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!

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he had refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. So, the Left is after him again.

Phillips says that on the same day of the Supreme Court decision, he received a call from an attorney asking him to make a cake that fades from blue to pink to celebrate his gender transition. Phillips again refused. He has also been harassed by the same attorney with multiple requests for cakes celebrating everything from drug use to Satanism. Naturally, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going after Phillips for discrimination. Again.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

Well, Phillips has understandably had enough. This week he filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado. In the lawsuit, Phillips says his family lost 40 percent of its income due to the harassment he has received. He also says he and his employees were forced to complete a "reeducation program" about not exercising his faith at work.

In the Declaration of Independence, just before the list of specific grievances against King George III, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"To prove this [talking about the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all.

I wonder, do candid citizens in the U.S. notice that the tyranny against personal liberty, and religious liberty is not coming from the Right? Really, you would think that the Left would be all about the anything goes, to each his own kind of philosophy. "You do you," that's the typical Leftist philosophy, isn't it? It's certainly the spirit of postmodernism.

But the Left isn't interested in liberty and justice for all. They're interested in liberty and justice only for their vetted list of oppressed groups.

The Left is also pretty confident in its ownership of the "bigot" label to slap on whomever it deems necessary. But let's just go ahead and say it since no one else will – the Left is bigoted toward Christianity. This has nothing to do with the state of Colorado defending LGBT rights, and everything to do with their contempt for Jack Phillips' religious beliefs.

You know you're in for trouble any time an article begins with the following words: "These have been challenging times to be white in America."

Oh. I see where this is going:

People who aren't white may find this surprising. After all, it has been decades since white people could feel so free about loving their whiteness, or so openly celebrate whiteness, or talk about how much they relish being white and doing white activities.

RELATED: Redemption of a Grand Dragon: Can such a hateful person actually change?

Those are the opening lines of a recent NBC News op-ed- titled "Are 'white people' jokes racist? Let a fellow white person explain." I mean, it would make for incredible satire. I mean, if it were mocking the outrageous postmodern mental gymnastics of the modern Left, this article would be awe-inducing in its satirical prowess. Alas, it is not. It's real. The author, somehow, means what he's writing.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing. It's a clever mechanism which allows that racism against white people is purely linguistic, based on the idea that power determines who can say what.

You know the routine: Racism against white people isn't a real thing.

The idea is embodied by the entire article, but one sentence in particular smacks of it: "one of the great things about being white is that you'll never have to know what racism feels like (on the receiving end anyway)."

I think I know what it feels like. It feels like someone is judging based entirely on my skin color. Kinda like this entire article about how white people cannot be judged based entirely on their skin color. How does that not make sense?

The great censorship jihad continue'ith. And maybe one of the most bizarre developments in this war is how members of the media have formed a Caliphate to wage this jihad. There are actually beat reporters from the mainstream media, hanging on every word Alex Jones says with the hopes of catching him violating social media terms of service rules.

If these mainstream media jihadis catch Jones in the act of saying anything haram - or forbidden - they instantly charge the battlefield and pummel companies like Twitter with examples of how their rules are being infringed upon. Their strategy bared more fruit yesterday. Twitter, one of the last platforms Alex Jones still had, slapped him with a seven-day ban.

RELATED: Alex Jones BANNED?!

I just can't understand where the Media Caliphate is coming from here. When you're in the business of and count on, the free flow of information, is it not counter-productive to your business model to advocate for censorship? Do you not see the slippery slope you're on? Look, I get it. You think Alex Jones is looney tunes and maybe even dangerous, but silencing ideas and information should never be the answer.

Countering crazy and dangerous speech with rational and sane speech should be your mission… not censorship. You're helping Jones get silenced and cheering it on, but what will you do when someone comes to censor you? Because that's where this is headed.

But while the call for jihad was raised for Alex Jones, and silence now falls on his Twitter account, these accounts still have full access. The Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, Beverly Hills Antifa, Antifa Philadelphia… there are more Antifa twitter accounts than I have time to mention.

The radical Left is so well represented on Twitter, you'd think they have their own private office at Twitter headquarters right next to Jack. The Revolutionary Communist Party of America is but one still posting and calling for things like - you know - just the violent takeover of the U.S. government.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

But the Media Caliphate isn't calling for their social media heads. They just want people like Alex Jones and Gavin McGinnis to shut up. I sure it doesn't have anything to do with - no it couldn't be - this is crazy talk, but both Jones and McGinnis work for rival media outlets and deliver rival narratives to the mainstream media.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. If smaller outlets like CRTV and Infowars are cutting into their viewership and stealing their YouTube and Social Media clicks, would it benefit the Caliphate to come at them full bore on a digital battlefield where they're currently getting their butts kicked? You bet it would, but that's just crazy talk.

I hope the advocates for censorship enjoy these early victories because it won't be long before the monster they're unleashing turns on the master.

How could you say no to that face?

WANG ZHAO/AFP/Getty Images

Do you trust your own ability to unplug from technology? Some people born before the 1990s are wearing it as a badge of honor now – that they quit Facebook, or they do a regular technology fast.

We like to think we're not overly dependent on technology, while posting on social media about how old-school we are. That's all well and good until the technology starts giving you puppy dog eyes and producing digital crocodile tears. What if your robot begs you not to turn it off? Will you still do it?

RELATED: Glenn's Predictions on Technology and AI for 2018

This isn't science fiction anymore. It's right around the corner. And if you're skeptical whether humans will treat robots like a family member, a new study might alter your view.

Researchers in Germany set up an experiment to examine how people treat robots when the robots act like humans. Each human participant was asked to work with a robot named Nao to create a weekly schedule and answer a series of questions.

What the participants didn't know was that completing the tasks was just a way for the researchers to find out what they were really interested in – how the participant's interaction with Nao would affect their ability to shut down the robot when asked.

Half of the participants were asked to shut down Nao without the robot protesting. But the other half of the participants heard Nao plead with them, saying: "No! Please do not switch me off! I am scared that it will not brighten up again!"

Of the 43 people who heard Nao's plea, 13 chose not to turn him off. Some said they felt sorry for him, others that they didn't want to act against his will.

The other 30 people did turn him off, but they took twice as long on average to do so than the group that did not hear the robot's plea.

Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.

The experiment confirms previous research demonstrating that humans are prone to treat technology, especially robots with human-like traits, as living beings.

Now, take this human tendency, and fast-forward a few years in the future when robots will look, sound, and act human, and know everything about us. Our 2018 problems will suddenly seem very quaint.