► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Marxism’ Category

The thrill of tyranny.

by Guest Post ( 290 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Progressives, Tea Parties, The Political Right at April 22nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: The thrill of tyranny.

Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.

IRS revokes conservative group’s tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements

The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.

The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.

Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”

Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.

A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.

What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.

BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.

The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”

Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.

Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight against feds

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.

As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.

That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.

What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone to far.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Shoe thrown at Hillary Clinton

by Rodan ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Marxism, Progressives, Special Report at April 10th, 2014 - 10:22 pm

I seems not everyone views Hillary as a benign “great Mother” figure who will save America. At a speech in Las Vegas someone thew a shoe at the Marxist pantsuit.

(LAS VEGAS, KXNT, A.P.)–A woman was taken into federal custody after throwing a shoe at Hillary Clinton as the former Secretary of State began a Las Vegas convention keynote speech.

The incident happened moments after Clinton took the stage before an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort.

Clinton ducked but did not appear to be hit by the object, and then joked about it.

This is a waste of a show.

Eric Holder whines and threatens over being reminded he is a CRIMINAL.

by Guest Post ( 167 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Eric Holder, Marxism, Progressives at April 10th, 2014 - 12:28 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

Department of Injustice Attorney General Eric Holder got testy with and threatened Texas congressman Louie Gohmert during a House hearing on Tuesday when Gohmert not so subtly reminded Holder that he was in fact a criminal.

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents.

Eric Holder (Democrat), Attorney General June 20, 2012
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[13] June 28, 2012
House of Representatives Found in criminal[14] and civil[15] contempt

That’s right, Department of Injustice Attorney General Erick Holder was found to be in CRIMINAL contempt of congress.

Holder: Can you believe the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday?

The almost textbook outrageously-outraged followup to Holder’s confrontation with Louie Gohmert during a House hearing on Tuesday. Ugh.

I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly and divisive adversity. And if you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me — you look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee. It had nothing to do with me, forget about that. What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?

“It had nothing to do with me”? Well, actually, it one hundred percent had absolutely everything to do with you — and not because of the reason (hint: rhymes with “bassist”) you’re rather unsubtly implying, either. It might, however, have had something to do with the fact that your department within the Obama administration has ‘unprecedentedly‘ coordinated a scandalously failure of a deadly gunwalking operation that you’re still trying to downplay and dismiss while continuing to obfuscate the investigation thereof by refusing to hand over all of the relevant documentation. “What attorney general has ever been treated this way”? Wrong question, “buddy.”

How in the name of God, can any American consider the American Justice system to be anything other than dysfunctional and utterly corrupt given the fact that a convicted criminal is in charge of the Department of Injustice? I’ll tell you how. Every last Democrat in America believes that as long as one of their own in in a position of official power, that it is perfectly ok for them to commit any and every crime on the books so long as it advances their political and ideological agenda, that’s how.

America’s Democrats are Marxist totalitarian tyrants who hold only one moral or ethical value. The End Justifies the Means.

Al Sharpton was a FBI snitch

by Rodan ( 101 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Crime, History, Marxism, Progressives at April 7th, 2014 - 7:00 pm

Al Sharpton always appeared to be a rat to me. I have always suspected many of these “community organizer” types were government moles. That is why no matter how many times they agitate, they don’t face serious jail time. Now my suspicions about Sharpton have been confirmed.

Reports are now circulating that Al Sharpton was a FBI informant. For a number of years in the mid 80′s he recorded conversations with members of the Genovese crime family in the NY area. Al Sharpton was more than just a street agitator, he was working for the very system he condemned.

Later this week, Obama will travel to New York and appear in a Manhattan hotel ballroom at the side of the man whom FBI agents primarily referred to as “CI-7”–short for confidential informant #7–in secret court filings. In those documents, investigators vouched for him as a reliable, productive, and accurate source of information about underworld figures.

The ex-informant has been one of Obama’s most unwavering backers, a cheerleader who has nightly bludgeoned the president’s Republican opponents in televised broadsides. For his part, Obama has sought the man’s counsel, embraced him publicly, and saluted his “commitment to fight injustice and inequality.” The president has even commented favorably on his friend’s svelte figure, the physical manifestation of a rehabilitation effort that coincided with Obama’s ascension to the White House. This radical makeover has brought the man wealth, a daily TV show, bespoke suits, a luxury Upper West Side apartment, and a spot on best seller lists.


Beginning in the mid-1980s and spanning several years, Sharpton’s cooperation was fraught with danger since the FBI’s principal targets were leaders of the Genovese crime family, the country’s largest and most feared Mafia outfit. In addition to aiding the FBI/NYPD task force, which was known as the “Genovese squad,” Sharpton’s cooperation extended to several other investigative agencies.

TSG’s account of Sharpton’s secret life as “CI-7” is based on hundreds of pages of confidential FBI affidavits, documents released by the bureau in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, court records, and extensive interviews with six members of the Genovese squad, as well as other law enforcement officials to whom the activist provided assistance.

Like almost every other FBI informant, Sharpton was solely an information source. The parameters of his cooperation did not include Sharpton ever surfacing publicly or testifying on a witness stand. 

Genovese squad investigators–representing both the FBI and NYPD–recalled how Sharpton, now 59, deftly extracted information from wiseguys. In fact, one Gambino crime family figure became so comfortable with the protest leader that he spoke openly–during ten wired face-to-face meetings–about a wide range of mob business, from shylocking and extortions to death threats and the sanity of Vincent “Chin” Gigante, the Genovese boss who long feigned mental illness in a bid to deflect law enforcement scrutiny. As the mafioso expounded on these topics, Sharpton’s briefcase–a specially customized Hartman model–recorded his every word.

Sharpton is a 2 faced rat who deserves no respect.


Great Tweet

by Rodan ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Marxism, Progressives, Special Report at April 5th, 2014 - 12:45 am

Not every Gay supports the Gaystapo’s Fascist agenda against Christians. American Elephant is a Gay Rightwinger who rejects the Totalitarian Gay Fascists.


How Far Will Progressives Go To Rewrite History?

by Flyovercountry ( 177 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Marxism, Progressives at April 2nd, 2014 - 9:09 am

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Apparently, the answer comes in at a 4500 years at least. I haven’t seen the highly touted, “Noah,” but I have read some reviews. From what I’ve read about the movie, I believe I’ll hold onto my half sawbuck, and wait for it to appear every other day on one of my movie blitzing cable channels. Word has it that the great flood referred to in the Book of Genesis, Bereishis for those of you who prefer the Hebrew pronunciation to the English, was the result of God, or Hashem if you would, venting his wrath over mankind’s disregard for environnazi compliance. That’s right, it would seem that God was ticked off over global warming even way back in the day. Man kind’s general wicked nature you say? Well, that was second fiddle to us enjoying way too much, the fruits brought forth by farting cows. (I’m only guessing at the farting cows bit, seeing as how SUV’s, air conditioning, steel mills, fracing, and bituminous coal burning power plants had not yet been conceived of.) As some sort of Hollyweird bonus, Noah it would appear had some sort of Malthusian death wish for even his own kin.

For years now, I’ve looked at the Creationists and the global warming mongers through the very same lens. Both groups are as anti-science as would be possible, and both have pointed fingers at the other group and chided them for being anti-science. The huge difference of course is this, at least the creationists know deep down, that their faith is what is driving their belief system. I have always held that faith, when properly applied, is a wonderful gift that man kind has been given. It gives its adherents strength, courage, and the ability to face adversity with a resolve not easily attained. I’ve also always maintained that faith should be recognized as exactly that, for what it truly is. It is a belief that has no logical explanation, and is rooted only in the inspiration of the divine. Attempts to explain it logically and in terms of science will always fall short of that measure.

On the other hand, not recognizing faith for what it truly is can lead to some pretty poor applications. Belief in man made global warming despite the actual evidence presented, is also a faith. The difference is that faith masquerading as science is far more likely to lead to a Malthusian end. In the movie, “Noah,” for example, the character loosely inspired by the story from the Bible, takes it upon himself to make certain that no human beings survive the great flood, and only his weakness allows for the continuation of man kind, against God’s Malthusian will. Global warming you see, really has the big guy ticked off. All of this is presented to us with the continuing premise that Noah himself is the hero who can’t quite complete his mission of genocide.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly was wrong with the original point of the story, that man kind had become so wicked and defiant towards the forces of good that the almighty decided a do-over was necessary? Why has Hollyweird taken it upon itself to correct the greatest story ever told, and rewrite that particular part into a tale of environmental hysteria? For years, we have had the show business types look down their noses at people comfortable with their faith and declare us all to be of questionable intelligence. Truthfully speaking, I am a lot more comfortable with them on the other side of the divide, standing as an adversary that I can clearly see. What has prompted this sudden co-opting of our faith, to where they must change the nature of God himself to serve their nihilistic fantasies?

According to this new sect of the Judeo Christian faith, no technological advancements of any kind are allowed. Although, one must be forced to speculate on what kind of technology might have been around 4500 years ago that would cause the alpha and omega to get his panties up in a bunch sufficiently to flush the cosmic toilet? I believe that this movie does serve as a rather dubious landmark in that highway between biblical allegory and the shock jock style of low brow entertainment. It is proof once again that as long as you offer up big screen style of special effects or dogs wearing hats complete with the Benny Hill theme song, little in the way of actual thought need be placed in the, “art’s,” messaging. more importantly however, is the reason behind why the Bible was chosen as the story to change.

For years I have watched as Hollyweird destroyed books I’ve read. Puzzled by their adaptations, I have often asked why in the world they bothered to keep the title at all, if their intention was to tell a different, or even in some cases an opposite story. It’s not just books either, but often times other movies that are tweaked to meet the more politically correct vision of the show biz left. Peter Jackson read the LOTR trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien and discovered that Frodo was not the most adventurous and toughest little Hobbit, but instead some sort of cross between a whiny little wimp and a brain dead pampered plutocrat. Godzilla in the late 90′s grew breasts, changed sexes, and rampaged about, not because of the terrors of nuclear proliferation, but because, “she,” merely wanted to lay eggs and nest in California, oh and to demonstrate that destroying the world could be accomplished by women too. Political messages insinuated into television shows has been the cause of me personally boycotting dozens of what at one time were my favorite hour long blocks of down time.

This is something different here. This is the changing of a book held by its readership to be sacred. Artistic license is not appreciated by those who consider the Bible to be word of God, no matter what the intentions of those who produced this movie may have been. (Artistic License by the way, was the description of Darren Aronofsky, the film’s main screen writer, director, and producer.) This movie is a devious attempt to convert Christians and Jews to Aronofsky’s religion of choice, the Malthusian church of Global Warming. In stead of believing in a Biblical commandment for men to be fruitful and multiply, Aronofsky sees a God who believes that man kind is somehow a cancer upon his otherwise perfect Utopia, and should be doing what ever is possible to prevent another of our numbers from ever being born at all.

There are some who might see this clap trap as being part of some concerted effort among an organized leftist movement to destroy the faith of an entire nation, but I disagree. I believe it to be the singular sickening vision of one little man who was mistakenly given a platform for his obsession. Either way, I won’t waste my time or money. (I offer my apologies to Emma Watson and Russel Crowe, who’s individual performances I’ve read almost salvage what otherwise would have been a completely irredeemable piece of crap.)

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Feet whose toes were made of clay and gold.

by Guest Post ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Immigration, Marxism, Progressives at April 1st, 2014 - 6:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

The latest Red on Red battle is starting up. It looks to be as ugly as it can get, and who profits from this Red on Red battle, it is neither the GOP Aristocrat (though they are as likely behind it as the democrats are) nor the Conservatives in the Republican Party. What is this latest Red on Red battle?

Rand Paul on immigration: Republicans have got to get beyond deportation

Before anyone excommunicates him from the GOP on grounds of RINOism, ask yourself: Will there be a single Republican candidate onstage next year at the debates who challenges him on this point? Don’t say Cruz. Cruz opposes a path to citizenship but he’s in line with Paul, Rubio, etc, on legalization and work permits, which are the truly important provisions. Once legalization is granted, citizenship will inevitably follow. (That’s why it’s crucial to secure the border first, to make sure that this amnesty is the last amnesty.) If Paul’s candidacy is DOA for taking this line, I’m not sure whose candidacy is still alive.

Besides, America is already largely “beyond deportation.”

During a symposium at the Newseum on conservative engagement with Hispanic media outlets, Paul also said Republicans have plenty of ideas that appeal to Latinos, but acknowledged, “We got to get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues.”

“The bottom line is that the Hispanic community, the Latino community, is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue. They’re not going to care whether we go to the same church or have the same values or believe in the same kind of future of the country until we get beyond that. So showing up helps. But you got to show up and you got to say something and it’s has to be different than what we’ve been saying.”…

“I think one way to get the door ajar is say that you know, Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico,” he said. “You know, because everybody — even those who are here illegally — know somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”…

Paul, who voted against last year’s Senate comprehensive immigration bill, expressed frustration that the bill still keeps it illegal for immigrants with certain visas to change jobs while in the United States. He gave an example of a migrant worker who came here with a legal visa to pick crops for $9 dollars an hour but later saw a construction job that paid $14 dollars an hour.

Those within the conservative wing of the GOP have one single salient point to their argument. As a Conservative I am deeply troubled by this Red on Red war. It only serves the interests of the GOP Aristocrats and the Democrats. Keep the Conservative base of the Republican Party divided. Are you for the rule of law, or amnesty.

The one salient point Republicans like Rand Paul have, is how do you deport 20 to 30 million people without starting a civil war? Oh, it’s easy to say, seal the borders and enforce the laws, but such simplistic rhetoric does not address the issue of how do you deport 20 to 30 million people.

Personally the idea of rewarding people who have broken America’s immigration laws makes me want to throw up. But the idea of attempting to round up 20 to 30 million people gives me the Heebie-jeebies as well. It smacks of something that Adolph Hitler’s Nazi regime would attempt. I have accepted the reality (though I hate it and fight viciously against it) that today’s America has becomes a Marxist/Socialist society. That after 50 years of incessant Marxist/Socialist indoctrination and propaganda people in America would genuinely consider a Pyrrhic victory such as attempting to deport 20 to 30 million people is disturbing beyond belief.

Have we really fallen so far down the Marxist rabbit hole that we can only accept 1 solution, and a solution so drastic at that?

NO… I will never vote for amnesty. It in my mind is simply no more of a valid solution than rounding up 20 to 30 million people the way the Nazi’s did and deporting them. So many on the right have followed the Marxist/Socialists into the trap of believing that “The End Justifies the Means”. That winning at any cost is preferable to compromising anything at all.

The GOP Aristocrats, who like their Democrat brethren live only for power, desire nothing less than to see a dangerous upstart like Rand Paul destroyed by the Immigration issue. There is no doubt that they are as much behind pitting conservatives against Rand Paul as the Democrats are. It serves their interests, not those of the United States of America. Ronald Reagan was betrayed by the democrats over this exact same issue and many of today’s “The End Justifies the Means” Conservative consider it Reagan’s single worst sin.

The saying divide and conquer is as old as human civilization, even Jesus Christ acknowledged it’s truth and power when he said “A house divided cannot long stand”. Immigration is being used to divide the Conservative base of the Republican party, it is not the Conservative base that will profit from being divided and conquered, it is the GOP Aristocrats who have proven time and time again that they will sell their mothers soul to retain their seats at the tables of power, and it is the Marxist Democrats who will profit.

So go ahead, declare Rand Paul to be fatally flawed, unacceptable, and throw him to the wolves just as your master, the GOP Aristocrats and the Democrat demand that you do. You will have your Pyrrhic victory, the Democrats will retain control of the nation and the GOP Aristocrats will retain their seats at the tables of power. We will end up with amnesty, the Democrats will get their 20 to 30 million new Marxist/Socialist voters, but you will have your lofty Olympia moral superiority perches to comfort yourselves with.

Divide and rule

For the collection of novellas by L. Sprague de Camp, see Divide and Rule (collection).

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

The maxims divide et impera and divide ut regnes were utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the Corsican emperor Napoleon. The example of Gabinius exists, parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico).[1] Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3[2] that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War[3] (Dell’arte della guerra),[4] that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: “Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt.” [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] On the other hand, in a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase “separa et impera” in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787,[5] which summarized the thesis of The Federalist #10:[6] “Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.” In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa (Act now, and make excuses later) and Si fecisti, nega (when you commit a crime, deny it).[7]

Elements of this technique involve:

creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign
aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign
fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers
encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending

NO… what we need is a real solution to illegal immigration, one that does not include either amnesty nor deporting 20 to 30 million people.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

The Myth Of Seven Million

by Flyovercountry ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Marxism, Progressives at March 31st, 2014 - 8:00 am

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

In September of 2013, one month before the $635 Million online shopping cart failed in spectacular fashion, (bear in mind that every industry expert questioned on this subject agreed that the entire web site should have been built to work flawlessly for a paltry $2 Million to $5 Million,) HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked what number of enrollees would be considered successful. Watch her answer below, and then we’ll talk about it.

I swear, I could see those gears turning inside of her head. “What number can I say that will sound big to someone not thinking critically, but will be an easy mark to hit? I know, success looks like Seven Million enrollees by the end of March 2014.”

Let’s shag the easy pop fly first. In no way can Seven Million enrollees be an accurate determinant for success. The slightest amount of perspective on this laughably failed law will show us that. We’ll use the Democrats own numbers to start with, then we’ll have some fun. When this lemon began its life in the selling-it-to-us phase, we were told that some 47 Million Americans, out of our number that topped 400 Million, were sans Health Insurance. We needed to do something, you know, for the children. Since that time, we’ve passed a law that says those 47 Million, each and every one of them, must, in order to be fully compliant with the law, sign up on Healthcare.gov. I have some cop friends, at local, state, and federal levels of jurisdiction. They all tell me, without wavering in number, that in order for any law to be enforceable even in the slightest sense of that word, 90% compliance among the citizenry is necessary. This is the real reason why the speed limit was universally increased on our interstate highway system a few years ago. The law limiting speed to 55 MPH was so thoroughly ignored that our police began ignoring it themselves. It was so thoroughly ignored that cops began to become suspicious of anyone who obeyed the law.

In order for Obamacare to be even mildly enforceable, at least 90% of that 47 Million people must be compliant with the law, and that number starts at an eye popping 42 Million. That number has changed however, seeing as how the law took it upon itself to increase, rather than decrease the number of uninsured in this country. We need to add the 90% of the previously but no longer insured to that mixture as well. What that number is has not yet been fully calculated, and if it has, the most transparent White House evah has not seen fit to share an accurate accounting of that information.

That however is just scratching the surface of this conversation. Consider this. Our Executive Branch has seen the necessity of spending $684 Million so far in an effort to pimp out the virtues of this very thing that the current law demands full participation in anyways. And even with that staggering amount of advertising that has hired every NBA star, former and current, and his mother, intruded itself upon the Super Bowl, seen actors, rap stars, a guy wearing pajamas, the infamous, “Julia,” and President Zero appearing on every talk show, youtube comedy channel, Univision, Telemundo, and Disney, we haven’t surpassed the line in which 15% of those for whom it is compulsory are seeing a good enough reason to participate. We’ve not only put lipstick on this pig, we’ve bought her a dress, high heels, pearls, and a wig.

I don’t know how to break this to you guys, so I’m just going to come out and say it. The writing is on the wall. Just like the unemployment number was tortured and the books cooked to get that figure below 8% in time for the 2012 election, these super geniuses are going to some how, some way, reach their magic Seven Million figure. Success will be claimed, and it’ll be blared on every alphabet media outlet known to exist in our Universe. Just under the wire, whew that was close!

Oh, and just to be mean about the whole thing so far, you’ll notice that Kathleen Sebelius(D), Land of the Unicorns, mentioned the whole end of March, 2014 thing when the deadline was still October 15, 2013. If I were cynical, I would have guessed that she knew of some problems upcoming well in advance, contrary to her sworn Congressional testimony.

Let’s say, just for the moment, that the Bamster gets his Seven Million, and further that they aren’t completely bogus and largely manufactured in the same plain of existence where Unicorn Farts drive down global temperatures and the green economy is real. Let’s pretend also that in this same instant of suspended reality, an eye popping 85% of those who are compelled by law but refuse to participate, will not result in nightmare for those tasked with enforcement. Does this figure represent any thing close to success? For that matter, would any figure represent anything close to success?

When this nonsense was packaged and sold, part of the argument in favor was that it would be budget neutral, that by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have the money to pay for this. The baby gorilla would only cost $984 Billion over 10 years. Of course, what failed to be mentioned on any news outlet other than Fox was the asterisk marked fact that this was based upon 10 years of tax collection as compared with 6 years of actual benefit. Each time we added a candle to the birthday cake on this sucker, we included another year of benefit, while not adding another year of tax revenue, which by the way has gone down due to economic malaise. So now, the cost of this lies somewhere north of $2.6 Trillion. Our baby gorilla has now grown into the 800 pound variety, and he is fixing to beat us to death with this ridiculous law.

One of the major funding mechanisms which would, “ahem,” help to bend the cost curve down, (a funny concept since no where in this law is actual cost dealt with or conceived of existing in any fashion,) was in convincing millennials that acting against their own best economic interests was somehow going to raise their living standard. The mega disastrous $2.6 Trillion price tag to the taxpayers at large is predicated upon full participation by the demographic this law has seen fit to steal from. With a participation rate of 90%, we’d have a shot at keeping that price tag somewhere near the aforementioned figure. With a 15% participation rate amongst millennials, I do not believe that the CBO has adding machines capable of calculating an accurate price tag which will be presented to the taxpayers, and much sooner than most anyone knows at this point. When one considers further that the current crowing of Seven Million enrollees is itself a lie, then the 800 pound gorilla has moved into Jabba the Hut territory. Barack Obama and his team are right now taking victory laps in an effort to convince us that what is happening is not happening. The trouble is, when real Americans find it difficult to buy basic goods and services, and by basic I mean those things necessary to maintain a minimal existence, they’ll know that the liquid being poured over their heads ain’t rain. Maybe now you’re all getting a sense as to why alcoholism was so prevalent in the former Soviet Union.

The Democrat Party Apparatchiks have declared that, “mend it, don’t end it,” will be their mantra during this fall’s midterm elections. I personally would like to see the GOP make their national retort, “You can’t fix this car Spicoli!

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Socialism On Any Level, Leads Only To Evil

by Flyovercountry ( 154 Comments › )
Filed under Marxism, Progressives, Socialism, Tranzis at March 28th, 2014 - 7:00 am

I usually stay out of debates centered around the topic of abortion, (or its more politically correct term, women’s individual reproductive choices,) but something happened recently that made me give it another thought. Before we get there however, I’d like to disclose a couple of things to you. I am Jewish, and while our religion shares some strong similarities with Christianity, and we are very close on many beliefs, we are also worlds apart in other respects. We do not proselytize. Christians from what I’ve been told, consider it one of their sacred duties to save the souls of others. That difference right there is huge, at least in terms of today’s topic. My faith is a personal thing, and usually does not come out at all in public anymore, unless someone chimes in with a comment on one of my posts citing the Old Testament as a means to tell me where I’ll be going in the after life. Politically speaking, I guess you could either label me as a free marketeer or a libertarian leaning Republican.

I was mad beyond words when the GOP Primary debates hosted by our good friends in the alphabet media excluded every other challenge America faced at the time in deference to that top tier topic of whether or not we could find any preposterous and equally painful circumstance which would allow women to make an horrific decision or whether we would instead have a society where we advertised family planning with K-Mart’s famed Blue Light. Our budgetary problems, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry, rampant unemployment, purposeful inflation of our economy, national defense, terrorism, bureaucratic overreach of every government agency, and pretty much any other topic worth mentioning were all shelved for a one and a half hour discussion of how much each candidate really really hated abortion, (and all women in general as the meme would be turned into later.)

Election time for me has always been more about economic concerns first, and stopping our shift leftward in this country to a point beyond return. I’ve shied away from the abortion issue, primarily because I’ve always felt it to be more of a distraction from other things which would or could help our side to win elections.

Special Note:

Since I mentioned elections in one of my posts and said our side, I must give this rhetorical shout out to the Third Party Advocates, who view everything from their own very very narrow prism: All hail to the Gods of the Third Party. Hail to thee, hail to thee, hail to thee. May our discussions be worthy of your acceptance.

With that disclosure out of the way, here’s what made me think twice about the whole thing. Earlier this week, it was reported that several, as in not an isolated group of sick lunatics, of the NHS Hospitals in Britain were burning the remains of aborted babies for use as a heating source. Let that sink in for just a moment, and please be sure to control your outrage for the purposes of good, and not evil.

My friends, this is one of those seminal, “how did we get here,” moments. Britain, by and large is not a Socialist economy. On the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, Britain ranks 14th in the world, two slots behind the United States, safely included in the, “mostly free,” category. (Yes, it upsets me to no end that for the first time in my life, Barack Obama has shepherded the U.S. economy from the, “Free,” category and seen us fall to the, “Mostly Free,” category. That’s another discussion entirely.) The NHS, Britain’s singular foray into that sad little experiment known as Socialism, is that shining example of what happens when the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the good of the masses.

I would suggest, not meaning to be immodest here, that some serious questions need to be asked. This is the one sector of the British economy that has been placed under the control of the top down thinkers, formerly referred to as the central planners. How is it possible that their finances are in such a state, with their nation’s smartest ruling elite apparatchiks in charge, that they felt it necessary to burn their dead as a substitute for heating oil? What does that say for the society at large, that they felt so little remorse for those dead babies that not one person with knowledge said, “perhaps we should be show more reverence, seeing as how we’re a hospital and all, for those no longer among the living?” Yes, acknowledging the Socialists reading this, there are those cultures which use cremation as a means of burying their dead, but they are not using the ceremony as a cheap means for keeping their lights lit. How is it that the very group of people who have established themselves as occupying the moral high ground in all things related to, “Social and Economic Justice,” found themselves burning dead babies for heat, against the ethics of every other civilized person on the planet? Those of us on the political right are lectured to continuously about how we are cruel for championing a system that sometimes leaves people behind, and creates winners and losers. I would argue otherwise, but I know that capitalism is not perfect, nothing is. I just also happen to no that comparing capitalism to Utopia and not against the other systems of economics put into place, is the only way to make it seem a poor choice. No where in capitalism would we ever be treated to a scene as horrific as that scene which is being played out in the hospitals of the United Kingdom.

This represents a dehumanization of our society that goes way beyond alarming. We are talking about man kind being on the edge of the proverbial abyss here. I think it’s time we stop and take stock of ourselves, before we jump off of the edge.

Economic Freedom Index: Rankings By Nation

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Venezuelan Pregnant woman killed

by Rodan ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Headlines, Marxism, Progressives, Republican Party, Venezuela at March 25th, 2014 - 2:00 pm

While the media and online outlets continues to whip people in a frenzy over the Ukraine, people deserving of our support have been abandoned. It has been 2 months now since the Venezuelan people have risen up against the 3rd World Liberation regime of Nicolas Madura. On a daily basis Venezuelans are beaten and killed by the Marxist regime, while the rest of the world with the exception of Colombia has turned their backs on these people. Parts of Venezuela like Tachira have fallen out of government control and many opposition members are now armed. Yet none of this is being discussed.

In the latest atrocity of the 3rd World Liberation regime or Madura, a pregnant woman named Adriana Urquiola was gunned down by government thugs in Caracas.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — A pregnant woman has been killed amid a protest outside the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. It’s unclear why she was fired upon.

The mayor of Guaicaipuro says Adriana Urquiola died Sunday night in that municipality after she left a bus that was stuck in traffic as the result of a barricade built by anti-government protesters. She doesn’t appear to have been participating. The 28 year-old began walking toward the barricade, and was shot in the head. She was five months pregnant.

The lack of outrage over the situation in Venezuela is disgusting. I fully expect the Obama regime and Democrats to support the Madura Regime. But seeing how the Republican Party and its outlets have turned their backs on the Venezuelan people is despicable act.