Bernie Sanders Wants To Ban These Five Things

1 Comment

This is from

Not matter how old brain dead Bernie tries to make socialism look and sound charming but it is a monster.

This is the same monster that has murdered 100 million people.

So no matter the title you want to hang on it be it any of the following socialism,progressivism or communism it is a system that oppresses starves and murders people.

The very same people that advocate for socialism aka the useful idiots are the first to die. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to some young people like such a kind old guy, and his brand of democratic socialism sounds like it’s “fair” and “nice,” not to mention “democratic” and a bunch of other comfortable, warm and fuzzy words.

To people who know history and are familiar with how socialism and all its “flavors” — nazism, communism, fascism, etc. — have actually worked in the real world, Sanders is not to be trusted.

Socialism, whether it’s called democratic or anything else, is about other people telling you what you can and can’t do in your own life. It really only appeals to people whose mental and moral development has been arrested at the stage where they want a governmental mommy and daddy to take care of everything.

Correspondingly, Sanders is amassing a list of things he would seek to ban should he win the presidency. Here are five:

  1. Cigarettes. Sanders hasn’t flat-out said this one, but he strongly implied it on “Meet the Press.” Sanders, who has outright said he would lift the federal ban on marijuana (one suspects he imbibes), was asked about New York’s soda tax, which he opposes, then about cigarette taxes. He said: “But cigarettes are causing cancer, obviously, and a dozen other diseases. And there is almost the question as to why it remains a legal product in this country.”
  2. Abortion restrictions. Sanders has promised to use the Department of Justice to “go after” states that pass any pro-life laws. As he put it during an MSNBC town hall, “I think we should expand funding for Planned Parenthood. And it is no secret, that in states all over this country, in a dozen different ways, there are governors and legislatures who are trying to make it impossible for a woman to control her own body. I will use the Department of Justice to go after those states, in every way that I legally can.” Makes you wonder how long it will take to go after pro-life groups and individuals. Can you say enemies list? As usual with abortion fanatics, there’s no mention of the rights of the unborn human beings who don’t get a choice in abortion.
  3. Free speech. Liberals despise the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that prevented the government from restricting expenditures by organizations in elections. It’s not because liberals don’t like money in politics, but because the decision has given many grass-roots conservative groups a say in elections and generally allowed the spending of money outside the control of the establishment. Sanders has previously proposed the Saving American Democracy Amendment to overturn the decision. Independent expenditures mean independent thinking on issues the establishment doesn’t want brought up. Remember, socialism is all about control, and Sanders hopes to pack the Supreme Court to reign in political free speech. He said, “I will appoint — or nominate people to the Supreme Court who number one, are prepared to overturn Citizens United, a disastrous Supreme Court decision.”
    1. Energy independence. Liberals hate the idea of the United States developing its own natural resources. They’ll tell you it’s because the planet is in danger of exploding like Krypton or something, but it’s really because liberals have a giant stick up their butts that drives them to want to keep everybody else under their thumbs. Sanders is no different, and he has said that he plans to ban frackingand new oil leases on government-controlled lands (which have been growing by leaps and bounds) “forever.” So how will we power our cars? Try googling “Flintstones” for an idea.
    2. Assault weapons. Why? Because if he just said “ban violence,” even some of Sanders’ brain-dead followers might figure out what a stupid, hypocritical idea this is. Like all other liberal gun controllers, Sanders’ concept is to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens in order to stop criminals. To facilitate this power grab, he’s falling back on the tried and true notion of “assault weapons,” a made up category of gun that has a floating definition that really translates as “any gun liberals think is scary looking” and that will win votes. His own website calls his home state, Vermont, the most gun-friendly state in the country, that “boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.” Hello? Anybody home? Think, McFly, think.

    And all the above is just for starters. Feel the Bern, indeed.


Freedom For Everybody, But The Working Folks

1 Comment

This is from Charlie 

God Bless Charlie Daniels.

I watched the first Democratic Party debate and came away with a sense of wonder at just how far the United States of America has tilted in the direction of socialism, and how enthusiastically the younger people in the crowd reacted when some of the most radical socialist points were mentioned.

Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist made wild and totally undoable proposals that would push a nation already headed in that direction, quickly over the fiscal edge. Free college, free health care for all – including illegal aliens – bleed the top 1% who supply most of the venture capital and radically redesign the distribution of wealth without even one mention of personal responsibility or work ethic.

He literally cringes when confronted with the prospect of using military force – which is not only a prospect but an unfortunate reality these days – and with Bernie’s social programs, there couldn’t be anything left but a pittance to maintain a strong military anyway.

When asked if “black lives matter” or “all lives matter” he replied that “black lives matter” and went on a harangue trying explain his stance and falling far below the mark of ever getting there, as he stood on a stage with no black candidates and championed a cause that has advocated the murder of police officers.

Hillary was – for the most part – cool and collected, praising the Obama administration and basically vowing to proceed in the same direction with a monolithic government, capable of supplying cradle to grave needs for all who inhabit these shores.

The other three candidates were, for the most part, “also rans”, garnering less questions and receiving less face time than Hillary and Bernie, but the differences between their political philosophies and presidential aspirations were minimal as far as I could see.

Speaking just for myself, Bernie Sanders is scary.

In my opinion, a Sanders presidency would dry up investments, in fact I think that the mere fact that he had won the election would send the markets into a tail spin.

The number of new bureaucracies it would take to administer his domestic programs would inflate the government payroll to the bursting point.

Now, I’m sure that Bernie is as sincere in his desire to redesign America as Barack Obama and probably visualizes a utopian society where everybody receives day care, health care, a college education and government subsidies should they decide they don’t want to work for a living.

Two things wrong with Bernie’s strategy.

1. A big, monolithic government stumbles over their own feet, is a model of inefficiency, cannot even run a postal service, is prone to corruption, is administered by those who will promise people anything to be reelected, will eventually take every cent paid in taxes just to keep the apparatus running, will have no choice but to raise taxes again and again on their way to creating a generation of citizens who have neither ambition, work ethic, morals nor individuality, a nation of robots and sheep who depend on the federal government for everything and do well to brush their own teeth.

If you want a microcosm of what kind of world a Bernie Sanders presidency would promote, harken back to what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

Next door on the Mississippi Gulf coast where the damage was just as bad, the people took care of getting their own to safe shelter and were out and about repairing the damage as soon as the sun came out.

Over in New Orleans – partially due to incompetent leadership by the city and state, but mainly because of the entitlement mentality years of dependency had fostered – the people sat back and waited for somebody to come get them and we all know the results.

2. There is no such word as “free” in federal government. They neither produce anything or provide an income producing service, and every red cent it spends comes directly out of some taxpayer’s pocket.

Even though the top tax rates Sanders is talking about are totally insane, even if he was able to collect them they would be a mere pittance when it comes to keeping his socialist utopian government afloat.

When you take money from one source and move it around, you haven’t created more money, you’ve just moved it from one pocket to another and in the case of federal government, it goes into a black hole and never emerges again.

Socialism has never worked, it’s flawed in design and that has been proven again and again over the last century.

Will America succumb to the siren call of “free everything” and end up on history’s rubbish heap along with the other nations foolish enough to embark on that one-way street?

I hope and pray not.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

You can see our government growing more and more  tyrannical every day.

We can look at Cuba and see a society destroyed by Communism  Liberalism,Progressivism.

Now I think about it Communism,Liberalism and Progressivism are the same thing. 

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” —Winston Churchill

There are a lot of arguments about whether communism, socialism, and liberalism are the same thing. What shouldn’t be arguable is that they’re all closely related branches of the same tree. If you don’t want to live in a house made out of Aleppo Pine, you probably won’t like a Coulter Pine or Eastern White Pine house either. However, since socialism has failed so often, socialists of every stripe bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from the many other disasters created by their ideology. Still, a pine by any other name is still a pine.

Socialism is particularly dangerous because it’s so perfectly suited for the modern era. It’s the ultimate “miracle” product: it’s “nice,” it’s “fair,” it’ll make you feel good about yourself, it’ll “help” people who “deserve it” by taking things away from people who “have so much” they’ll barely miss it. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But, like most products with sleazy salesmen and hidden track records, the promises socialism makes are all a mirage. Since our schools do a terrible job of teaching history and economics these days, it’s our job to explain how socialism slowly, insidiously eats away at the core of a society.

1) It kills economic growth: Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That’s what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, “A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats.” Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can’t produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That’s exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it’s killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.

2) It stifles free speech: Why is there ridiculous government propaganda in nations like North Korea? Why are most schools, papers, and colleges run by liberals in the United States? Why do liberals often try to disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses? Why are there such extreme speech codes in Canada that it practically makes some conservative arguments illegal? Why does speaking out against the government risk imprisonment in China and the old Soviet Union? Because socialism requires protection, propaganda, intimidation, and darkness to survive. Socialism can’t survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation. As Reagan said, “How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

3) It leads to an increasingly tyrannical government: Freedom and socialism go together like oil and water. The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have because socialism can’t survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism’s many failures. Areas that aren’t tightly controlled will move towards the free exchange of ideas and goods, not socialism. So, socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that almost inevitably grows. As government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from the people and ultimately more menacing.

4) It creates strife and division: Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people’s lives, the people who don’t wish to be controlled need to be vilified. If you believe in confiscating the wealth of successful people who won’t give it up willingly, then others must be convinced they’re terrible human beings who deserve to be punished. “Victim” classes must be created for the socialists to defend because if everyone is responsible for himself, what need is there for the socialist? Eventually, those who depend on government for their livelihood and those that the government smears and loots to pay them off come to hate each other.

5) Socialists believe the ends justify the means: Like the pigs in Orwell’sAnimal Farm, socialists believe that, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” For a socialist, the overriding concern is always promoting socialism; so process, rules and regulation mean different things for different people. Fidel Castro may have been the leader of a Communist revolution against the evil “rich people” in Cuba, but he’s worth 900 million dollars today. A law broken by a Democrat and a Republican may be treated very differently by the papers, the courts, and even the Department of Justice under Eric Holder. As Margaret Thatcher explained,

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.”

One of the reasons so many socialist nations are wracked with violent protests and revolutions is because when the rule of law is abandoned, only outlaws have any hope of receiving justice.

The “Economics” Of Individual Liberty And The Second Amendment

1 Comment

This is from JPFO.

This is something to think about.

By L. Neil Smith,
The Libertarian Enterprise. December 13th 2013

Prepared for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. © JPFO. Inc 2013

The late, unlamented twentieth century will be remembered in the future, principally for two things, the two biggest, most destructive inter-governmental conflicts in history, and the number of innocent individuals (more than 100 million) slaughtered wholesale by their own governments.

For anyone with two gray cells to rub together, this is the final, inarguable proof of the dire necessity of the people to keep and bear arms.

The twentieth century was also the century of socialism, a school of political economy which asserts that the interests of a single individual are of less importance (if they’re of any importance at all) than the interests of the group, whoever the group turns out to be. Those who successfully claim to speak for the group are then free to do anything they wish with the life, liberty, and property of the individual.

Socialism has never been limited to Russia and China, or a few European or Asian nations. Wherever the interests of the individual are sacrificed to those of the group, there you have socialism. The great libertarian philosopher Robert LeFevre maintained that, to any extent a society has any public sector” at all — funded by wealth taken by force or the threat of force from the individuals who created it, in violation of their rights — to that extent it is a socialist society.

Those three signature phenomena of the twentieth century, widespread war, slaughter, and socialism are not unrelated. Under socialism, mass murder and other such atrocities are inevitable and unavoidable, much like the law of gravity, and the sun rising in the east.

Here’s why:

There is a fundamental observation within the field of economics called the “Law of Marginal Utility”. The concept is highly important to human survival, prosperity, and progress; among other things, for uncounted thousands of years, it has made peaceful trade possible among killer apes. It isn’t really a law — economics isn’t really a science — and it actually has more to do with psychology (which is not a science either) than it does with anything else. The Law of Marginal Utility is a statement about the way people look at certain things.

It works like this: Marginal Utility holds that the more you have of any one commodity, the less value you tend to assign to any single unit of it. Imagine you’re a Paleolithic hunter who just killed and cut up an aurochs, a sort of giant prehistoric longhorn cow, yielding around 3000 pounds of meat that you now have to do something useful with.

A friend, who has also just killed an aurochs, and now has the same problem you do, drops by offering you a couple of pounds. You can remember hard times in which two pounds of meat might have meant the difference between living and starvation, but you politely turn him down.

In fact, when a second neighbor visits, complaining that he doesn’t have enough meat to feed his kids, you give him some of yours because it isn’t that big a deal. You have so much you’ll never get around to eating it all. Of course you can’t do this for everybody, or you won’t have anything left for your own family. But that’s a political problem for the future. Just now you ask him not to tell anyone about your generosity.

Yet another neighbor, who prefers gathering to hunting, drops by, griping that this year’s yield of beebleberries was so abundant that she now has baskets of the damn things she doesn’t know what to do with.

One of you gets a bright idea: swap some meat for beebleberries. What makes it a bright idea is that you have so much meat, you value any particular pound of it less than your neighbor, who has no meat. Your neighbor, on the other hand, has so many beebleberries that she values any particular basket of them less than you do, who has no beebleberries.

This is the Law of Marginal Utility at work. I makes possible an exchange of valuable commodities in which everybody wins. (Marxists would insist that such a thing is impossible, that one of you must have exploited the other somehow, but they won’t be able to tell you which.)

By now, you’re probably wondering what all this has to do with the individual right to own and carry weapons. In this connection it’s very important — in fact it’s the whole point of this essay — to understand that there are certain commodities to which this “law” doesn’t apply at all, mostly because they aren’t really commodities. Any pound or basket of them is not exactly like any other pound or basket.

An example that comes to mind (to my mind, anyway), is original paintings by Vincent van Gogh. If I had a hundred of them, that would not reduce my desire or regard for the hundred and first, because they are in no way interchangeable. Each is absolutely unique. And we would properly regard anyone who bought and piled Van Gogh paintings up like cordwood, and measured their value by the height of the pile, as a barbarian.

Human lives are like paintings by Vincent van Gogh. Each and every one is absolutely unique — more unique, if possible (grammatically, it’s not supposed to be) than even the finest, rarest work of art. And there are more reasons to come to that conclusion than can possibly be counted.

But they can be estimated.

To begin, each of us is genetically different from one another, each of us the result of billions of possible genetic permutations and combinations. Although we tend to resemble our parents and their parents in many ways, each generation is a fresh roll of the genetic dice.

It’s a lot better than simply splitting like an amoeba, resulting in two organisms with identical genetic complements. A species whose members bring a slightly different set of attributes to the problems life presents them with has a better chance of surviving longer. Once nature’s “got your number”, as it were, uniformity (or conformity) is death.

So we all differ from one another genetically.

Each of us, as well, has had a lifetime of different experiences, which have imprinted themselves on our personalities, altering them, helping to make us precisely who and what we are. Moreover, each of us regards each of those experiences in different ways, attaching, either consciously or unconsciously, different levels of significance to them.

Thus we all differ from one another in our experiences.

Finally, we are all the result, in part, of things we have chosen to do, say, think, and, to a degree, feel — all acts of free will, which Ayn Rand said consists of only one choice: to focus the mind or not to focus it. How many times has the average individual made such a choice?

We all differ from one another in our choices.

Now, multiply the number of genetic possibilities times the number of different experiences we’ve had (and the ways we’ve interpreted them), times the acts of free will that have shaped us. For all practical purposes, the ways in which each of us is unique approaches infinity.

Each individual human being is absolutely unique, and vastly rarer — and more irreplaceable — than the rarest work of art. Thus it is a basic tenet of the Austrian School — the heart and soul of the study of free market economics — that you can’t quantify human beings or their behavior, and that mathematics, especially statistics, is sadly inadequate to the task of understanding what people do or why they do it.

Now here’s the thing: socialists don’t see it that way. To them, statistics is the key to understanding history and human nature. Human beings are just like batteries to them, or bottles rolling off an assembly line somewhere, In a world of seven billion human beings, in a nation of 330 million, Marginal Utility rules. Any given individual counts for nothing. With a little training, any human being can be unplugged, discarded, and replaced by practically any other human being.

When human beings come to be perceived, by socialist politicians, by socialist bureaucrats, by socialist policemen, by socialist judges, by socialist academics, and by socialist media, as nothing more than indistinguishable, interchangeable units of a commodity, then any public manifestation of individuality — let alone individualism — is seen as a threat to be managed. So terrifying do they find it, that they have spent billions of dollars and millions of man-years in order to delegate the recognition and acknowledgment of individuality to machines.

Little wonder that, when the socialist elite decide that not enough of those seven billion units are serving socialist interests, they come to the conclusion that the great majority of them can be discarded. It happened in Armenia, in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, in Red China, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and it was almost always preceded by sweeping gun confiscation — or to a population already long since disarmed.

Little wonder, too, that the idea that vast numbers among those seven billion indistinguishable, interchangeable units — mainly the 100 million Americans who own “750 million firearms of modern design, in good working order” — might not want to be discarded, and are capable of successfully resisting it, fills socialists with fury and terror.

Now I’m not really an economic determinist, but you need very little else besides the so-called “law” of Marginal Utility to understand and explain the inexpressible horrors of the twentieth century.

Or the compelling need for each and every one of us who refuse to see ourselves as “indistinguishable”, “interchangeable” units to be equipped to defend our “insignificant” and “thoroughly expendable” lives.

Author and lecturer L. Neil Smith is Senior Editorial Consultant for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. A fifty-year veteran of the libertarian movement, he is the Author of 33 books including The Probability Broach, Ceres, Sweeter Than Wine, And Down With Power: libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis. He is also the Publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise, now in its 17th year online.

Secret Vechicle Compartments – Felony?

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

This law is one of the laws for our own protection.

This law should not stand up to Constitutional Challenge

However as screwed up as the courts are who knows.

WKYC is reporting that the first arrest has been made “To enact section 2923.241 of the [Ohio] Revised Code to pro

article-0-150C44DC000005DC-819_634x399hibit designing, building, constructing, fabricating, modifying, or altering a vehicle to create or add a hidden compartment with the intent to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance” (Senate Bill 305). Fortunately, for now, “[t]his section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance” (Senate Bill 305). Many may decry the non-violent action of drug trafficking, but there is a larger issue here.

There is an ongoing criminalization of nonviolent action in this country. First, they will ban compartments in cars for ‘unseemly purposes’, then they will ban them outright, and then these laws will start to apply to your home. This is a continuation of the assault on the people’s civil liberties that has the potential to criminalize victimless actions.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

What are your thoughts?

Photo of the Day, Year

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Socialism is not the Answer.



Photo of the Day, Year

Jon McNaughton – Stand Your Ground


On The Road to Execution

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

We have lost some of our rights because of these good intentions.

Will we be able to get off of this road Hell?

To borrow a quote from Pogo.

“We have met the enemy… and he is us”



“Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century?” — Whitaker ChambersWitness

It started simply enough. Four airplanes were hijacked and used as bombs against America; killing innocents as well as their executioners. It went downhill from there.

George W. Bush took it upon himself to try to ensure America’s safety. In order to do so he implemented one of the biggest sweeping changes in American government’s history. The birth of “Homeland Security” was done with good intentions, acknowledged. Too bad good intentions often go astray. The current administration took the start of the path to perdition and put it on full speed ahead: the Titanic captain had nothing on this admin!

Suddenly, we have this:

“[The President] has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such ‘commanding heights’ of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.”

Of course, it could be that he’s not actually a Communist, but is a Socialist instead:

Contrary to claims made in 2008 by [the president], his staff, and supporters, he was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago.”

It’s not just his membership in the Socialist Party that makes him a Socialist, it’s his actions as well. Whatever he is, he isn’t following the precepts of our Founding Fathers and no one can successfully argue that statement.

The president has taken America very quickly away from the Founding Fathers’ vision of America. By hook or by crook, he’ll get what he wants:

Just look at how this administration is trying to do an end run around the people by having the Environmental Protection Agency impose stringent regulations when it couldn’t even get the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to pass the socialist cap-and-trade bill.”

The question that becomes the issue: Is he taking us toward Communism or toward Socialism? In the long run, it doesn’t matter. Socialism (which we know via his membership card) is something that we know he believes in. With this president though, it looks like his Socialism leads to our Communism.

To clarify,

Socialism manages the economy through planned collective social control, while communism tend to manage both the society and the economy by making sure that the properties are owned by the centralized organization to gain classlessness and statelessness. Both communism and socialism tend to prevent the effects of capitalism.”

So if Communism’s defining moments come when the economy is under control of the government, what do you call the long list of economic impacts the president has had while doling out taxpayer dollars to whomever he likes? Add the 20% of the economy that his health care plan will control (until it buckles under its own weight). Just last month the president released his Climate Action Plan:

“It is this war on coal that would prove the most costly, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and $1.47 trillion of lost national income by 2030. [my bolding]“

Taxes and his tax plan may round out the list, but it does not finish it. There are things not yet mentioned, but I must keep the article a readable length. The fact that his tax plan impacts us in that,

“The most serious consequence would be slower economic growth, less job creation, and less wage growth. Secondarily, the smaller income gains would reflect back on federal revenues, offsetting much of the revenue growth the president hopes to achieve with the tax increases. State and local budgets would be adversely affected as well.”

Established: The president was a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party as a younger man (for all we know, may still be).

Established: The president has manipulated the economy and has had a drastic impact upon it.

Established: The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is whether the government is in control of the economy, as well as the social arena.

Established: The president is in control of the economy.

Therefore: The president is a Communist.

We also know he’s allowing more drones to take to the air to keep an eye on us. We know he’s not above suing states to keep them from enforcing their own laws. We know he tries to stifle the votes of those whom he believes will vote against him.  We know he’s hiding his background from us. We know he lies to us constantly.

We also know he willingly allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and did nothing to help them: “Stand down!” He did not seek out and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those responsible for Brian Terry’s death. We know there are questions surrounding other deaths related to the president (Jamie Zapata and Judge John Roll among others).

“The daughter of a former German diplomat in Moscow was trying to explain to me why her father, who, as an enlightened modern man, had become an implacable anti-Communist. It was hard for her because, as an enlightened modern girl, she shared the Communist vision without being a Communist. But she loved her father and the irrationality of his defection embarrassed her. “He was immensely pro-Soviet,” she said, “and then — you will laugh at me — but you must not laugh at my father — and then — one night — in Moscow — he heard screams. That’s all. Simply one night he heard screams.” — Whitaker Chambers, Witness

– See more at:


Obama’s Advisors: Disarm America Through Taxation

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

Warning American Warning socialism is moving rapidly.

I think it is time for another 1776.

Molon Labe is our battle cry.



“The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819. 

Here’s what Obama’s advisors are telling him about the way to confiscate guns: Tax them.



are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change. It’s only when two things happen simultaneously that revolution occurs. First, the ideals underlying the society must be undermined. That has already happened. And second, there must be a spark that ignites revolt. Since traditions and ideals of the country have already been compromised, it would be unwise to create any sparks.

Taxes ignite no sparks. Getting a tax bill is a non-event. The hapless taxpayer grinds his teeth and gets out his checkbook. He’s in a bad mood for a month. There is nothing to rally around. No one has been killed or invaded, at least at the point where the tax has been imposed.

Under this taxing approach you increase taxes to the point no one can pay them, then send a tax bill to the gun owners you know about (in Pennsylvania, that’s pretty much everyone who owns a gun), and you wait for someone not to pay. When a preferred target doesn’t pay, you send the storm troopers to his house, find his guns, and arrest him. You take the offender’s guns and his house and put him in jail for twenty years. Then you publicize the arrest and declare a period of amnesty for other weekend rebels and watch the guns flow in.

At that point, the country will have been effectively disarmed.

After the taxes are imposed and offending gun owners are picked off one at a time, wives will implore their husbands not to risk the family home, all their savings and the husband’s own freedom. And they will point to the examples of imprisoned and bankrupted gun owners that have already been held up to public view.

Norman Thomas described America’s descent into socialism very much in the way I have described America’s descent into gun confiscation:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without every knowing how it happened.”*


That’s the smart way to do it, Barack. Get us a little farther down the road to socialism, then quietly tax guns, and finally, take them all.

*Source cited quote from “The Liberal Mind,” pg, 27 by Lyle H. Rossiter

Read more:


Charity Not Allowed Unless Okayed by Government

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is outrageous why can’t people do charitable acts without penalty or permits?

You do a charitable act of putting a quarter in a parking meter and get fined or jailed.

Feed hungry children get fined and threatened with jail time.

The government is out of control it needs reigned in.

One of the things America has long been known for is our charity towards others.  Whenever there is a catastrophe anywhere in the world, U.S. based organizations and individuals are usually among the first to pitch in and help and to donate money to recovery.

Long before the American Revolution, most charity came from churches and Christians.  They followed the example of Christ’s compassion for others.  Most of the charitable organizations for years were biblically based and this has been one of the things that have kept America strong.

However, one of the tenets of a socialistic government is that charity comes from the government.  Socialism wants everyone to believe that the people owe their existence to the government and when they find themselves in need, the government is the one to turn to.  Under socialism, all other charitable organizations are squashed.  They even will do everything in their power to end private charity as well.  Charity can only come from the government and there is no other option.

More and more I’m seeing signs of how our socialistic government under Comrade Obama is implementing the socialistic views of charity.

To start with, look at the case of Dana Crow-Smith of Phoenix, Arizona.  The First Friday Festival was recently being held in downtown Phoenix.  The temperature was reaching a 112ºF and that’s not accounting for the radiant heat rising from the scorching pavement.  Crow-Smith and several Christians purchased several cases of bottled water, went to the festival and started handing them out to people.  After they would offer the water, they would try to witness to the person for Christ, but only after they offered the water.

Crow-Smith was approached by a city worker who said they were the Neighborhood Preservation inspector and said that she and her friends had to stop handing out the free water as they were violating city code because they didn’t have a permit.

n another incident, a woman in the Philadelphia area tried to be charitable this summer by feeding some of the neighborhood kids in her driveway.   Angela Prattissaid that she felt it was something she could do for the neighborhood as a number of these kids were from low income families and often lacked nutritional meals.  Prattis was informed that the city council deemed her charity to be an illegal lunch program because she didn’t have a city permit.  Initially, they fined her $600 per day from the day she started, but the public outcry was so overwhelming that they have granted her special permission to continue her feeding the neighborhood kids through Aug. 24, 2012.  After that, she will have to apply for a permit which costs $1000 and there is no guarantee the city will grant one.

All this because she was doing something charitable out of the goodness of her heart for the under privileged kids in her neighborhood.

In yet another act of charity, Stanley Yaffe of Denver, Colorado placed a quarter in the expired parking meter in front of a stranger’s car.  A city vehicle control agent (meter maid) saw Yaffe and began to warn him that he was interfering with the collection of city revenue and that he could be arrested for committing such a crime.

These are only a few of the examples of how our government officials have become intolerant of charitable acts on the part of American citizens.  It’s also a sign of far we, as a nation, have slid into the grips of socialism.

Over the past century, progressives and socialists have been quietly at work undermining America’s Christian faith, values and charitable actions.  They have been replacing them with faith in the government alone, immoral values and only the government can control charity ideas.  But no administration has done more to speed up the process as that of Barack Obama and because of that I can’t express how important it is to defeat him in November and send him packing.  America can’t survive four more years of him and it’s up to us voters to make sure we don’t have to try.

%d bloggers like this: