Thursday, November 29, 2012

You Know You're A Communist When..

Here’s a simple question: At what point do you know you’re a communist?

As a strongly principled Conservative/Libertarian, I feel like I could easily recognize other strongly principled Conservatives and Libertarians because their views fall similar to mine.

Using this logic, shouldn’t one communist be able to identify another communist? Better yet, wouldn’t someone who lived through Communism be able to identify a communist leader?

I think the answer is yes, and there is some frightening (only if you haven’t realized it yet) proof.
Recently an opinion article appeared in Pravda, a Russian Newspaper, by a relatively unknown writer, Xavier Lerma.

Let me start out by saying that after doing a little research on Xavier, I have found that he is not a Communist, Socialist, or Marxist. He is a Conservative, but Russian standards of course, with a true love for Vladimir Putin. If you read the column, you would catch on quickly to his favorable bias towards Putin.

While the column contains extreme spin and favorability towards Putin, everything that Xavier said about American and Obama is true – well, mostly true.

“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”

What about this isn’t true? Except for the ‘illiterate society’ comment, this paragraph expresses some of my feelings with the reelection of Obama to a tee.

Why do we study history?

We study history in attempt to learn from it, and to the best of our ability, not commit the same mistakes twice. However, we almost never learn from history and we always commit the same mistakes twice.
Xavier gets history though. He has learned from the past of the nation that he holds near and dear to his heart, and he is strongly against Russia committing those same mistakes twice.

Xavier knows that communism doesn’t work, nor does socialism. Xavier knows that low taxes are the way to go, and finally Xavier knows that faith, morals, and strong principles are the key to prosperity.

History tells us these things, and this is why Xavier is able to exploit all of Obamas mistakes. Not only is Obama and his administration not learning from history, but they are going in the direction of a “Soviet Plan”, something of which we know does not work. History tells us this.

The American media should be covering this story – its news. But they aren’t going to, that’s why you probably haven’t even heard about it, because American media doesn’t report the news anymore.

However, when Glenn Beck says something that is deemed to be “politically incorrect”, he is persecuted by the media.

What’s the difference between Beck’s thoughts on America and Xavier’s?
Nothing, and that’s why the media isn’t covering this story.

I suggestion you click on the link and read the column. It could do without all of the favorability towards Putin, but Xavier’s views about Obama and the current state of America are Right. On. Point.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Just Let It Happen Boehner

Following the reelection of Barack Obama, the rhetoric coming off of Capitol Hill concerning the “Fiscal Cliff” has been extremely high, but what’s all of the commotion really about?

The Fiscal Cliff is a series of automatic spending cuts to all levels of the federal bureaucracy (mostly defense) in addition to automatic tax increases. You may have also heard of the fiscal cliff as a sequestration.

The Democrats in Congress want to resolve the “crisis”, by raising taxes on the upper tier of tax payers in order to raise revenue. The Republicans, however, do not want to raise taxes on any American, while they would like to make reforms to entitlement programs, but have offered no real solution to the revenue shortfalls in their plans.

On November 9th, the President’s first address to the media following his reelection, he declared that he would veto any legislation offering tax cuts to those making more than $250,000. This means the President doesn’t want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts any further.

The President’s position has put Republicans in between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but the President is basically giving them no other options.

For the past three Sundays, Bill Kristol has insisted that the Republicans in Congress should compromise with the President and submit to raising taxes on the wealthy. Remember now, this is the same man that thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate political party and the Arab Spring wasn’t real.

Bill Kristol is by all accounts a dope, and no one on Capitol Hill should heed his “advice”.

However, I do have a suggestion for the Republicans – just let the President lead America straight off of the fiscal cliff.

By coming to any agreement, the media will portray the President as the hero, and the Republicans the enemy – it’s a lose/lose for the Republicans, so just let it happen.

The facts of the matter are that no matter what happens and no matter what deal is agreed upon, America will head over a fiscal cliff.

Any freshman macroeconomic major will confirm that when you raise taxes on those who already fund the government the most (excluding China of course), you are asking for more problems than you ever originally bargained for.

Raising taxes on the wealthy may lead to short term gains, but it will create bigger problems in the long term.

If the Republicans let the President have his way, I can see two good things that come from that, aside from the many bad things.

First, every single tax paying American will feel the effects of the Presidents arrogance and liberal bias. As long as you’re a tax paying America, your taxes will be going up. Americans don’t like their taxes going up, so that will not bode well for the President.

Secondly, there needs to be spending cuts in the government. This fiscal cliff is the only foreseeable way that spending will be cut. Instead of having politicians examine the budgets of every department of the federal government, having across-the-board style cuts will force the bureaucrats to cut spending in wasteful areas.

Finally, I just don’t understand why the President doesn’t negotiate going back to the Clinton era economics. After all, the Clinton era was so magical and there were no problems then, right? All we’d need to do is raise taxes across-the-board and cut federal spending beyond any level that is currently perceived to be possible.

Either way, the next month or so left before the sequestration is to take place is going to be a quite divided time for America, aside from the Lame Duck session of Congress.

I don’t want to see taxes raised on any American, but sadly is looks likely. And for that, we should all thank Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi.

Monday, November 12, 2012

What Exactly Is Hope?

The mantra of the Obama campaign in 2008 included the slogan: Hope and Change. Barack Obama promised the American people that he would bring them hope by bringing them change.
He promised Americans that if he was elected, he would make sure that by the end of four years, our nation’s growing debt would be sliced in half. However, if something sounds too good to be true, it normally is – and this was no different.
During his four years in the White House, he promised and promised and promised, but rarely did he go through with his promises.
Guantanamo Bay is still open, the economy is still in the dumps, unemployment is still high, the stock market isn’t doing well, people receiving welfare is extremely high – but hey, none of that matters, because now we have socialized health care! Woopeeee!!
What’s the point?
Barack Obama and his campaign promised hope and change. With his excellent teleprompter reading skills, he somehow delivered hope to America, but what about the change? What kind of change was he actually talking about?
When I think of change, I think about the federal government becoming less powerful, the states becoming more power, less spending, less taxes, balanced budgets, and more liberty and freedom.
But something tells me that this isn’t the change Barack and his minions have in mind.
Obama brought larger government, more taxes, more regulation, more corruption, smaller military, fiscal cliffs, high unemployment, economic instability, and socialized health care.
Sure, a lot of this was change, but it’s not the change that was promised, it’s not the change that America needs, and it’s not the change that is going to better America.
Waking up Wednesday morning, I was completely at a loss for words, because Barack Obama had won reelection.
I didn’t understand four years ago how a man who promised to bring ‘hope and change’ could become the most powerful leader of the free world. What kind of plan is hope and change? It’s not a tangible plan, and isn’t the slogan ‘hope and change’ straight out of Frank Marshall Davis’ playbook?
I didn’t understand that then, and I’m even more confused now. Obama ran on the exact same planks and platform that he ran on four years ago. What he promised four years ago, he’s promising again. If he promised it then, shouldn’t it be completed? Why does he have to promise it again?
The point is that this is an extremely dark period for America. America was ignorant enough to elect a man whom they knew nothing about four years ago, and they were ignorant enough to reelect him to a second term, when all he did was run on the exact same promises that he did four years ago.
Obama isn’t going to follow through with his promises this time, just as he didn’t his entire first term.  It’s even going to be worse this time around, because honestly, who is he answering to? No one.
America really messed this one up.
“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.” – George Washington

Election Day Shenanigans

I woke up wholeheartedly believing that by day’s end, America would shine red and Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama and become the next president of the United States –but boy, I was more than wrong.
“All Romney needs is Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Hamilton County, Ohio – and he’ll take the White House.”  That’s what I told everyone who asked how I thought the night would turn out. In the end, Romney only won North Carolina, while losing the others.
Midday Tuesday, before any election results started to come in, I tweeted, “Hamilton County in Ohio will decide the election. #election2012,”, and in the end I was right.
What’s so significant about Hamilton County in Ohio? Well, for starters, in the last four elections, the outcome of Hamilton County ended up being the outcome of the nation. More importantly, the only difference in Ohio between 2004 and 2008 was that Hamilton County went from red to blue. Subsequently, in 2004 George Bush took Ohio, but while in 2008, Obama won Ohio. One county, that holds one of Ohio’s largest cities (Cincinnati), decided the outcome of Ohio alone.
Is this really fair? Well, no, however it is the system that has worked for over 200 years, and it’s the system we have until we decide to do something about it, i.e., amending the Constitution.
I’ve never really had a problem with the Electoral College before, but the downfalls of the system were really exploited Tuesday night.
If you look at an Electoral map of the United States, the first thing you’d notice is that it’s mostly red. Well, if the map is mostly red, then why did Obama win Tuesday night? For starters, because Obama was the Democratic candidate, and because Obama is more liberal and progressive, he won cities.
Well how do the two connect?
The obvious answer would be that cities have a larger population. Even so, there is a deeper, more underlying reason as to why this occurs: Cities are inevitably more progressive and liberal – and they have been ever since large cities arose during the Industrial Revolution.
Cities are filled with minorities and the poor, more so than the rural areas. Demographically, minorities and the poor are more likely to vote for a Democrat than they are a Republican. Ergo, Obama wins the election because the majority of his voting blocs live in cities.
The Electoral College has its flaws, but until someone thinks of a better way to elect the leader of a free republic, I am more than content with the system that we currently use.
In the end, Barack Obama won reelection fair and square. That is if you take into account some voter fraud here and there.
After many months of reputation bashing, tax evasion accusations, and flat-out lies from David Axelrod and the Obama Campaign, it took one heck of a man in Mitt Romney to congratulate Obama.
I still have one remaining question: What exactly is this hope and change thing the President keeps mentioning?