Here are some facts about North Korea:

1) Their economic policy rests on communism, which necessitates a dictatorial government;

2) No one has an incentive to do better or work harder, because the fruits of one’s labor is taken away from them;

3) Economically the country hasn’t advanced in decades;

4) The per capita income is stagnant;

5) Military spending is something like half of the country’s GDP;

6) It’s population is shrinking, mostly due to starvation; they lost about 3MM in the last couple of decades due to a lack of food;

7) Everyone spies on everyone else and is in everyone’s business;

8) Everyone is fearful of the government and afraid of breaking rules and getting punished;

9) The only bargaining chip that they have is the threat of nuclear war; and

10) The only end game for North Korea is death.

This is what Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) and his progressive/socialist/liberal (prog/soc/lib) allies want for this country. Most of you that are supporters of BHO are going to read what I’ve written so far and dismiss it as a lunatic rant or an idiotic diatribe of a moron who doesn’t know anything about economics and public policy. I assure you it is neither. Is there some hyperbole, yes, is it so far fetched that it’s ridiculous, no.

Let me start with point number 1: We are headed for communism, the first step which is to become socialist. And, there is no question that we are headed for socialism. Most supporters of BHO dismiss this notion out of hand and say things like capitalism is what has failed us and BHO’s policies aren’t socialism, it’s a social program. What?! Is there a difference? The definition of socialism is, according to 1) A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of the capital, land, etc. in the COMMUNITY as a whole; 2) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivists principles. So, really, all I have to prove is two things: 1) That we do have a socialist economic system and 2) that this is a transitional phase towards communism, and I’ve won my argument, i.e., that BHO and his prog/soc/lib allies are pushing us towards becoming the next North Korea.

So, the so called “progressive tax” system is all I need to site to demonstrate that we have a socialist economic system. The principle behind the so called “progressive tax” is that those of us that are productive and earn a very good living must support those that cannot or do not. This so called “progressive tax” system — that which is anything but progressive — necessitates that money earned by the productive and successful be taken by force and given to those that had nothing to do with earning it and it is done so through government edict under the pretext of democracy, i.e., each individual in the population all had an equal vote and the population voted to steal money from the rich to give to the poor. The government then decides where the money should be spent; specifically, the president and congress decides this. Most supporters of BHO are saying, “yeah, so what? That’s democracy, and besides we must help each other!” Typical.

Going back to the definition of socialism, it should be apparent to all that the so called “progressive tax” system is the epitome of socialist policy. The so called “progressive tax” system is vesting of the ownership of capital in the community, i.e., it is one of the key fundamentals of socialism. Next, although the means of production isn’t, yet, controlled by the government, the means of distribution is: The government decides what to do with the disproportionately very high amount of money collected from the wealthy minority, i.e., the government spends it on so called “social programs.” This was not the case at the founding of the country and, in general, wasn’t the case until the 1930s. That aside, by now, it should be abundantly clear that we are a socialist country. However, if you require more proof look at the so called “social programs” that we have today and what we’ve added just in the past year or two: Obama care is a further deepening and expansion of socialism in our country.

By now, it should be abundantly clear that we are truly a socialist country, and far beyond anything our forefathers imagined for our country and not in a good way. So then what’s next? Look at our federal budget! Due to the massive amount of federal spending on unproductive and useless so called “social programs,” our deficits are ballooning and getting out of control. BHO and his prog/soc/lib allies solution to all this isn’t to cut out the ridiculous and unproductive spending on so called “social programs,” but to continue to raise taxes on the so called “rich.” So, let’s take this argument to its logical conclusion.

For us to reduce the deficit, raising the tax rate to 100% over $400,000 isn’t enough, so then do we lower it to $300,000, $200,000, perhaps $100,000. Allies of BHO have argued that this is an extreme and that no one wants to see this happen, not even them. That’s fine, but some 60 years ago, we had a marginal tax rate of some 95%, albeit in a completely different reality, but we did. Also, our generation may not be able to fathom a 100% tax rate over $100,000, but as spending continues to increase and deficits get more and more unmanageable future generations of progs/socs/libs will have no problems with such outlandish tax rates, and given that the progs/socs/libs are the vast majority of people they will out vote the rest of us, and we’ll have no choice but to live with such outlandish tax rates, unless we rebel against it.

What happens when the marginal tax rate goes to 100% after $100,000? Forget that! What happens to our economy, if the marginal tax rate goes to 75% beyond $500,000? No one will earn more than $500,000; more to the point, no one will BOTHER to earn more than $500,000, which means that there won’t be enough tax receipts and the deficit will balloon. This will force the tax rate to go up further or the threshold will go down, so now, for example, the tax rate may have to go to 85% for those making $250,000 or more, etc. This will force people to make no more than $250,000, which then balloons the deficit which then forces the tax rate to go up or the threshold to come down, so sooner or later, without cutting social spending, we will arrive at a situation of 100% tax rate after $100,000 or some such nonsense like that. If you are saying, “so what?” you are an idiot and you should stop talking about what we should and shouldn’t do for taxes and spending. On the other hand, if you do know what it means to get to a point of a 100% tax rate after $100,000 then it should concern you, GREATLY.

So, how do we go down this road? Simple. Look at what BHO and his prog/soc/lib allies want. They want to continue to raise taxes on the rich while hardly cutting spending; quite the opposite obamacare is increasing taxes on everyone, or so the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has opined. So, how do we balance the budget? According to BHO we should continue to raise the tax rate. So, what’s enough, where is it too high: 45%, 50%, 60%, 75%, 90%, 100%, 150%, 200%? As an aside, a tax rate of over 100% is possible, think about it, and more importantly, think about what it means. Anyway, where does it stop? And, given that 100% tax rate above $400,000 isn’t enough to close the deficit, what’s next, lower threshold to $350,000, $300,000, $250,000, $225,000, $200,000, $175,000, $150,000, $125,000, $100,000, etc.?

More to the point, let’s say by some miracle we balance the budget by sticking with what we have because the economy booms and so many more people make more than $400,000 that the record tax receipts end up balancing the budget for a year or two. What do you think happens next? BHO and his prog/soc/lib allies will demand more so called “social spending.” Their argument will be that the economy is booming yet we still have poor people, so we need to introduce more subsidies and more spending to help the unfortunate. While this may all sound good and dandy, and while the economy is booming we may be able to pay for it without raising taxes, what happens when we have a normal or subnormal economy? The new spending adds to bigger and bigger deficits. And, once these new social spending takes root, it can never be taken away. Then we drown in even more deficits, which means that we have to raise more taxes, and once again, we arrive at a situation where raising taxes to 100% for income over $100,000 isn’t enough to close the deficit. And, so the story keeps going.

At some point, we have no way to raise enough taxes to close the deficit — Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, they all come to mind — which means we, as a country, become bankrupt. Either that or the government has to steal assets from the wealthy to pay for the federal government debt and this is when we become wholly communist. The rich become completely stripped of their assets by force to pay for government debt. Then to maintain social programs, which by now the whole country has to be on, we have no choice but to become communist, because anyone who has more than their neighbors has to be relieved of that excess in order to fund the various social programs. This then completely discourages people to work, which then completes the march towards communism. This is what BHO wants for our country whether he explicitly states it or not or whether he is conscious of his decision or not.

Like I said, it may seem far fetched when you hear it without explanation, but when you sit and truly analyze the situation, there is no question that if BHO and his prog/soc/lib allies get their way, we will all end up like North Korea, fearful, starving, impoverished, and nuclear armed. America! Wake up and smell the coffee! You’re obsession with helping the poor with other people’s money is going to be the ruin of not just the rich, but of everyone, including you!

The only way to avoid this tragedy is to get rid of all social programs and forever forbid the president and congress to reinstitute any social programs. Government spending must be limited to only self-defense, infrastructure and education, period, full-stop, the end. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else can be handled by private entities or charities.

By the way, this is precisely the reason why we need the 2nd Amendment in case our government becomes unjust and we need to overthrow this tyrannical institution, if we can’t do it peaceably and through democratic process. Also, just because we vote on something, it doesn’t make it moral or right, e.g., if we voted to bring back slavery as a country, who would consider that right or moral? Exactly! Additionally, laws are not automatically endowed with righteous morality: Anti-universal suffrage was once law; however, eventually, it was considered to be so evil that it was abolished in our country forever.

The problem with the so called progressive/socialist/liberal thinking is that these idiots can’t/don’t/won’t think beyond the tip of their nose, and, in reality, this is the real problem with their position: Their pseudo-intellectual so called “thinking” is actually extremely childish and short-sighted.

For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!