Barack Obama’s re-election has adopted a new slogan: “Forward”

It has some really interesting historical predecessors:

Click here to view the embedded video.

via GP

And then there are these:

Under the Leadership of the Great Stalin — Forward to Communism!

Under Lenin’s Banners, Under Stalin’s Leadership, Forward to a New Prosperity of the Soviet Motherland, to the Complete Victory of Communism in Our Country!

Forward to the Victory of Communism!

Via WZ

And over at Free Republic was the reminder of these images:

And who could forget this?

Click here to view the embedded video.

All we need now is that “Civilian Defense Force” as powerful as the military.

Then we’ll take your guns

The collection agency for the Federal Reserve known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is working with legislators to gain control over the rights of Americans. Without the right to due process, the IRS can simply claim a citizen owes $50,000 dollars or more to their illegal operation. This accusation alone will give their agency the right to revoke American’s travel rights and even remove the right to own a firearm.

With the help of Representatives like Barbara Boxer of California, a bill rapidly working through Capitol Hill (passed through the Senate and is currently up for review in the House) will give the IRS power to:

Accuse Americans of delinquency of tax payment without due process
Revoke their passports and travel rights
Place the accused in a centralize database
Authorize the removal of their right to own a firearm

No formal charges are required. Simply the accusation from the IRS is sufficed to strip American citizens of their Constitutional rights.

All you need is the accusation that you are a subversive.

Obama employs the words favored by the Nazis and Stalin and the Communists. Coincidence?

I don’t think so.

Is someone trying to fundamentally change this country?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I think so.

FORWARD!

The real Vladimir Ilyich Obama stands up

As part of his fantasy “deficit reduction” plan, Barack Obama proposed a number of new taxes. One of them was the so-called “Buffett Rule.” When it was initially proposed, it was part of the plan to reduce the deficit.

‘Buffett rule’

President Obama

“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” he said. “It’s hard to argue against that.”

Mr Obama suggested a “Buffett rule”, which would see Americans who earn more than $1m pay the same rate of tax as those who earn less.

The proposal refers to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, who has complained that he and his wealthy peers pay relatively less tax than the people who work for them.

Many high-income Americans benefit from tax loopholes that see earnings on investment taxed at lower rates than wages.

On Sunday Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee and a proponent of deep cuts and no tax rises, described Mr Obama’s plans as “class warfare”.

The president referenced Mr Ryan’s criticism on Monday, justified his tax-and-cut package by saying simply: “It’s not class warfare, it’s math.”

So how much impact would the Buffett rule have on either the debt or the deficit? The White House refused to say.

But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.

“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.”

Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.

It’s estimated that the “Buffett Rule” would bet around $4 billion per year.

A bill designed to enact President Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.

That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.

Obama’s proposed deficits run over a trillion dollars for as long as anyone can imagine.

Since the Buffett rule would have essentially no impact on the debt or the deficit, Obama has shifted tactics. It’s no longer about deficit reduction- now it’s all about fairness.

The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

So it’s not the math? It’s fairness? OK, then.

“Fairness” was Vladimir Lenin’s central campaign theme- equality of outcome. It’s what Communism is all about.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasize equality of outcome as a primary goal.

Via Wikipedia

It also led right to Josef Stalin. So how is $4 billion a year going to create “fairness”? How is it going to give everyone a “fair shot”? How does that actually work? Will the yearly $4 billion go into the “fair shot pool”? And once that doesn’t do anything, will Obama be back asking for a 90% tax so everyone can have more “fair shots”? Is the ultimate goal control of and business and everyone’s salaries so the Obamitburo can determine what’s “fair” for all of us?

The fly in the ointment? Life isn’t fair.

If life was fair, I’d have Barack Obama’s wealth. If life was fair, we could all be astronauts. If life was fair, my kids wouldn’t have lost soccer games 8-1. If life was fair, we’d all get into Harvard Law.

It can be argued that it’s a terribly unfair thing for someone to lose at the Master’s. Why is there a “champion” of the NBA each year? That’s not “fair” to the other teams. Why play the Superbowl? It’s not fair that one team has to lose. It’s even more unfair to the teams that did not make it. Why not just have every tennis match and baseball game end in a tie! That’s fair!

But then, what’s the point of playing? What’s the point of doing anything if the outcome is the same if you try as if you didn’t try?

It’s also not “fair” for only half the country to pay Federal taxes. As someone once said, we all ought to have some “skin in the game.” We all ought to pay the same tax rate.

That’s fair.

The Marxist genie is out of the bottle. Neal Boortz compared Obama’s words to those of Marx:

“Responsibility from all” = “From each according to their ability.”

“Fairness for all” = “To each according to their needs.”

Watch some future democrats’ attitudes toward redistributing their GPA

Click here to view the embedded video.

Obama is no longer about recovery or growth. He’s all about fairness.

The ultimate result of a Obama’s fairness vision would see equal outcome for everything. No matter how hard you work, no matter the risk you take, you earn the same amount of money. No matter how hard you study you earn the same grades. Everyone owns the same house, the same car.

The good part is that everyone gets to be a doctor, lawyer or airline pilot. Without question, though, some democrats would be more equal than other democrats. That’s how it went in mother Russia too.

Somewhere, Vladimir Lenin is giddy with glee.

Dear Mr President,

Many of us are outraged that you consider us your enemy; not me, I’m proud to be your enemy.

No, not the type who wants to put you in the cross-hairs at 800 meters: I am an American who loves his Freedom and his Country with its traditions. Sure, I have my doubts concerning the citizenry that would elect a Marxist for President, but most of them aren’t old enough to have seen the devastation among the warriors who returned home from WWII, Korea, and Indo China: I am.

As a child, I cowered and listened to the men as they sat around tables and drank; some yelled and ranted, some talked quietly with tear streaked cheeks, some said nothing at all; they shared their pain, a pain that scared us children.

One Korean vet marched daily down a gravel road a few miles from my home; every day he marched with a ramrod stiff cadence that none of the rest of us heard. Everyone tried to ignore his strange behavior; they said he was shell shocked and in time he would get better, but he marched and marched down through the years.

One day I went away and wore the uniform; on my return home, years later, I was driving past him in my work truck and I snapped him a sharp salute. He returned the salute and kept marching. I felt humiliated for what I had done. I knew nothing about the man, except that he was a shell shocked veteran from either Korea or WWII. He may have been an officer, I still don’t know to this day, but for the rest of the time I worked around home, he saluted me every time I drove past him. He was a Canadian Mr President; however, he contracted his problem fighting alongside our American Patriots who were fighting to keep this country free of tyrants and he pays for that past honor by endlessly marching and I hope he is still able to march to this day, because we are losing those Patriots at a tremendous rate Mr President. Patriots who put their life on the line and accepted their fate to keep us free from tyranny.

Today we have a new generation of Patriots, who are putting everything on the line to fight tyranny and for our way of life that we so loosely describe as Freedom, thank G-d we have them. There is not a day that I don’t think of them and wish them well. They have such a difficult job, fighting a politically correct war with dubious and self-defeating Rules of Engagement; your Rules of Engagement, that accomplish nothing, besides providing assistance to our enemy and the shedding of American and Allied blood.

On a more personal note Mr President, just so you know, I am on the ropes financially; just the type of citizen that would-be tyrants need to implement authoritarian and totalitarian forms of Dystopia. I had an extremely successful business ten years ago, but a divorce and being caught in the mortgage fiasco at a point when I needed a large sum of money, complicated by the downturn in the economy has nearly ruined me financially. Yes, I am a perfect candidate to trust in a tyrant for assistance, but don’t look to me or millions of others to sell out our souls and Freedom for a yoke of Socialist slavery. I might die broke and homeless, but I will die a Free man.

Yes Mr President, I am your worst enemy: I am a man who Loves Freedom.

Your Un-loyal Subject, Skook.

Environazi’s exposed!  In the new doom and gloom climate change book, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy (Politics and the Environment), the authors tell us that a Democracy like the United States is bad, an authoritarian government like China – good.

In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the fundamental problem causing environmental destruction–and climate change in particular–is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws and contradictions bestow upon government–and its institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance–an inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society. Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to authoritarianism without our even noticing.Even more provocatively, they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in existence highly successful authoritarian structures–for example, in medicine and in corporate empires–that are capable of implementing urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging on a philosophical choice between “liberty” or “life.”

One of the authors penned this recent article on the subject:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. It is not that liberal democracy cannot react once it sees a threat, for example, the speedy response to a recent international financial emergency. If governments can recognise a financial emergency and in an instant move heaven and earth (and billions of dollars, pounds sterling and euros) to contain it, why are they unable to do the same in response to a global environmental emergency? Quite simply our system is seen to live and breathe by the present economic system; the problem is that living and breathing within the confines of the world ecological systems is contrary to the activity of progress and development as defined within liberal democracy.

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

He then proceeds to write glowingly about how great China is because they don’t have to deal with any individual liberties and other such nonsense.  Plastic bags a problem?  China just bans them and closes all the factories.  Why oh why can we not do such things!

They don’t have to worry about loss of political donations or temporarily unemployed workers. They have made a judgment that their action favours the needs of Chinese society as a whole.

For the collective good.  Sound familiar?

A pure socialist/communist heaven I suppose.  But this time its going to be the dictatorship of the scientists.  The elites among the science circles will now be the holders of the keys.

Dr. Sanity:

For most of the 20th century these fascists have sought to escape responsibility for the condequences of their utopian fantasies. The world is littered with the corpses and awash in the tears of the people who they have “helped”. Fantasy environmentalism is only the most recent strategies they have adopted as they attempt reassert their socialist ideology under the guise of “saving the planet”, while they chain all of humanity. Ask yourself how it has come to be that Al Gore’s environmental obsession has become required classroom reading. And how our children are being indoctrinated right this moment in the K-12 classrooms into the holy rituals of the environmental histrionics.

Consider for a moment the call to imprison those who ignore climate ‘science’. The very essence of free scientific inquiry is open discussion and high levels of skepticism; but the fascist ‘elites’ must carefully contain any speech or any attitude that questions their own interpretation of environmental science.

Clearly, this is not scientific inquiry, it is an inquisition. It is not science, it is religious dogma. And if you do not believe, you are in danger of committing the horrific sin of apostasy.

You begin to see how much in common these neo-marxist, fascist ‘elites’ have with the imams of radical Islam. Both suffer from an unquenchable desire for power over others. Either submit to their authority, or else….

I’m guessing that you will not be shocked to find out upon reading the whole article that the only way for this utopia of environmental rainbows to work is that the ones in charge, the holder of the keys if you will, will be people such as the writer himself.

Shocking!