Hitler was a socialist

I'm not a big fan of memes
But this one is right on. 

One of my liberal friends tried to explain to me how Trump is like Hitler. He said that the people of Germany wanted change, and Hitler offered change. Right now the people of Washington are corrupt and dishonest, and Trump, like Hitler, is a political outsider who offers the type of change the people want. "It's scary," he said.

I said, "Actually, trump is like Bernie Sanders. He mesmerized the people by telling them he would solve all their problems. He guaranteed them a job, a living wage, free healthcare, free school, free college, etc. And, aside from that, NAZI stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party."

Now, we can go a step further. Many claim that he is a right winger because he killed the Jews. Sure, killing Jews is right wing, if you look at the political spectrum as a straight line. You have Hitler on the far right as a Jew killer, but you also have him on the far left as a radical socialist.

If we look at the political spectrum as a circle, with the radical side of the party at the top of the circle, you see that Hitler is right at the top of the circle.

The political spectrum should be a circle, not a line

Figure 1

People have traditionally looked at ideology on a straight line. It goes something like this (see figure 1).

In the center of the ideological line you have centrist or moderates. You have moderate democrats or moderate republicans. You have the modern media.

To the right of that are establishment republicans, conservatives, libertarians, monarchists, Theocracy, and then fascists. People on the right are considered right wing. Fascists, Nazism, and  Hitler are considered far right. To the left you have establishment democrats, liberals, socialists, and communists. People on the left are considered left wing, with socialists being far left.

Yet this is the wrong way of looking at it, because it makes it look like radical, dictator thugs like Hitler are right wingers. So many times you hear liberals refer to Hitler as a right winger. You hear them talking about guys like Saddam Hussein as a right winger. Many Jewish people say they don't like conservatism because Hitler was a radical right winger, and conservatism is right wing.

If you make diagram the political spectrum as a circle it solves this problem (see figure 2). At some point on these circles everybody meets. At the top of the circle the fringes of both right and left meet, and this is where you Socialists like Stalin and Fascists like Hitler. Mussolini also fits in this area, and so too might Hussein. This is where you have the cook fringe people, the totalitarian dictators who abdicate liberties for the good of the state.

Nazism is an extreme left wing ideology. It is national socialism. His desire was for national healthcare, He wanted to expand government to bring everyone under his control. He was a socialist. He was a radical leftist. This is how he mesmerized people, and got them to support his radical agenda. He told everybody that he was going to solve all their problems. He said he would give them everything for free.

Yet then when they voted for him, the in essence gave up their liberties in exchange. No longer could they make decisions on their own. He, in essence, controlled the people. He then decided to cross over to the other extreme, and took it upon himself to kill Jews. This was fascism, and this was far right. It was Hitler deciding who was fit to live and who wasn't. But it's not really far right, it's a form of government right next to national socialism.

Most people ignore the fact that Hitler's ideology was far left and focus on the fact that he killed Jews, and therefore was far right. But if you diagram the ideological spectrum as a circle, they are one and the same, at the top of the circle. So Hitler cannot be labeled as conservative. He was not far right. He was lunatic.

So many times we listened as liberals called George Bush Hitler-like. This is because they were ignoring the fact he was a far left wing national socialist and were focusing on the fact he was a far right wing fascist. But if you diagram the political spectrum as a circle, you can see that George Bush was not anything close to what Hitler was. Actually, you could probably make the argument that Obama is closer to Hitler than Bush or conservatives.

Ahmadinejad was often described as a conservative, but that's because those doing the describing were looking at a straight line. Once you draw the circle and put it in real perspective, Ahmadinejad is on the lunatic fringe of both sides.

What is Communism?

Americans have traditionally viewed Communism as the antithesis of upward expansion and liberty. Liberals, on the other hand, believe the basic tenets of Communism will work if the right people are put in charge of it with a sufficient amount of money. So what is the reality of Communism?
Let's start with a quote from Chris Cuomo.  His is the son of the former liberal governor of New York, Mario Cuomo.  He traveled with Obama to Cuba as Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge did it in January of 1928.

Alisyn Cameroto asked Chris: "Hey, Chris, we can't help but notice your culturally appropriate garb that you're wearing. Tell us the history of your shirt."

Mario said: 

"My guayabera? This shirt belonged to my father. It was given to him by Fidel Castro. It marked conversations going on decades ago that were the same as those today. The concern was the freedom of the people. What is the point of this communist regime if it is not to truly make everyone equal, not at the lowest level, not by demoralizing everyone, but lifting everyone up. My father, generations of politicians have been fighting this. So I wear this shirt as a reminder of that."

Obama coddling Raul Castro, a totalitarian, dictator thug.
Castro called for an end to the Embargo,
and Obama asked Congress to end it.
Castro blames poverty in Cuba on the Embargo,
not on the failures of Communism.
We are the only country that doesn't trade with Cuba,
still, our embargo is blamed for their failures.
And liberals believe this stuff. 

So, what does this mean? It means that Cuomo has a positive view of Communism. What he said is probably representative of the liberal view of Communism. It makes sense, as liberals often speak glowingly of the Soviet Union system, and opposed Ronald Reagan in his efforts to stop it. They often speak glowingly of Castro, despite the Cuban embargo signed by Democrat John F. Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962.

Obama even called on Congress to end the Embargo. claiming that normalization "is a long journey." The embargo was intended to be in effect until Cuba reduced its alignment with Communist powers. Obama began the journey to normalize relations a year ago, and he promised not to visit Cuba until freedom and liberty had been was improved on the island. Yet none of these stipulations have been met by Cuba, nor are there any signs that they will be met.

So it appears that liberals must indeed believe that Communism can elevate people up out of poverty, and that Communism is about freedom and liberty. Obama must already believe this about Cuba, otherwise he wouldn't have gone gone to Cuba.

They hold out hope that if only the right people were in charge of it with a sufficient amount of money that it would work.

To understand this you have to understand where liberalism and Communism come from. I described it in my post "What is Fascism?"  Here is a snippet of what I wrote:

"Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men. The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has health care, and there is world peace. Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nations. What form it took depended on what country it was formed in."

Early forms of it entailed progressivism in the United States, Communism in the Russian Soviet Union, Socialism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany. Modern versions of it are European Socialism and Liberalism. Modern liberals even refer to themselves as progressives, or as Democratic Socialists.

It makes sense that modern liberals would deny any link to Carl Marx, as Hitler's version of it, and Stalin's version of it, and Mussolini's version of it soured the image of Marxism. It therefore has traditionally been viewed as anti-American, anti-Capitalism, anti-Freedom, and anti-Liberty. It was viewed as a form of government the traps people in poverty and only allows upward expansion for those running the government.

It was viewed as a form of government that forced people to conform to policies established by government. Those who spoke out against it were prosecuted, imprisoned, or even executed. It was a form of government that caused many to want to escape, and to prevent this walls were built, such as the Berlin wall in Germany.

Because they are all of the same ilk, liberals held out hope that Communism was the best hope for sameness, equality, and equality of outcomes. They believed that because Communism was initiated in nations that were not burdened by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore they hoped to see it prosper; held out hope that it would.

They tell kids in schools that it's about individual freedom, economic prosperity. They tell them that everyone will enjoy it, because everyone is doing their best. They sell it as everyone is being the same, with the same opportunities and the same outcomes. They sell it as nobody losing, no competition, and total freedom.  They tell kids that they can do whatever they want and the state will make sure that everybody ends up with a lot.

They tell kids that Communism is how you get to utopia. Utopia is where everybody is happy. It's Heaven on Earth. It's where everybody gets what they want. It's where there is no crime because everybody is happy. It's where there is no terrorism and no wars because everybody is happy.

What kid wouldn't want that?

So the best way to get kids to see Communism for what it truly is is to teach the truth about it. Show them that, once people learn what Communism is, they have to build walls to keep people in. Many people have defected Cuba to the United States, and the reason is because they hate it. People are put in jails and executed for opposing it. So they are forced to conform.

And forcing people to conform means forcing them to abdicate their freedoms and liberties. It means forcing them to give up their Bibles and their rifles. It means forcing them into public schools that are completely run, and completely controlled, by the elite. You cannot be free if you are forced to be the same as everyone else. And you will not be happy. And you will not be rich. And you will definitely not be elevated.

They say their ideas will lift people, elevate them out of poverty. But there is nothing in socialism, nothing in liberalism, nothing in Communism, nothing in ISIS, nothing in dictatorships, nothing in monarchies, that will elevate people. You cannot be elevated if everyone is the same. In order to be elevated, you need people to be unique, which they are. When people are allowed to be unique, that's where you get ideas from that help to elevate people. You don't get that from sameness.

This system on its face fails because it assumes everyone is the same and can be the same and can be treated the same. It assumes every outcome can be equal. It assumes the every person in a country can be upper middle class.

It fails because everyone is not the same. Every person has different opinions, values, morals. Every person thinks differently. Every person is unique. And for this reason, the utopia that some people believe can be created via socialism can never, has never, will never, work. It's designed to make everyone poor. It's designed to make everyone the same. It's designed to make everyone miserable. It's designed to provide a system whereby the leaders are the only ones who have what they want.

If that's what you consider utopia, then that's what you'll get if you support Communism. The only Utopia can be found in Heaven. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that.

People have to be taught the Communism will not result in upward mobility because it is impossible in the Communist system. The only people who have any chance of bettering their lot in lives are those running government and their friends and family members. This is no better than what 99.9% of governments offered prior to the United States. Most governments prior to the U.S. were totalitarian dictatorship governments where only the ruling class lived well That's exactly the type of system Marxism wants to revert back to.

Communism has never worked.  The U.S.S.R. lasted from 1922 to 1992. That was 70 years. And yet it collapsed because, since everyone made the same amount of money no matter what they did, no one had an incentive to work. There was plenty of food, but no one was willing to pick it, put it in trucks, and ship it to stores. So there were people starving. Because the nation was so economically deprived, it could not keep up with the United States. The U.S.S.R collapsed. Down fell the Berlin Wall.

Communism has been given 50 years to work in Cuba. It has been an abject failure. Communism, Socialism, liberalism, progressivism, whatever you want to call it, never works. Every time it's been tried, every place it's been tried, whatever form it takes, it fails. In fact, if Communism in Cuba works so well, then why are people constantly trying to flee it, often risking their lives for a small chance at liberty? Why are people constantly defecting Cuba for America? Why would anyone want to abandon such a paradise?

Communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, is based on good intentions, and it keeps getting a free pass even though it never succeeds. Look in the United States where it's been tried. Look at the war on poverty. There are just as many people in poverty today as when it started. Yet it's hailed as a success. Then look at Capitalism. If it's not perfect, if one person falls through the cracks, it's hailed as a failure.

So now you understand why so many people continue to worship Communism. Now you understand why Obama went to Cuba to lend credence to a Communist, totalitarian dictator thug who imprisons and kills people who disagree with his form of governance. That's the modern day Democratic Party.

Further reading

• Rush Limbaugh: Obama lands in Cuba: One small step for man, one giant leap for Marxism
• Newsmax: 10 reasons Cuban Embargo should not be lifted
• ABC News: Here's what happened the last time a U.S. President visited Cuba
• Articulating Ideas: What is liberal fascism?
• Naples Herald: Coast Guard: 9 Cuban migrants die, 18 rescued of Marco Island

Myth Buster: All rich people, corporations, nations are greedy

Quite often my liberal friends say things like, "Donald Trump is greedy," "It's a rich, greedy corporation." They refer to any rich person as greedy, not just Trump.  Any corporation that makes money is greedy, such as, "Greedy pharmaceuticals" set their prices too high. I think It's frustrating to me when they say stuff like this, but I think I understand why they do: it's based on a fallacy.

It almost seems as if liberals hate success, as they are often trying to punish people who succeed. They falsely believe, that left to their own devices, people will not give to charity; they will not help the poor. I attempted to allay this myth in my post, "Pope Francis Wrong About Capitalism."  Capitalism creates opportunities, and people under capitalistic societies donate more to charity than people under any other form of government.

I think the big misconception, the big fallacy of progressives, is that they believe there is only so much money in the world, and if one person, or one corporation, becomes wealthy, that this comes at the expense of everyone else, especially the poor.  In other words, if one person makes a million dollars, this is a million dollars that will not help the poor; in fact, it hurts the poor.  That's why they refer to rich people like Donald Trump as greedy and selfish.

The truth is that there is plenty of money to go around so that everyone can get rich.  This what Trump is saying when he says, "I'm rich, and I will make you rich too."  There is no shortage of money in the world. Rather than trashing people like Trump who succeed, we ought to put them up on a pedestal with an inscription under saying, "You can be like Trump: You can get rich too."

That's the whole point of American exceptionalism.  It's not that we are better than other nations, it's that, before American, 90% of people lived in poverty. America -- more specifically: American Exceptionalism -- has made it so that anyone can rise up to be as rich as kings or queens or totalitarian leaders. This was never possible before America.

People like Trump are a rare breed who sacrifice all to succeed.  Trump had to sacrifice years and money on educating himself, and he had to take great risks to succeed.  In fact, he was so focussed on succeeding that he risked his first marriage to Ivana. I don't mean to ramp up Trump here, I'm just trying to give an example of how getting rich is not bad.  Trump got rich by creating hundreds if not thousands of jobs. As Trump rose to the top he took many people with him.

That's the whole purpose of unfettered capitalism or capitalism.  Some call it supply side economics.  As Jack Kemp used to say, "A rising tide lifts all ships."  During the 1980s, when regulations and taxes were cut, people of every class rose to a higher class. In fact, when regulations, taxes, and government programs were cut in the 1920s, there was no unemployment (it was 2%, while most economists consider 4.5% no unemployment as there will always be people between jobs).

It's not only just individuals and corporations that are greedy, it's America. There are literally people, even within our own country, who think this is unfair; it's unfair that Americans are so rich, because they get rich at the expense of every other nation. They think we are the reason other nations are poor because we absorb all the money in the world.  They think it's not fair that we have all the wealth and no one else does.

What they fail to see is that 99.9% of the world was poor prior to America. Before America, there was no place in the world you could go to be free; there was no place in the world where you could worship what are religion you wanted; there was no place in the world you could go to take an idea you had and prosper.

Again, what they should do is put America on a pedestal and teach rulers of other nations how to accomplish what America has accomplished. Instead of saying Americans are greedy, they ought to ask: What made America so great? What made Americans so prosperous? Why does everyone want to go to America? How can I do that for my country?

Let me word this another way. People who really care for the poor, for the little guy, should want the little guy to have an improved life: more contentment, more happiness, more stuff.  If this is true, then they should want to emulate the United States. You certainly wouldn't want to tear it down.  If you truly cared about the poor, you would create a nation just like the United States.  You wouldn't teach them that America is selfish and greedy and rich at the expense of everyone else.

America is about freedom, liberty, and prosperity.  So if you want people to succeed, you should teach American principles, not deride them. Because before America there was no prosperity. The people who teach that America is rich and greedy try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. Then when those people are gone, there are no jobs. This is substituted for government checks, which will disappear when the U.S. is gone. Then everyone will be equally poor. That is the utopia they seek -- fairness, equality of poverty.

It doesn't make sense. Why try to destroy the one beacon of hope, the one shining city on a hill, where every person has an equal opportunity to succeed.  Why destroy that by telling people that those people are greedy in their materialism? Why, if you truly love the poor and want to help them, wouldn't you teach them how to get it too? Why not teach your people how to prosper?

You have a special place, you want it to stay special, you better learn how it got special. Otherwise, you are going to have people want to destroy it, and you won't have a reason to stop them. Or, if someone were to come into our nation (as progressives have) and try to tear it down one piece at a time, and you didn't know why it was great in the first place, you might just stand by and let it happen.  In fact, you might even be willing to give up your liberties for the cause. You might be convinced to do just that.

And that's what's wrong with our country today, is our schools are not teaching the answers to these questions, so kids are growing up in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and yet they think it has always been this way. They think people were always free. They don't understand that 99.9% of people lived under totalitarian dictatorships or monarchies before the U.S. came about, and that freedom had to be fought for. They aren't taught this, so they don't feel the need to protect and defend it against the onslaught of liberalism.

That's why they can so easily be taught that anyone who succeeds in life is greedy and selfish; that anyone who gets rich does so at the expense of the poor; that capitalism breeds poverty. When the truth is that everyone was poor before the Unisted States, and capitalism creates prosperity not poverty.

Anyway, America is special, and to keep it special we must know how we got to where we are.  Once we know that, it will be easy to see how capitalism creates jobs; capitalism creates prosperity.  Capitalism makes life better for the poor, not worse.  If you really, truly love the poor, then you will tell them that they can have it too if they want.  And that's why Trump says, "I am rich, and I want to make you rich too."

What is fascism?

Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men.

The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has healthcare, and there is world peace.

Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.

Why do democrats hate success?

So on April 14, 2015, at a round table in Monticello, Ohio, Hillary Clinton said, "“There’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the American worker.” This statement bothers me and I'm going to explain why.

I do not know if CEOs actually do make 300 times more than the average American worker.  However, what I do know is that CEOs make a lot more money than the average worker.  Many CEOs make six figure incomes.  

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she sees this as unfair. She would like to do something to bring CEOs down to the same level as everyone else, perhaps by taxing them more.  

It seems to me this is quite common among democrats.  They see people who succeed and they want to punish them; tax them; bring them down to earth.  They say things like, "It's not fair that they make so much money," or, "This is why I hate capitalism, because greedy people get rich at the expense of everyone else."

I see such statements as odd. I think we should put people who succeed up on a pedestal, and instead of scolding success as the result of greed, they should show other people how they can succeed too.  Instead of punishing the rich and talking bad about them, we should teach other people how they too can get rich.  

I think democrats actually think there is a limited money supply. They think if one person is rich it's at the expense of other people.  But this is not true.  There is enough money in this world so that every person can become rich.

You know, in order to get rich you have to spend a lot of time and money on a good college education.  You'll have to work hard and take risks.  You'll probably have to be willing to relocate yourself and your family where the jobs are.  And while they make a lot of money, there is a lot of responsibility and a high risk you'll be fired if you fail.

These are things most of us are not willing to do, so that's why most of us make average wages.

So we should put them on a pediatal, not chide and punish them with federal regulations and taxes

The government can try to make everyone equal, but the government cannot make people rich.  Surely, if you read any history book, you'll see that it has been tried a hundreds of times throughout history, and has failed every time.  Liberalism fails time and time again.  

But government will not make people rich, only the free market system can do that; only capitalism can do that. Government makes people poor.  If you tax people who succeed so they make the same as every one else, then everyone will be poor.  This has been proven again and again and again over the years.  

Look at the Soviet Union as a good example. They had the perfect fascist government over there that was supposed to make every person equal.  The only problem was that there was no incentive for people to do the work, so food did not get planted, and food that was planted did not make it's way to plates.  

Like money, there is plenty of food in the world too.  The way to put food on plates, and the way to put money in banks, is to get the government out of the way, to create an economic environment where any one who makes the effort and takes the risks has an opportunity to succeed.  

In other words, we should respect and honor CEOs for making more than the average worker.  They have very important jobs, and work very hard to get where they are.  They take risks, and when they succeed they get paid heavily.  Instead of talking bad about them, and instead of calling them names like "Greedy," we should show others how they can do it too.

This is yet another reason why I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

Obama's responce to Netanyahu victory: a nuclear Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu won a landslide election in Israel, and Obama has yet to congratulate him.  He h

as congratulated the people of Israel for a good election, but not the victors.  Instead, Obama and John Kerry are over in Iran trying to broker a deal that would allow the Iranians to have nuclear weapons in ten years.  Many see this as a slap in the face to Netanyahu.

Obama has said Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. It is based on this fatwa that Obama believes the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons.  And even if the fatwa doesn't exist, he believes the U.S. can convince them over the next ten years not to develop weapons.

The problem with this is that Iran was built on a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Another problem is that no one can find any evidence that such a fatwa exists. A fatwa is a legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law, and it's usually a pronouncement against the infidels or the enemy, not against a weapon.

Iranian leaders are proud of their fatwas, and therefore list them publicly on their websites.  The Iranian website Tasnimnews published 493 fatwas from Khamenei dating back to 2004, and not one of them says anything about nuclear weapons.  According to the Washington Post, the evidence that such a fatwa exists is "quite fuzzy."

There was actually a scientist who called into one of the radio shows I was listening to on the way home from work one day, and he said that if Iran bombs Israel, the reaction would also destroy Iran. So the question posed was: why would Iran use a bomb to destroy the infidels in Israel if it would result in their own destruction?

The consensus was that Muslims don't value life the way Christians do. Or at least Radical Muslims don't value life.  So if they destroyed themselves in the process they'd go down in history as heros of the cause.

Anyway, along with the anti-nuclear weapon fatwa, Iranian President Rouhani said he won't use whatever remnants of the nuclear program are left in ten years to create nuclear weapons.  Being that the Iranians have shown their radical Muslim tendencies many times over the past several years, it's amazing to me that we are even talking to them.

Oh, and one more thing.  If there really is a fatwa that says the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop weapons, then why are we talking to them.  If they have sworn off nuclear weapons, why to we need to broker a deal?

It seems that a more rational approach would be for Obama and Kerry to help the "hardliners" in Iran who oppose the Iranian Regime and want to oust it in favor of a democratic government.  Instead, he goes to Iran, tries to broker a bad deal with them, while saying to their people:

Hello. To everyone celebrating Nowruz -- across the United States and in countries around the world -- Nowruz Mubarak. This year we had the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries. Just over a year ago we reached an initial understanding regarding Iran's nuclear program. I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.

To make sense of this, we must understand that the entire premise of fascism is that a worldwide utopia can be created through negotiations.  They actually believe this idealist utopia will some day be a reality.  They believe those who oppose them are idiots. Yet the idiots usually tend to be the realists.

Hitler said he was going to kill all the Jews and Chamberlain didn't take him seriously.  Iranian leaders have said many times over that they want nuclear weapons and they will stop at nothing until Israel is destroyed.

Yet now it's Obama who isn't taking the fascist seriously.

Further reading:

• Netanyahu looked very presidential before Congress
• Obama addresses His people -- in Iran
• The Truth About the Ayatollah's Fatwas
• Idealism versus Realism
• Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal

The truth about socialism

I have been telling my friends for years that there is no difference between liberalism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism. My liberal friends beg to differ, saying there is a significant difference.

Yet the bottom line is that they believe that it is possible to create a euphoric, or perfect, world where everyone has a job, and everyone has food on the table, and everyone has healthcare.

In order to obtain this euphoria, they believe that people, left to their own devices, are not smart enough, or unwilling enough, to make the appropriate decisions on their own.  For this reason, their experts have to make these decisions for us, or at least to nudge us in the right direction.

Likewise, in order to fund this their society, they believe that every person should make equal wages.  They believe that there is only so much money to go around, so it's their job to take from the well off and re-distribute this money to the not so well off.  In this way, liberals, Marxists, fascists, communists, and totalitarians all believe in the same thing, and are all the same.

While called by various names in order to hide its true identity, socialism is socialism no matter what. Don't let them tell you otherwise.