Barack and Bolsheviks? And they finally got something on Palin!?

Perspectives Of A Soviet Immigrant (No. 6)

By SVETLANA KUNIN

Posted 02/02/2010 07:24 PM ET

---

IBD Exclusive Series:
Perspectives of a Russian Immigrant

---

There was an old Soviet saying: If you need to find food to fill your refrigerator, plug it into the microphone of a party leader giving a speech.

Today in America, if we plug a refrigerator into our leader's teleprompter, I suspect the refrigerator will stop working.

Democratic party leaders speak incessantly of limiting profits and regulating salaries.

It brings back to memory another Soviet line: You pretend you are paying us salaries, and we pretend we are working. If bureaucrats predetermine the value of your work, there is no incentive to be productive. This is the quickest way to kill a dynamic economy.

I never expected to hear this kind of rhetoric in the USA. Today, the American educational machine teaches exactly the same points the Soviets taught.

It idealizes Socialist societies and denigrates America, especially its economic system.

American students are brainwashed to despise economic freedom and to yearn for a big government state.

Freed from their parents' control, but intimidated by the relentlessly negative portrayal of America, young Americans look for politicians to show them the way.

As someone who experienced real government-approved anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, I am amazed by the obliviousness of American Jews, the most fervent supporters of left-wing politics.

They support a party that is obsessed with pitting one group against another, and that incessantly plays on envy and hatred for bankers, rich people, big business and doctors.

They fail to notice that the success of Jews, as well as other minorities, in the sciences, business and arts is directly correlated to their freedom from oppressive, centralized control. American Jews who support big government do not understand what their ancestors escaped from.

Persecutions of Jews throughout history all have one thing in common: a centralized power that manipulates and directs people's anger away from themselves onto an easy target.

No matter how much Jews align themselves with the power structure and work for noble causes, they will remain an easy target.

As they said in the Soviet Union pertaining to Soviet Jews: They don't beat your record; they beat your face — meaning that no matter how much you try to assimilate, no matter how many good deeds you do, the centralized power can direct populist anger toward you and crush you when it suits them.

When the Bolsheviks took power after the 1917 proletarian revolution, their first steps were to take control of the banks and the media.

Of course, it is not fair to compare our current American democratic leaders with the Bolsheviks.

Yes, they both use the same slogans in their speeches.

Yes, they both stir up envy and class warfare to distract from their failures.

Yes, both political movements sought control of the banks as the foundation for their new egalitarian vision.

And yes, they are both opposed to free speech, as was made clear by the reaction of American leftists to the recent Supreme Court decision.

But you would never find a Czar anywhere in the Soviet government.

• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980, working as a civil engineer. She is now a retired software developer living in Connecticut.

© 2010 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor's Business Daily, IBD and CAN SLIM and their corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Data Analysis Inc.

Z: The article above is worth thinking about but, of course, if we draw any similarities between Bolsheviks and Barack, we're 'silly Conservatives only interested in bringing Obama down.' (Although, from FOX's ratings, I think that attitude's changing, folks...I really do.)

And, of course, instead of heeding the warnings of people who write articles like the one above, our country's more interested in FINALLY coming up with something AGAINST SARAH PALIN! They FINALLY found something!! My Gosh, the Left's been so busy you'd think it wouldn't have taken this long, don't you? Take a close look at the article. Nothing much there, folks, but it merits YAHOO Homepage HEADLINES!! :-) Information that's really important, like the education information Chuck Thinks Right printed, or THIS or THIS and so many other important things wouldn't make it to YAHOO, but anything against Sarah Palin sure would!

z

Chuck Thinks Right.......Our Country doesn't

Sometimes I see a blog post that REALLY bothers me....THIS was one of them, by excellent blogger and my good buddy, Chuck, from Chuck Thinks Right. When that happens, I think I'll just put some music on that helps me mask what's happening to our country. That's all. Enjoy the music. Read Chuck's information at your own risk. Maybe with alcohol. :-) Boy, are WE up #(*&#*(& Creek, or what?

The music helps. It's better than putting your hands in your ears and saying "yadda yadda yadda" for the rest of the day.

Hear Z on Gathering Storm Radio Friday

I'll be on Gathering Storm, Always on Watch and WC's radio show, at 3:30 EST (LA time, 12:30pm) It'll be me and Always talking about THE MEDIA. Call in, we always have a good time. You'll want to tune in first at 3:00 EST to hear John of Culturism, he's a very smart, good guy with a very interesting subject. I hope to hear you there! thanks..Z

The Taliban...a fascinating insight....what do YOU think?

If any of you, too, think and worry about terror attacks or our soldiers over there fighting muslim extremists and wonder where all this is going, please READ THIS. I'd very much appreciate your considered and thoughtful opinion. Please read the whole thing, it's eye-opening, it's educational and quite interesting. Thanks so much.

Andrew Young tells all...........Should he?

A Mr.Andrew Young has written a book about John Edwards. Here is a timeline of what his life was like working for Edwards up until the present, when he is decidedly not working for (or speaking to) the Edwards anymore. Apparently, the liberal Huffington Post blog tried to belittle Andrew Young saying, in its article title, "Andrew Young's CRIMINAL RECORD and the John Edwards Scandal" The biggest problem with the title is it makes this man who had finally dared quit the Edwards imbroglio sound like he's a felon when, in actuality, he had some DUI's, a lien, and a traffic offense over 20 years. "CRIMINAL RECORD", well, technically, but you know how that headline is meant to sound and so do I. ANYTHING to slam an Edwards defector, apparently. So, sounds like I'm sticking up for this guy and I am not.

I know Yahoo and Google would never stick up for liberal causes (Ya, right), but I Googled "Andrew Young John Edwards Book" and was on page six of Yahoo's Search page and still hadn't come to an Amazon.com link! I found THAT odd :-) Finally, I put in the information I just mentioned AND Amazon.com and finally found it there on the second link down (!)...... HERE, if you want to get this book which most of the reviews say cannot be put down even if you don't want to read it.
I don't think I'll read it. My main purpose was to ask you all what you think of his having written the tell-all that REALLY does seem to tell ALL. I won't go into the details because many of you have probably seem him interviewed by now and we know most of the story, anyway, but what are your thoughts on it? He has a seemingly lovely wife and 3 children to support, he's out of a job and shunned by his leftwinger friends now (though, to be fair, many leftwing pundits are as disgusted with the Edwards story as any of us are), but .......even though it's a leftwinger and I should be having the glee and fun with it our leftwing friends have used against Conservatives, it makes me kind of queasy and I think he's gone a bit too far. What do you think?......Should he have done this?
By the way...I watched a bit of THE VIEW this morning where they interviewed the Youngs....Joy Behar can't understand him having written this book when the Edwards had lost a child years ago...."shouldn't that make them sympathetic characters?" I'm not kidding.

z

Scott Brown's Request today

Wouldn't you like to know what the votes are which are happening before his February 11 swearing-in which have made him desirous of being sworn in tomorrow? I would. Let me know if you all find out, please!
And, please let me know what YOU think of NO below....Thanks! z

Republicans: PARTY OF "NO"

I don't know about you, but I'm getting real sick and tired of the following Obama mantra of the last three months or so. He spoke today to Democrats and the AP covered it (link below) and it included this Obama quote:

“The challenge that I gave to Republicans, and I will continue to issue to Republicans, is if you want to govern then you can’t just say no,” Obama said today. “It can’t just be about scoring points. There are multiple examples during the course of this year when that’s been the case.”

You see, his idea of 'just say no' is different than Nancy Reagan's idea. Maybe he hasn't said 'no' enough to her subject over the years because the very idea that all Republicans do is say NO for "scoring points" is a pipe dream (see illustration :-) He kept going on and on about the PARTY OF 'NO" until only a week or so ago, when the Republicans finally held up a hard copy of their bill with which they'd tried to engage Pelosi and Reid for months; he seemed to either not know the ideas Republicans had for health care or he had known but didn't like them and couldn't allow anybody to let the public know they're there (with media complicity, of course), or he didn't want the Republicans getting involved at all for his own political conceit.... because they've been there, you all know they've been there (Portability, tort reform, tax benefits, etc etc). He still hasn't addressed their ideas...and that's "the party of NO". ??? Who's REALLY "Just saying NO" here?

Here's another fascinating quote from the article Associated Press printed about the Democrat meeting:
"Obama used the same language toward Republicans as he did toward extremists in the Muslim world in his inaugural address. Of Republicans on Wednesday, he said, "We extend a hand and get a fist in return." In his inaugural address, he said the United States "will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

MUSLIMS? He runs a risk here....most Americans hear MUSLIM and go negative and think even their hero president might have gone too far here.........but some Americans seem to think Republicans aren't too much better than extremist Muslims and so it'll resonate with them. Very clever man, our president. Do you all understand that his words are hollow, that he says these things about "NO" and "FISTS IN RETURN" for THE PUBLIC TO HEAR? It's important he keeps this up because his personality ratings are still fairly high, it's his agenda ratings which are down and, since people still like the guy, they hear this information about Republicans and continue the ridiculous generalizations the leftwingers have been perpetrating for years; these are the people who don't look so much into the veracity of what he said but they sure do like him, so.......... It's extremely effective to the huge majority of the American public which isn't schooled anymore in looking at both sides, that huge part of the population who don't even know there is another side if they're stuck on CNN or the networks. Of course, today, more and more, they are starting to SEEK both sides our mainstream media doesn't provide, which is why FOX is doing so unbelievably well in the ratings. Maybe it's the Tea Parties which awakened this interest. You have to hope that some Americans who weren't too interested see the thousands of Americans attending those gatherings and wonder "wassup?" I hope so.

THEN THERE IS THIS QUOTE FROM THAT ARTICLE:
"Some of the transparency got lost," Obama said. "And I think we paid a price for it. So it's important, I think, to constantly have our cards on the table."

GOT LOST? You mean in those Democrat closed sessions dealing with the business of all Americans? Those meetings you barred Republicans from, Mr. Obama? Those press conferences during which HELEN THOMAS complained about the lack of TRANSPARENCY in the WHITE HOUSE and got laughed at by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs? Firing Van Jones late on Friday night, etc.etc........... that TRANSPARENCY?

If that's transparency and that's how you're ruling, then let ME be the first to say "NO"
z

Haitians..we can't take them to the States and now we CAN take them. WHAT?

Do you think America could be sued? This article says ".– The U.S. military has halted flights carrying Haitian earthquake victims to the United States because of an apparent cost dispute, though a doctor warned that some injured patients faced imminent death if the flights don't resume." and "The evacuations were temporarily suspended Wednesday, said Capt. Kevin Aandahl, spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command. The flights were halted a day after Florida Gov. Charlie Crist asked the federal government to help pay for care."
CAN we be sued after all we've done? Might a Haitian child's parents sue us for not having had them airlifted? Interesting hypothesis, no? Would THAT be something? I only say this because of all the ridicule we've been opening ourselves up to this last year as we've been denigrating ourselves on the world scene and removing missile shields and apologizing for ourselves. Does this set us up for more?

UPDATE: I'd had the above post ready for a couple of days and then saw this update HERE.
WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE HAPPENED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR STOPPING THE AIRLIFTS GO AWAY? So many objections to taking the Haitians in have NOT been addressed in this article saying they're now being airlifted again that I found it odd and thought I'd ask you what you think happened........thanks.
z

We're giving up the Internet to Foreign Powers?

Could this become a problem?

Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers

Sunday, 31 Jan 2010 06:41 PM

By: Bradley A. Blakeman

Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.

Now, the Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.

Some background: The Internet came into being because of the genius work of Americans Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men, while working for the Department of Defense in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the early 1970s, conceived, designed, and implemented the idea of "open-architecture networking."

This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.

These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.

They discovered that providing a person with a unique identifier (TCP/IP)that was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers would allow users to communicate with others.

The servers woulduse a series of giant receivers to recognize the identifier and connect networks to networks, passing on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time exchange of information. This new process of communication became know as the "information super highway," aka, the Internet.

Now for the bad news: In an effort to show the world how inclusive, sharing, cooperative, and international America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and its agents.

The key to the control America has over the Internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the Internet.

Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA, which operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources.

In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.

For years, the international community has been pressuring the United States
to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an international body such as the United Nations or even the International Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.

The argument advanced for those seeking international control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a powerful, pervasive, and a dependent form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.

Just this past spring, within months of Obama's taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.

This amounts to one small step for internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America's control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage.

It is in America's economic and national security interests not to relinquish any control. We are responsible for the control, operation, and functionality of one of the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications network.

What better country to protect the Internet than the United States?

We invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it
possible. We are the freest, most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the
fundamental right of free speech, and we practice a free market of commerce and ideas.

America has always been against censorship and has shared its invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.

Look no further than China's recent move against Google to censor the
Internet, and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free
than the United States seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.

America needs to wake up. If we lose control over the management of the
Internet, we have given away one of our nation's greatest assets with nothing
in return to show for it.

The Obama administration's actions will set in motion a slow and complete takeover of the Internet by the United Nations or some other equally U.S.-hostile and unfriendly international body. And once it is gone, it will be gone forever.

The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.

As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more
peaceful and prosperous world and our president should not be looking for
ways to weaken us. Rather, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our nation's greatest asset our people's creativity and ingenuity.

A "Proud RACIST?" Why can't the media get it right?

Tell me if the writer of this piece got this right...

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET: 1 - A JOB, 2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE, 3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, (EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER PAID IN A DIME YOU CAN COLLECT) 4 - WELFARE, 5 - FOOD STAMPS, 6 - CREDIT CARDS, 7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, 8 - FREE EDUCATION, 9 - FREE HEALTH CARE, 10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON 11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE; and, 12 - THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT....... I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.

Z: I think the writer of the above piece DID get it right...........are we nuts? OH, no, I remember: "We're BETTER and KINDER than the rest of the countries," as leftwingers like to say (unless they don't like the cause, then Americans can't do ANYTHING right).

Odd..I had the following post all ready to publish and sitting as a 'draft' until I got to publishing it when the above email came into me......They go together, I'm adding this to the above information..... They show what's wrong with our media AND our immigration stance. Here's my other story:

HERE is an article that doesn't tell the whole story but in its lack of truth has created a fairly significant and biased scandal here in Southern California... It's about a California Councilman who said he was a 'proud racist'. The linked article left out the total context of "I am a racist".... Here's the whole story that you might want to see before reading more of this post. Councilman Kellar says that, after quoting Theodore Roosevelt at a City Council meeting.... "The only thing I heard back from a couple of people was `Bob, you sound like a racist.' "I said, `That's good. If that's what you think I am because I happen to believe in America, then I'm a proud racist. You're darn right I am".........The Roosevelt statement Kellar refers to is "America only has room for one flag and one language."

IS it "RACIST" to believe the US should only have one flag and one language? When President Teddy Roosevelt said that did Americans call him a racist or did everybody back then believe we should only have one flag and one language? What happened to change that sentiment? And, by 'only one language', do you think Kellar meant nobody should be able to speak another language in America? Really?

Of course, the Democrats are seizing on this..."Some Democrats seized on Kellar's remarks as symbolic of the Republican Party's attitudes toward immigration in general....'The Democratic Party will make a point of singling this out in the upcoming campaign season,' said Eric Bauman, chairman of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party." Oh, I'm sure of that! Don't let a good crisis go to waste. Can WE believe in an America whose journalists only print half the truth (see my first link) in an obvious attempt toward bias and seized upon as political fodder by the Democrats?

What do you think of what he said? I'd like to hear what you think after reading the whole context and how the media handled it by only mentioning "I am a proud racist"......

SO...combining that top story (in purple text) and this older post I added to the bottom of it, what do you think? Where do we go from here? How can a media get a quote so out of context and run with it so blatantly? And how do we continue to give the handouts which are breaking our country to people who broke in? And, PLEASE....one of my closest friends is the loveliest and most patriotic Conservative American I KNOW and she is MORE against illegal immigration than most of us are AND SHE IS FROM MEXICO, from a proud, beautiful family of well brought-up Americans. So, don't even try to tell me I am not an enthusiast of LEGAL IMMIGRATION (my mother being a legal immigrant who had to run through difficult immigration hoops just to stay here almost 60 years ago, by the way)...

z