The March to Communism

Learn more about the coming nanny state in the March 2008 Issue of Fusion Magazine.

Overview

We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It’s not just a fear slogan to say ‘democrats are communist’ – just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself.

$1.5 trillion

Number of dollars over the years, state and local governments have promised, but not paid for in retiree health care and other non-pension post-employment benefits.

Feds up to their ears

The federal government is in no position to bail out these states and local governments because their unfunded future liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as is widely reported is an estimated $50 TRILLION. 

But even that isn’t the FULL story because that $50 TRILLION dollars only projects unfunded liabilities for the next 75 years—unless the government knows something we don’t—a lot of people are still going to be around after 75 years--if you project the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the infinite horizon MEDICARE’S UNFUNDED liabilities shoot from $33.9 TRILLION to a present-value unfunded obligation of $74.3 TRILLION—and that’s just MEDICARE!

Democrats (and some R’s) Solution? Spend!

Spend more, lots more!  Hillarycare Part II would cost and estimated $110 BILLION a year with Obama’s plan coming in at $60 BILLION annually.

2008 proposed federal budget allocations:

To get an idea just how much the 08 crop wants to spend, here’s what some existing programs already cost.

United States Secret Service                                1.4 Billion

Customs and Border Protection                           8.8 Billion

Immigration and Customs Enforcement                4.8 Billion

United States Coast Guard                                  7.3 Billion

The ENTIRE Department of Homeland Security proposed budget for 2008 comes in at $43 BILLION (less than either Hillary’s or Obama’s health care proposal).



Clinton’s other campaign promises:

$$

Spend $1 Billion For The Development Of Affordable Housing Through Housing Trust Funds. “In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, Sen. Clinton will establish a $1 billion fund to support state, county, and municipal housing trust funds

$

Sen. Clinton Has Introduced Legislation And Campaigned To Create A U.S. Public Service Academy, At A Cost Of Approximately $200 Million Annually; Multiplied By 4 Years = $800 Million.

$$$$

Sen. Clinton Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion

$$$

Sen. Clinton’s Baby Bond Proposal would give $5,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year, totaling $20 billion per year, multiplied by 4 years = $80 billion.

$$$$

Clinton wants to create a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" to develop new sources of fuel and has proposed paying for it by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. Edwards has outlined a similar program and would eliminate the oil company subsidies as well as establish a cap-and-trade system requiring companies to pay for emitting pollution. 

Obama’s other promises

?

Credit Card Consumers’ Bill of Rights—“stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices…”

 $

Credit Card 5 Star Rating System—similar to the Department of Homeland Security’s Color coded threat assessment rating system; Obama, if elected will implement a 5 star rating system for credit cards “which will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards…” Senator Obama previously introduced such a bill and put the price tag at $10 MILLION annually

 $$$

Foreclosure Prevention Fund.  In over your head; bought a home too big for your budget?  No problem—Senator Obama is proposing a fund to “assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels…”; estimated FIRST year cost? $10 BILLION.

$$$$

Proposal to create 5-E Youth Services Corps (the 5 “E”’s stand for energy, efficiency, environmental education, and employment) as well as a Green Job Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth in the all things Green.

$$

Supports requiring employers to give all employees 5 days of paid sick leave

$$$

Supports “encouraging the diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”  Can you say FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or perhaps public funding for Air America?

Totals

$286.999 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals

$218 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals

$7 BILLION

Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals

$54 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s  proposals

$150 BILLION (in savings)

Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

What this spending does

1.  Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can’t afford it;

2.  Reflect a particular paternalistic approach to governing—a true NANY STATE

3.  Each proposal increases the absolute RAW power of government 

March into Socialism/Communism

Other socialist countries (even Russia in some ways) are decentralizing their form of national healthcare---Obama and Clinton seek to increase government’s role in our medical care and treatment decisions and options; worse yet they plan on burying us in debt in order to do it;

Socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes have always focused on harnessing the youth into national organizations.  Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate.

We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year—most likely without any government incentive for doing so.  Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton’s US Public Service Academy or Obama’s 5-E Youth Services Green Army?

Glenn sums it up this way:

‘If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive.  Go back and read about these people.  They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. They don't believe in local level.  This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up.  These people, all believers in Marxism.  They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective.  Mussolini was not hated for much of his term.  In fact, he was idealized by the left here in America.  They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right.  That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition!  It wasn't good for you to drink.  It wasn't good for society to have alcohol available.  And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained.  And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming?  Starting projects, little armies of the youth!  Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth.

Depressing Summary

We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.