FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss

Government Motors & Our Marxist President

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 30-04-2009


According to the Communist Manifesto

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Is this not what has happened? The uber left elected a Marxist president who has successfully taken capital from the investors and given it to the State and the workers. According to the WSJ

Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and his auto task force, led by Steven Rattner, have somehow decided that Treasury and UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger will get to own a combined 90% of GM. If there’s a reason other than the political symbiosis among the Obama Administration, Michigan Democrats and the auto union, it’s hard to discern.

The article further states that private investors will receive less than $.05 on the dollar for their investments while the government takes a 50% stake in the company. Contrary to the lie Obama told last night about not wanting to meddle in the auto industry, his removal of one CEO demonstrates his dictatorial governance of those who refuse to follow his socialist/Marxist agenda. The Manifesto goes on to say

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

As we see with the proposed nickel on the dollar plan, Obama and this administration are following the despotic suggestions of Marx to deny people their right to property in order to revolutionize the mode of production.

Marx went on to say

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.

So, as Marx predicted, the nationalization of industries is a way of stripping political power from the People and placing it in the hands of the government and unions.

Here is my question: at what point do we snap?

We can have all the little tea parties we want, but that will not stop Obama from trampling the Constitution and radically changing the government with the help of a despotic Congress. Obama has already dismissed and mocked the people protesting him, demonstrating his disdain for the Right of the People to assemble and redress grievances.

The only lawful things I can see is a mass descending on D.C. We need a ten or twenty-million person march. In as much as we can, we must refuse to buy or use anything owned by the government or unions. If that doesn’t work, then we need state legislatures and governors who will live up to the responsibilities instilled in them by our Framers. We need State governments who will nullify these unconstitutional laws until we can vote out all the socialists and Marxists in office.

BamBam looking for a big bang

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Democrats | Posted on 29-04-2009


Obama is pressuring passage of an addition to the hate crimes law. My guess is, when he commandeers the airwaves tonight, he wants to be able to smile and read from the teleprompter, “look what I did for you.”

Steve King (R-Iowa) says 
“Don’t believe what they say; read the bill. Think what happens. What’s their agenda? Their agenda is to shut down preaching of faith from the pulpit. Their agenda is to force public approval of the homosexual agenda. And destroying marriage nationally is the follow-up piece of this.”

While liberals say this is not the case, after reading the bill, I can see Mr. King’s concern.

In the Construction section of the bill, it states that the bill cannot prohibit free speech as long as that speech is constitutional. And whereas the bill also says association to groups cannot be used in prosecution to demonstrate motive “unless specifically related to the case,” it can be used to impeach the witness. Since the government will be the one who decides if something is motivated by prejudice, they can point to someone’s church affiliation as a reason to malign the witness. For example, let’s say Bill hits on John. John punches Bill. The prosecutor can say this was a hate crime and John’s attendance in church led him to hate homosexuals.

I oppose this bill on other grounds. The idea of “hate crimes” is abslutely ridiculous. It is offensive to liberty. First, by granting special protections to one group of people, the government automatically lowers everyone else. Why should a crime against me be less important simply because I am straight and white?

Second, hate crimes go beyond punishing a crime into punishing a thought. What makes killing a man for drug money less odious than killing a man for being gay? Are not both victims dead? The end result is the same, however, the government desires to control the minds of everyone, telling them what is acceptable thought and what is not. Need money? Okay, your crimes are bad. Think homosexuals are going to hell? Oh, we need to punish you extra hard for your opinion.

This legislation leaves prosecution in the hands of the state for the most part, however, it allows for the federal government to retry the person if it doesn’t like the outcome or punishment rendered. It says

`No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that– . . . (D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

So much for double jeopardy and the Constitution.

On the current version the “findings” section is missing, so I’ll post it here. This, too, is ridiculous. It is their justification for violating the Constitution.

    Congress makes the following findings:


      (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. (In 2007 there were 7,624 hate crime incidents reported. With just over 304 million people in the country, this breaks down to roughly 1 hate crime per every 40,000 people. That’s a serious national problem?  See some comparable statistics below) 
      (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive. (And your ordinary murder, gang violence, kidnapping, rape, or child molestation doesn’t?) 
      (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance. 
      (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. (solely because it lack the part about homosexuals…incidentally, 1,265 of these “hate crimes” were based on gender issues…roughly 1 for every 240,000 people. ) 
      (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected. (How does that make it Federal business?) 
      (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following: Here begins serious constituional abuse. By tangentially relating it to commerce, hate crimes become “constitutional” as INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
        (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence. 
        (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
         . .  (editing for length)   
        (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce. 
      (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (who were the slaves after slavery ended?) through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude. (You cannot remove these things from people who were neither the perpetrators nor the victims.) 
       . . . (repeat of above point )
      (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. (This is unconstitutional) 
      (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes. (look below for worse odds)


Odds of dying by:

Car Accident — 1 in 100
Suicide — 1 in 121
Falling down — 1 in 246
Drowning — 1 in 8,942
Airplane crash — 1 in 20,000

So, you have a better chance of dying in a plane crash than being a victim of a hate crime.

If we look at this by race, religion, gender, we see these odds.

Racially motivated (black only): 1 in 11,000 (3,275 crimes against blacks with 79 being black-on-black)
Gender, sexual orientation (We often hear 10% of population is gay, so for 30 million gays): 1 in 25,000 (1,203 crimes)

IQ of both national parties goes up

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 28-04-2009


Today’s announcement by Arlen Specter that he will switch parties and officially become a democrat signifies the first time the average IQ of both parties will increase.

Specter’s change is merely a formality. It’s kind of like getting married after shacking up and raising children and grandchildren for fifty years. Specter has been a republican in name only for years. Does that make him a closet bipartisan?

Although Specter said:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

The truth of the matter is, both parties have slid to the left. The democrats these days are primarily socialists or democratic-socialists and the republicans are democratic-socialist-lite. Too many republicans have campaigned on conservative principles only to get into office and act like democrats. We need only look at GW Bush to see the truth of this. He spent like a drunken liberal then brought us to the door of socialism and knocked (think TARP).  It’s amazing that we have so many lawyers in Congress and yet darn few of them seem to understand (or even read) the Constitution.

I’m reminded of that song right now. Na-na-na-na. hey-hey-hey. Goodbye!

Mr. Specter, please don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Dick Morris: Obama’s Leap to Socialism

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 26-04-2009


Dick Morris has an article on his site about Obama’s leap to socialism and why Obama wants to force banks to keep TARP money. It’s worth the read if you haven’t done so already.

Here’s a nice snippet on Obama’s plan to convert the preferred shares the government holds in banks to common stock:

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism. . .. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

Obama: War Crimes Already?

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 26-04-2009


How soon can we expect the left wing loons to start demanding an investigation into Obama & his administration for war crimes?

According to Fox News, Iraq’s Prime Minister Al-Maliki is not happy about an American raid that left one woman dead. He is demanding the US turn over the soldiers so they can stand trial.

With Obama’s weak-kneed foreign policy, I would imagine he has already had the men handcuffed and sent over with a ribbon in their hair and a sign on their backs that says, “hang me, but don’t blame Dear Leader Obama.”

Fed kicks Americans when they’re down

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Economy | Posted on 25-04-2009


When Bank of America’s chief Kenneth Lewis tried to walk away from the deal for Merrill Lynch due to $15 billion in unclaimed, bad debt, the Federal Reserve threatened to replace him, the board, and management at BoA if he did so. According to his testimony, he knew the deal was bad for shareholders–since they would see $15 billion evaporate as soon as he signed, but he succumbed to the pressure.

Naturally, the Fed denies any wrongdoing. According to one article, a spokesman for the Fed said, “By referring to the Fed’s supervisory powers, Paulson intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view … that it would be unthinkable that Bank of America take this action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment.”

Call me a conspiracy loon if you will, but more and more, I am beginning to think the current economic situation is fabricated. Just look how swiftly everyone charged in, stealing our liberties and forever altering our mode of government. In a matter of a few months we went from a (basically) democratic government to a democratic socialism…heavy on the socialism and light on the democracy. The worst thing is, millions of Americans have welcomed this ushering in of socialism. Bush started it and Obama packaged it up as some shiny change we can believe in.

Forget investigating the lawyers and CIA. Let’s start investigating the Fed, Congress, Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama for their parts in fiddling with the economy and bringing us this “crisis.” For some reason, Rahm “the fish man” Emmanuel’s words keep ringing in my ear. Something about never letting a good crisis go to waste and doing things you would never have been able to do otherwise.

Destroy America From Within

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Obama | Posted on 25-04-2009


Here is some of the change we can believe in. Incidentally, I agree. Obama is bringing change. He is filling the cabinet with radical socialists, communists, marxists, and sundry left-wing political hacks, trying to destroy this country before the next elections.

Rosa Brooks is now an advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. In short, she is an advisor on national security. So, let’s take a look at some of the change Chairman maObama brought us.

  • ~ Brooks was an op/ed columnist for the L.A. Times (there’s a non-partisan rag)
  • ~ Frequent guest on MSNBC–especially Rachael “the man” Maddow
  • ~ A board member of the radical left wing group Amnesty International
  • ~ Counsel to the president of George Soros’s (head of the radical left wing Open Society Institute (another leftist group which according to the website wants to “assure greater fairness in . . . economic systems” read that redistribution of wealth globally)
  • ~ Member of the World Economic Forum’s global agenda council. This is a globalist group, which besides wanting an international tax and an international media outlet like CNN said in their 2009 agenda:

The implications of institutions of global governance can be heavy for sovereign

states. As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign

failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty

for greater gain may become an option. This principle is unthinkable now. But ask

yourself one simple question: why is the trade world functioning and the financial

world failing? Simple. The financial world has no global rules. The trade world has

global rules which override our sovereignty. So if we can do it in trade, why not accept binding rules in other areas?

Apparently, Ms. Brooks is a progressive populist and proponent of a global government. Here are a couple of quotes from her work Failed States, or the State as Failure? published by University of Chicago Law Review 2005:

If the state is the best mode of social organization, it is logical to seek an international order that provides for all humans what a successful nation-state can theoretically provide for its own citizens.

While questions can always be raised about the most efficient level on which various governance decisions should be made, n75 there is no defensible reason for wishing to preserve the socially constructed difference that is used to justify nation-states [editor's note: nation-state means a country like the United States]. The largest modern state today (China) has a population that approaches the size of the entire world’s population in 1900. n76 If a modern state can be as large as China (1.3 billion) or India (1.1 billion) and not be automatically suspect because of its scale, why should we not want a global state in which we can all participate and from which we can all benefit? n77 The current system of states is arbitrary and irrational; n78 a world where the Solomon Islands and China are formal equals seems hardly worth preserving — especially when we know that in practice states are very far from being equals, and that the state-centered international legal order serves mainly to preserve the power and privilege of those in successful states at the expense of everyone else. n79


If, despite its flaws, the state is the best form of social organization we’ve got, it is also logical to sympathize with the transparently normative goals of traditional international law scholarship, n80 which tended to assume that more international law is always better than less, and that international structures capable of limiting and transcending state power (through coercion if necessary) are generally good.

This woman who hates the United States–not as a country, but solely because of its existence as an irrational entity that maintains its power by abusing little countries–is an advisor on defense policy? All I can say is “God help up survive the next four years.”


Islamorage & the ACLU

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Conservative Corner | Posted on 24-04-2009


I’ve been wondering this recently. Perhaps someone can explain this.

Left-wing nuts like those filling the halls of the ACLU, Congress, and the White House say our waterboarding of terrorists makes the islamofascists angry. Then, to prove their point, Chairman maObama and his band of sashaying merry men produce and point with limp wrists at photos as evidence of torture. ”This,” they say with hissy voices, “makes everyone hate America.”

Okay. If that’s the case, why were many of the people picked up on battlefields? But let us assume these were good and kind-hearted terrorists, that they are nothing more than misunderstood souls who believe nothing says I love you like a C4 belt. You know, the kind of people Barry O believes them to be. Why would he then want to give them explosives and belts so they could prove their love of America?

My questions go beyond just the kooky hippies and communists running our government to even the Conservatives and Republicans. We say showing these pictures puts our troops in harm’s way (God bless our brave troops). But does it really? Perhaps “why?” is the better question.

Why would an islamofascist be upset by seeing KSM get dunked? These are the same vile people who made and distributed a film of themselves cutting off people’s heads. Hmm. Cutting someone’s head off with a dull blade…good. Pouring water on someone’s face…torture.

I don’t think so. I think the neosocialists in Congress, Chairman maObama, and the ACLU (AlQaeda & Communists’ Lawyers Union) know the stuff is good propaganda for tarnishing America’s image in bastions of civil liberties like Sudan, but will not truly enrage the rabid dogs. However, they play it up as a way of giving excuse for future acts of violence against that section of America they hate–the military. “Ooh, if we didn’t put a caterpillar in that box with a loving terrorist, that IED wouldn’t have gone off next to that Hummer killing two and maiming three Americans.”

I also believe the outrage these benevolent bomb-wearers express is false. Can a mass murderer truly be angry when someone swats a fly? They know that every time America’s internal, cancerous enemies (listed above) declassify photos and memos, it is a license to do whatever they please without fear of backlash. In some regards, they are like the morons smashing windows and looting stores after a basketball championship. They know that rotting part of America will join forces with them and condemn Americans instead of them.

At this moment I am concluding it is not the photos that put or troops in harm’s way or make them less safe, but rather the willingness of traitors in our government and other agents on our soil to betray America that emboldens the islamofascists and spurs them into action.

Start Trials Here

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Economy | Posted on 24-04-2009


If I were a dictatorial socialist with an evil plan to conquer Americans and draw them under the chains of my despotism, I would devise a plan whereby my ministry of propaganda could disseminate invidious information through their various outlets like CNN, CBS, etc.

I would further enhance my stronghold on the poor by fostering class envy. I would even win some people to my side by creating a common enemy.

Indeed, I would encourage someone on the Senate Banking Committee to include language that stated executives could receive their bonus pay. Then, I would look down from my throne at my unworthy subjects and point out to them how the evil bourgeois members of society stole from them; how as my subjects go hungry, the executives eat well and drive SUV murder machines.

Yes, I would pull an AIG.

That’s where we should begin the trials. Leave the CIA alone. Let us investigate whether the Executive branch violated the checks and balances of the Constitution by pressuring the Legislative branch to create a situation whereby they could target and demonize sovereign citizens of the United States. While we’re at it, we should investigate the entire Senate Banking Committee and the Financial Services Committee. Who did Barney Frank know and when did he know him? And what part did Frank’s romance play in the economic situation?

Rather than worrying about what might have happened to a handful of murderous terrorists at the hands of American heroes, Congress should step aside and allow an independent body to investigate their trillions of crimes against the American people.

Shut up and pay!

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Democrats, Environment | Posted on 24-04-2009


Socialist lawmakers in Congress, afraid of letting Americans know the truth, did what they are best at yesterday. They silenced their opposition.

Washington, DC– UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.


“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” (Full story)

Rather than invite open and honest debate, our socialist Congress decided it will be easier to spread a lie and overtax Americans if no one is allowed to speak out against them. It’s like a bunch of little King Herrods circling around their worthless messiah.

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.