[...] Cory Booker! Whatever would g...
Did White House threaten Cory Booker for criticizing Obama’s attack ad? « Full Metal Patriot on Obama threatens to withhold Social Security checks despite sufficient funds [UPDATED] Social Security Chief Actuary exposes Obama deception
Is Obama becoming another Khrushchev?
On November 18, 1956, at the height of the Cold War, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously said, “We will bury you!” while addressing Western ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow. He was certain that the Soviet Union’s system of Communism was just and fair, and he believed firmly that every other nation would eventually become communist.
Obviously, that didn’t happen. Khrushchev and the USSR have been resigned to the dustbin of history following the absolute collapse of the corrupt Soviet system of Marxism. But while the Soviets were in power, they did everything possible to undermine the United States of America. Their fundamental goal was to destroy Capitalism and replace it with the Soviet style of Communism. And Americans were united against it.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s. In our household, it was always a given that Communism was bad. And as I grew older and researched many different political ideologies, it seemed very clear to me that Karl Marx’s system of wealth redistribution — and the inherent corruption it creates — was indeed evil. Although the “Red Scare” of the 40s and 50s was definitely over the top, America’s instinct to resist the spread of Communism was well-founded.
Now it’s 2012, and we have a president who just this week stood the well of the House of Representatives and gave a State of the Union address which could have come straight from Nikita Khrushchev himself. Sure, it was wrapped in much of the American platitudes and terminology we’ve come to expect from our politicians. But Obama’s speech was laced with the kind of class warfare rhetoric and Marxist propaganda that one would expect from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Obama’s proposals are as beguiling as they are insidious, and just because they are offered by a president of the United States doesn’t mean that we should take them any less serious than if they were proposed by an outright enemy of America.
“… the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.
The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.”
Isn’t it more than a little disturbing that our President thinks that his notion of fairness should trump all debate?
News flash for President Obama: we don’t need Marxism to keep the American dream alive. We already have a country where everyone gets a fair shot. We already have an economy where those who work get a fair share. And we already have a society where everyone plays by the same set of rules (except for the elites in Congress, of course). Obama is not the first politician to come along with a sense of fair play. We have millions of laws at the federal, state, and local level that punish injustice and encourage equity.
Communism is, at its heart, a classless system based upon state ownership and distribution of everything, based upon what the state determines is fair: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” To Socialists and Communists, this is the ultimate in fairness. But in reality, this system is a prescription for tyranny, totalitarianism, and shared misery.
Our president is using “fairness” as a political euphemism for wealth redistribution, and he’s not even being that secretive about it any more. Toward the end of his speech, he came right out and admitted that what he’s advocating is nothing short of class warfare.
“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”
First off, Obama is dishonestly repeating the thoroughly debunked “Buffett rule” agitprop that billionaires are taxed less than their secretaries. He KNOWS that’s a lie. But he’ll keep repeating it until November because he knows it rouses his voter base. His followers willingly believe this distortion and are all about envy and wealth redistribution. For some weird reason, Obama followers are all too eager to forget all about the horrors of Communism evident in the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China. These misguided folks seem to think that if only Obama can implement his own special brand of Socialism or Communism here in America, everything will somehow be “fair.”
It’s NEVER fair to steal from someone who works and gives the money to someone who refuses to work. And that is what is happening more and more in our country under the guise of fairness.
In the Soviet Union, the state owned the means of production (kinda like how our government now owns GM) and they managed the economy through central planning. All this was done for the supposed good of the Russian worker, in the name of equality. The Soviet government had their fingers in everything; they kept whatever they wanted and allowed workers to keep only a portion (a “fair share”) of their earnings. After that proved to be a disaster because it destroyed a worker’s incentive, the system was replaced by a tax system where the peasants were allowed to sell whatever the government allowed them to keep, albeit at a state-regulated price. But even that system proved untenable, as the massive amount of bureaucratic administration needed to micromanage every business became impossible. Still, every aspect of Soviet life was dictated by the state. They told you where you could live, what you could own, what you could eat… (sound familiar?). The bureaucrats in the Soviet government determined what your “fair share” would be.
And that is PRECISELY what President Obama is proposing. He wants to dictate what he deems to be someone’s fair share of their own earnings.
“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”
For now, Obama is directing most of his class warfare ire at the rich because it’s far easier to manipulate a large population of poor and middle class folks against “the 1%.” But make no mistake, the more we allow Obama to expand his Politburo, the more control he’ll continue to exert over income at every level. For Marxists like our President, it will only be fair when when everyone is brought down to the same level.
Well, everyone but his jet-setting wife and her $2,400 dresses.
If we, as Americans, think our current system of taxation is unfair, we should scrap the ponderous mess of regulations, loopholes and bureaucracy and replace it with a Flat Tax (one low rate with no deductions or loopholes) or the Fair Tax. A truly fair tax system would be something very simple and straightforward, in which everyone pays something — including the 46% who currently pay no federal income taxes.
We should NOT just hike taxes on the wealthy, no matter how much it appeals to a collective sense of jealousy and envy. Because if we base our taxation on envy rather than on the principles of liberty, it won’t be long before someone who earns less than you do turns their hungry eyes on what you own and asks the government to take it from you. Everyone should be encouraged to excel, not be encouraged to an equal level of mediocrity.
But that won’t do for our own Dear Leader. He thinks he knows best. He doesn’t respect our nation’s founding and is tired of working within the confines established by our United States Constitution.
“The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action…”
Obama has already demonstrated that he has no qualms in doing an illegal end-run around Congress whenever it suits him. Like any tyrant, he can’t stand to be told “no.” If Congress won’t go along with what he wants — even the Democrats in Congress — he wants the ability to bypass them. He’s already done so, and he’s brazenly demanding more power:
“The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”
And then there’s this: he misappropriated the words of Abraham Lincoln to make the case for his utopian ideal of an all-encompassing government which can do anything it likes if it deems it necessary for the supposed good of the American people.
“I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”
John Hayward spotted this right away and wrote an excellent article which nails Obama’s dishonesty to the wall:
Lincoln was very clear about the limits of legitimate government, in the same speech that our supposedly super-intelligent President is either lying about, or did not bother to read. “In all that the people individually do as well for themselves,” Lincoln asserted, “government ought not to interfere.” He didn’t say “interfere a little” or “interfere when the government thinks it has detected some unfairness.”
The government Obama presides over has gone far beyond “providing for the helpless young and afflicted.” If vital welfare services for the truly destitute were the sum total of government spending, it would be a miniscule fraction of its current size. That’s why assaults on limited-government conservatives as heartless misers who don’t care about the poor are so deeply disingenuous. We have sailed very far beyond a “welfare state” for the needy. The Obama “transformation” is all about promoting middle-class dependency.
(The whole article is well-worth the read, because there’s a LOT more there)
This post is already getting way longer than I usually like to write, so I’ll sum it up here rather than belabor the point further. President Obama has dangerous delusions of grandeur and fancies himself some kind of benevolent dictator. And if we allow him another four years in office, he will continue to seize more power for himself and further circumvent the constitutional limitations of his office because he thinks everything he does is permissible in the name of “social justice.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
~ C.S. Lewis
Unfortunately, social justice has been the motivation of many tyrants and dictators throughout history. Few of them started out with a plan to simply crush the people they governed. But all too often, that becomes the unintended consequence of granting too much power to the Executive — a fact which was well-known by our Founding Fathers.
The Soviet Union was unable to bury America. But if we allow President Obama to do what he outlined in his State of the Union speech, he just may succeed where Khrushchev failed.
Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
[...] Is Obama becoming another Khrushchev? [...]