How I conceptualize Cloud Computing

First, clouds come in and say, “Zeus demands more computing power to make his next ‘Immortals’ movie.


Zeus demands power

Pheer me, mortals!

Next, the hoi polloi gather computer parts into vast warehouses and the geeks connect them all up using Linux or Unix-based operating systems.


Then software designers are forced to work day and night, developing software capable of spreading the processing workload across a cluster of interconnected computers.


Some find that the grouping of computers and their storage capacity is useful to store their music, movies, and other pointless files! Even more find that the extra computing power allows them to run database-heavy ERP web-based applications!


And so, Zeus, the thunder god, is made pleased. Now his new Immortals movie will have more than enough computing capacity and storage to show his adulterous glory.


Zeus was happy with this development until he realized his identity was stolen and the Post-It note that had his server access information was taken. Perhaps Zeus shouldn’t have put the Post-It up on his computer monitor, with his passport and ID sitting right underneath it.


Now Zeus has to deal with dirty blackmailing hackers who are threatening to release video of how Hercules was conceived unless Zeus gives them a thunderbolt… Darn dirty hackers…

Social Media

It’s always been interesting to see how social media platforms build-up and then die out, paving the way for newer, more integrated forms of “socializing” on the web.

From the earliest days of Usenet groups and discussion boards, which hardly anyone would really recognize nowadays as a “social media” outlet, to the recently publicly-traded Facebook, everyone is getting in on the fun. Or so it would seem.

Many Facebookers don’t even realize that such technological integration has created a new fervor in the “getting off the grid” movement and there have even been anti-Facebook Facebook groups that preach the perceived detrimental effects of such pseudo-socializing.

Some studies have even gone so far as claiming social media can cause a vast array of psychological/social disorders- similar to studies about pornography usage. (

One thing is for sure- it’s affected our society in almost every way imaginable. Political, religious, and lifestyle ideologies all find their pulpit in social networking. At no other time in history have people been able to see for themselves the amazing diversity of opinion and lifestyles all at once, from the comfort and distance of their homes.

And, at no other time in history, it would seem, have people been so willing to hang all their dirty laundry out for everyone to see.

It’s resulted in school expulsions or suspensions for athletes, terminations for business executives, punishments for NFL players, and broken friendships galore.

I’ve personally lost several simpleminded “friends” on Facebook who just could not handle the fact that some people have differences in opinion. It would seem social media brings out the best and the worst in everyone: simpletons can be easily sniffed out and ‘flamed’; family and friends are able to say things to one another through text that they would never have said face to face; intellectually leaning individuals can find wonderful debate and thought exercise opportunities; and people can be subjected to more hatred for their lifestyle than they ever could have imagined.

What about the internet?

The web now seems to be filled with useless information; opinion completely devoid of critical thought, petabytes of bandwidth usage for images and “I’m on the toilet” tweets, and porn. No one wants to hear about how cute your cat is. Everyone is blogging about the same thing you are. My eyes are invaded by bright advertisements telling me to buy this, click that, I won a free iPod, my libido is not what it used to be, and I can get a better body in 5 simple steps.

That get off the grid schtick is starting to sound really good right now…

— Quick Update

Right after posting this, I got bombarded by SEO plugin experts (robo-trolls) trying to get me to buy in to their latest marketing plan. The effect of social media on my view now? I hate marketers because of social media. That is all.

Supreme Court Opens Door- Punches Freedom in Face

What were some Arguments in Support of and Against Constitutionality of Obamacare

Argument: Doesn‘t general welfare clause cover this?

My Response: No. General Welfare only includes those powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, as Thomas Jefferson put it-

“Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ”
— Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817


Argument: What about these parts of Article I Section 8-

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Doesn’t congress have the power to lay and collect taxes and to regulate commerce?

My Response:  Yes, and yes.

However, the ACA (Affordable care Act) does not claim the penalty to be a tax; nor does this clause allow congress to FORCE or COMPEL an economic activity to occur.  You only have to pay taxes if you have an income, you only buy car insurance if you have a car and want to drive it on state roads- but nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the ability to COMPEL you to take part in trade or market activity. Pure. Evil.

It is identified as a “penalty” in the law, and also states that an American “shall” obtain health insurance. Congress does not have the ability to compel the purchase of a product, only to regulate commerce and products already in existence or as they are being sold, willfully, by the parties involved in the free sale. Imposing a tax for not purchasing a product is coercion and may be forcing/compelling individuals to purchase the healthcare due to the undue burden such oppressive taxation would cause.

The court is also not in a place to subjectively determine the burden of such taxations, but is to support the people of the United States in defense against Governmental Authoritarianism. The intent of the checks and balances of the governmental bodies is to protect the people from government, not to protect the government and make it easy to operate.

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare…. [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Ruling: The Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause does not give congress the ability to compel individuals to become active in the marketplace. The ACA is not constitutional under the argument using the commerce clause.


Argument: The Anti-Injunction Act Prevents the ACA (Affordable Care Act- Obamacare) from being brought to court because it is imposing a Tax, and you can’t sue to stop a tax until it’s been implemented.

My Response: The Anti-Injunction Act applies to taxes, while the ACA specifically describes the charges as “shared responsibility payments” and “penalties”. The bill itself does not define them as taxes, while direct tax increases have already taken effect in other parts of the bill.

Ruling: Anti-injunction Act does not apply because the ACA describes them as penalties, not taxes. But they will be viewed as taxes for the rest of the argument.

So, How did the Supreme Court Validate Obamacare? The Black Robed Oligarchy –

‘A Tax that’s not really a tax, but is a tax’ and ‘Shall obtain doesn’t really mean shall obtain, but kinda does

Page 2 explains why the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply:

“But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con­stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”

And then again as to why the ACA is unconstitutional under the regulate commerce clause:

“The individ­ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi­ty. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con­gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin­ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

The Anti-Injunction Act basically says you cannot stop a tax from being collected before it’s been collected. It must be collected first and then you can sue to retrieve it. This is to prevent people from holding up tax payments in courts for years while disrupting the revenue of the government. The court also treats the law as unconstitutional under the regulate commerce clause.

The problem with the courts argument is they change their opinion of the penalty and how they will interpret the law in mid-stream. The court proves their bias when they alter the meaning of words and their interpretation of the words under another clause in order to validate the individual mandate and the penalty:

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ­ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar­gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man­date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.”

Notice that the court is now treating the penalty as a tax. Obama violated his promise that there are no taxes in Obamacare (no surprise). What’s more unnerving is that the Supreme Court is redefining words in order to validate a law.

The court tries to explain away it’s redefining of words by claiming it’s attempting to interpret the law using “reasonable contruction”-

“Be­cause “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155” Page 3

The court is now literally rewriting the law, redefining the word penalty to mean “tax”… but not totally a tax… just really really like one.

“4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33– 44”

The courts logic shows us that penalties and fees are to be considered taxes and that the government may enforce your purchase of any item with a penalty or fee, as they are taxes. The court then shows that they interpreted the mandate as imposing a penalty for the purpose of hearing the law (so the Anti-Injunction Act couldn’t block it), and then determined it was a tax all along:

“(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli­cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub­stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,

294. Pp. 33–35.

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”

The court then makes a subjective determination that the tax isn’t SO high that you are forced to purchase health insurance, but it is still high enough to induce your purchase of it. So it’s all cool guys- it’s not not kind of forcing you but not, like, making you purchase health insurance.

The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal­ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay­ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance.

And then here’s a whopper of a concept- When congress makes a law that says you “shall” do something, such a mandate doesn’t really mean you’re doing something unlawful when you don’t obey it.

But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un­lawful.


…Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.”

What? Say again?

“It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur­ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.”

Oh ok, so even though it still says it’s a mandate, it’s really kind of not… as long as you read it that way.

Mandate shouldn’t really be construed as mandate. Penalty is a tax, but not totally. “Shall do”, to us normal people means “compelled to do”, “will do”… but not to the court. The court single-handedly rewrote an unconstitutional law without physically rewriting it, by redefining words.

Instead of the court striking down the law and demanding they rewrite it saying, “Here’s what unconstitutional about it, change it and come back next time,” the court upheld an unconstitutional law and redefined words and changed the context of the law based on whimsical opinions of the Obama Administration.

What does this mean for you and me?

Rarely in history does a government that obtains more power hand it back to the people.  We have proven time and again that once you get a boulder rolling downhill, it does not roll back up without some heavy lifting. The courts have opened the flood-gates for ever more deceptive forms of government control over the American People.

The frightening aspect of this law is that congress is able to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law and have liberal courts perform mental and verbal gymnastics in order to validate it…

(I can just hear the Administration talking to Roberts:

Hell, you wouldn’t want to strike down the first “Black President’s” major piece of legislature, would you- you frickin racist- would you?)

The imposition of taxes on select groups of people is unjust, and to attribute to them “penalties which are sort of not not taxes” and “mandates that aren’t but kind of are mandates”  in order to induce the purchase of a product from anyone disregards our basic American right to Liberty.

We should have the right to not purchase any product and deal with the natural repercussions of that choice without having the government penalty-tax us for the purpose of behavior modification.

The next court and congress will relativistically determine what is a reasonable tax; just as a court considered it reasonable that a woman should be allowed to murder human beings because it’s her right to privacy; just as a court determined it was right to own slaves or separate groups of people or change the value of their vote because they were a part of a certain group.

Irreparable damage has been done to the constitution- the government is able to mandate your compliance and lifestyle decisions or face decimation in the face of whatever tax and penalty-fee-tax they want.

Thanks Chief Justice Roberts, you coward.

Now the question is,  what group will you be a part of? The kind to roll over and die when appeasement to a tyrannical government isn’t enough or the kind that pays penalty-taxes? Or are you one of the hundreds and hundreds who are exempt from Obamacare because it’s so awesome that you just can’t afford- er I mean, handle it?

Part 1 – The Elusive Definition of Socialism

The funny thing about socialism is that when you ask a socialist what it is, he always seems to stumble over definitions or operational applications (How would socialism work exactly?); like the idea was just in his head and sounded great, but now he’s just not explaining it right. And when you come up with a definition of socialism from a socialist thinker like Karl Marx, you’re always met with a quick “no, no that’s not socialism” or the accusation that you’re just “presenting it negatively, biased”. Even the Socialist Labor Party cannot seem to put the idea down quite right, as is shown by their vague pamphlets and seemingly paradoxical notions of life under socialism. Let’s try and cut to the core of this Socialism, and see if we can’t capture a glimpse of this elusive ideology.

The socialist will quickly tell you what Socialism is not- it is not “government ownership”, nor is it a closed system devoid of democratic rights. 

On a side note- even if Socialism has these so-called “Democratic Rights”, I would argue that the most dangerous society in existence is one with “Democratic Rights”; we’ll examine why later. Older Socialists (circa 1960’s) have long ago admitted to themselves that Socialism is precisely these things- they see the writing on the wall and they understand the direction this ideology flows. Nowadays their worry isn’t about what Socialism may actually be, they worry about being on top (through crony-Capitalism: George Soros, Bill Gates, Verizon CEO, Google CEO, Steve Jobs,etc.) when the society crumbles into Socialism. Funny too how a large percentage of rich bankers, CEO, and stock market guru’s are all “socialists”… I can assure you they’re not socialist because they think their money will be taken away.

In general, young Socialists would agree with what I said above in what Socialism is not (though I believe it is both those things), however, when you begin to ask what Socialism is– moods change rapidly. Some will use words like “class-warfare”, others “communal living”, and others still “collective ownership”. Let’s see what some “down-on-paper” definitions of socialism are:

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Socialist Labor Union (April 26, 2011) –


Now, remember, when a Socialist says “collective ownership” they don’t mean you can just pee in the corner of the factory if you want- no, by “collectively owned” they mean a large committee that you are part of electing is placed in charge of the facility, it’s policies, procedures and operations, hiring and firing, occupational assignment, etc. So yunno, it’s nothing like a controlling government- it’s just a committee with governing power by elected officials, who democratically decide what you’re allowed to do and then on a national level decide what human rights you are democratically allowed to have. (As opposed to the current oppressive system where you get to open your own shop and decide the damn rules. Sickening!) But I digress:

  • a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
  • an economic system based on state ownership of capital

  • refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the ownership of industry and the distribution of wealth are determined by the state or by agents of the state or the collective. …
  • Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.Newman, Michael. …
  • Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists; The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism …

As we see, definitions vary based on the source- even amongst Socialist thinkers. So we agree that Socialists can’t agree on exactly what Socialism is. Well, this obviously means it is up to us to fill in the gaps and follow Socialism to its logical human conclusion.

Socialism thrives on this idea that with the right economic situation, people will naturally do what is right by others- the success of the system depends on this. However, even the most die-hard socialist knows that humans are also selfish, and so they understand that there must be a system of checks, an authority- a governing body, if you will. Note the “who run’s things” includes “government” and “unions”; which we already have by the way…  elected government and unions- but the socialist ones will be better, right?


Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.

Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.


(Gee golly, sounds a lot like how a government is run… electing officials, so on…almost like a Representative Democracy… But not really.)

So when you ask, “well what if someone doesn’t want to go with the flow in Socialism? How are decisions made?” They’ll tell you- well a committee would be formed to vote on it. So, the idea being that when Frank from finance decides he no longer wants to do finances, he wants to work at the car body shop, what’s the system to do?

Well, we’d establish a committee! According to the Socialist Labor Party, you’re represented by a democratically elected Labor Rep- this guy is a part of the committee that heads the local operations for the specific Shop that Frank works at. If Frank wants to change occupations, Frank will have to notify the committee of his desire so that they can see if the production operations of the current shop will be negatively disrupted by Frank’s desire to leave and head out to work at the Local 191 Ye Olde’ Car Body Shoppe. Woah, but wait now- our democratically elected Shop Officers look at the numbers and see that Frank’s production value at his current job and skill-level far outweigh his productiveness at the Local 191, where there’s already a surplus of workers. Our democratically elected committee will democratically decide that Frank isn’t allowed to change occupations due to his current productivity level at this Shop. Ah, Democracy in action! The best part is that Frank’s “freedom” isn’t infringed on in this Socialist Society- because the authority is “democratically elected” and Frank’s rights are “democratically” decided on!

But wait, there is a job at the Local 301 Body Shop, 500 miles away. However, Frank will have to submit his job application request through the proper democratically elected production officers’ channels so that they can assess whether another finance- er, we mean Car Body Shop guy is needed in that location (maybe Franks Societal Value Ratio is high enough to earn him a little movement freedom). Frank also needs to notify the local government- er, we mean, the committee in charge of the Local 405 Real Estate Guild of his request to move to another location- we’ll just wait to see what the committee in charge of the population distribution democratically decides for old Frank. Got the idea?

So let’s review again what socialism is not:

Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.

Socialist Labor Union (April 26, 2011) –


So let’s see… a government… comprised of committees… will run everything… but it’s not… government owned… Oh… They must mean it’s not a “[Republic form of] Government Owned”. Makes perfect sense.

The Socialist Labor Party ferociously fights to let you know that socialism is not government control over the means of production or your life! It is, however, committee ownership of the means for production and committee ownership over your decisions. The SLP doesn’t seem to understand that our currently elected officials are already fighting the war for a Bureaucratically-run nation!

Now, socialists will argue that I’m being unfair and life won’t be as I described- in, fact, they claim that there won’t be any need for bureaucracies at all! Sorry guys- what do you think a committee is? I’m not saying committee’s are the greatest of evils- just don’t pretend like committee’s don’t form bureaucracies and democratic governments. I would think that at least the smarter Socialists would understand what a “committee-run” society actually turns into.

This leads me to another point- Human nature doesn’t like Socialism. When socialism is put into pretty words with fun sounding terms like “labor empowerment”, “owned by the people”, “production to satisfy human needs- not filthy profits” it’s no wonder that many workers don’t look beyond what their Union Bosses tell them! These are some hard-working guys and gals who don’t have all that extra time for thinking and such. Unfortunately for Socialists- not everyone likes to be herded like cattle with the next ideological wave sweeping through the countryside. Some people like the ability to do as they please with the fruits of their labor! However, the Socialists love to claim that Capitalism sustains itself by viewing workers as tools, profits as the ideal at the cost of human well-being, and that any earnings made in Capitalism are at the cost of others and are therefore immoral. What the Socialist can’t seem to cope with is that Capitalism is only those things if some people make those decisions. The socialist can’t grasp that anyone would attempt those types of abuses in their socialist society! But really, it’s not all their fault- no one likes to include the Human Factor into their societal calculations. The truth is that the same evil people who abused capitalism will be right there at the top in a socialist society, abusing it’s now nearly-infinite power, because after all, your rights are only democratically given. What do you think those greedy Capitalists-turned-socialists will do now? Pick up a drum and start singing with you?

We can agree now that socialism does in fact mean government ownership of the means of production. Socialists somehow believe that their democratically formed governing committees will not be a part of the same corruption as the capitalist democratically elected governing bodies. Human nature is the same across all ages- Corrupt individuals seek out power. Power is found in Capitalist societies through money-mongering and governmental corruption; power will be found in greater capacity through the nearly-infinite power of the “governing committees” of Socialist societies! Where do you think the corrupt and power-hungry people will flock? My bet is a socialist committee- maybe the one in charge of financial redistribution, or the committee on organizing committees, I don’t really know for sure.

On top of all of this, Socialists have some pretty hefty promises to fulfill- they promise economic security for all (especially the lazy), they promise entitlements and jobs, freedom and peace. With such wonderful phrases for campaigning, it’s no wonder politicians already use the Socialist language to win elections! Vote for me and you’ll get more money, for less! Let’s tax those greedy rich and give you the dough, after all, they [don’t] owe it to you! And so, the corrupt and power hungry play off the socialist mantra to get into power and establish their reign, using the labor unions who are already susceptible to the socialist brainwashing, and other people who have been told to feel disenfranchised. That’s a winning combination! Breed a new generation of disenfranchised individuals who don’t have jobs, who had education stolen from them by liberals who support continually falling standards, and now give them a union job that has quite a disproportionate pay scale and creates market inefficiencies- and you’ve got yourself a socialist supporter.

                Let’s recap- we’ve established Socialism leads to government control over pretty much everything. We also see the natural progression of socialism to an entitlement promise- I say promise, because anyone with half a brain knows you can’t pay people for doing nothing forever. We also see that socialism implies a sort of class warfare (“the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end” American Socialist Daniel De Leon), thereby pitting the worker against the business owner who risked everything to establish the company.

When socialists say, “Socialism has never been tried”, they’re not kidding! Paper Socialism is such a Utopic ideal, so unrealistic in its demands, that every nation that tried to establish socialism immediately crumbled into the Socialist States we now see clawing their way back to some kind of a free market system (China, Russia, Canada, etc).

But I suppose, where would we be without all these wonderful ideologies?

Our final definition and description of Socialism will then be something along the lines of:

A Utopic concept where humanity magically overcomes human nature, becomes perfect, and agrees to work in harmony with one another; but in reality leads to a committee-controlled society which creates bureaucracy upon bureaucracy finding that in order to operate effectively as an economic central-planner, the committees (referred to hereafter as government) find that they must have ever-increasing control over the citizens due to the nature of humans not perfectly following the rules. The government must control all the means of production on a mass scale and depend upon the numbers from lower local governments (which will be audited by a committee) in order to somewhat effectively determine production needs and goals to supply “human need”. Everyone capable will be required to work and must be assigned an occupation by a governmental agency based on their skillset and national need. The “undesirables” in the nation would be the lazy or disabled who leech off the system; through various democratic votes, abortion will be mandated for excessive children or for those found to be disabled by the current definition of disabled. Religious observances would be discouraged because they would degrade the authority of the Committee-Government, and school curriculums would be closely controlled. Boy this is starting to sound a lot like Russia… Germany… and China…

We could keep going to list the eventual requirements that would be necessitated, but we’ll end here for another time.  These methods are pretty much the only way a Socialist state can operate effectively.

If you believe in Capitalism supply side economics, demand and “human need” are pretty much the same thing- you don’t think you’re going to actually get something for free in that Socialist society, do you? One you have to work for it, the other you have to work for it.

Next Week: Part 2- How to get a Culture Primed for Socialism


 So is Capitalism really Better? Not by much…

Climate Change rears it’s ugly head as state-sanctioned religion.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

It seems liberals are quite content with removing anything remotely Christian from the public scene, yet when it comes to their religion (based on climatology pseudo-science) we are expected to bow and recite daily vespers. The once-worshipped phrase “Global Warming” has been conveniently freshly labeled as “Climate Change”, obviously useful for its vagueness and broad range of possible meanings (climate always changes, after all).

Evidence to disprove the theory of climate change abound ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]), yet why would President Obama and other high-profile liberals be intent on seeing this religion forced onto a wary public through costly and destructive legislation?

Liberals have been pushing their Pantheistic religions on the American public for decades, yet now they have their god and doctrine bundled with a nice little name. Yet, what we actually see is the highest tier of liberal using the lower tiers of liberal to continue an agenda as old as time- the struggle for power. The highest tier of liberal feeds from the ability to force his or her own will upon others. To the highest tier of liberal, they are their own god (morals are easily moldable), and they derive satiation by obtaining power. The only reason such foolish notions ever gained ground is because there is a ready and willing audience of eco-nuts that meandered into Democrat territory along with other reverse-wired individuals, who were more than willing to absorb the doctrine of their religion.

So then why climate change? Because now that you have your god, your doctrine, and a group of zealous followers- you have power and you have a means to fund your operations. With the plethora of eco-books, products, and scare-scenarios on the market- not to mention vast support in public schools, we have a whole industry of fear-mongering catered to these types of individuals (the same types who jumped onto the bandwagon of killer asteroids, motherships, global-cooling, global-warming, enter-your-end-of-the-world-scenario-here) along with a future generation of poorly-educated and panicked individuals raised to believe the hype. As long as liberals are spoon fed an agenda and a purpose of existence, they can continue with a fervent denial of reality that continues to astound people to this day. And so the hypocritical Michael Moore’s of the world can continue to feed off of lower tier liberals, making millions of dollars and destroying their local ecosystems with their vast mansions and man-made lakes, all the while bashing the system that enabled them to achieve this level of prosperity.

Why do this?

Well, the lower tiers need something to fight (the current system- capitalism), and they need something to blame(America)- upper tier liberals use methods akin to the methods Hitler used to achieve change by blaming Jews for the problems of Germany also good ol’ Saul Alinsky (and his dedication to Satan). You have a group of people without a purpose or direction, desperate for something and so propaganda is more effective on them then on most.

Too bad for them, reason and evidence has performed a deicide. There is only room enough for One God, sorry guys.