreign policies that support Marxists and injure freedom seekers everywhere. Had we a firm president, Hugo Chavez would be completely neutralized in South and Central America. His finances would long ago dried up. There would be no Marxist resurgence in our own continent, and countries like Colombia and others who are seeking Independence and liberty would be much closer to finding it. At the same time, those poor people who are struggling to make a life for themselves and their children would be much farther along in their economic situation, because the stability of the region would encourage foreign investments and jobs.