Posts Tagged ‘Communism’

New rules for radicals

August 8, 2009

Saul Alinsky must be rolling over in his grave! Adding insult to injury, what follows is from the far left lapdog known as The Denver Post.

If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)

As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the “sacred duty” of Congress. (Boy, it’s a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)

When your mission is the same as that of the Lord himself, well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to local town hall meetings on health care.

You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are “like” swastikas. Maybe she’s referring to the Gadsden flag.

In any event, it’s true that people who believe in health-care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well dressed to contemplate serious issues independently — and thank you, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for pointing this out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.

Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and free-thinking groups like unions.

And, really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising are the rumors that protesters are actually organized. Can you imagine?

The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance-industry funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?

Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, President Barack Obama begins by telling Americans, “This is the moment our movement was built for.”

“That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month,” the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, “where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”

Who knew? “Organizing” for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.

For those of you who will gleefully point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grassroots activism — whether well-funded or organic — you just don’t get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.

In today’s world, the “radicals” are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can’t even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.

In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You’ve seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.

So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care “reform,” let’s launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.

And if you’re really patriotic, you can even report them.

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

SOURCE

An Obama assessment

March 8, 2009

An Obama assessment requires us to think broadly. Indeed, tactical, operational, and at the strategic level. The tactical we have seen through the election process, and the operational unfolds before us within the so-called “stimulus” boondoggle that is little more than payback for key sponsors of the tactical portion of the over all strategy. The election in plain language. The  operational focus needs some clarification in order to be fully understood, and I stumbled across another blog that explains it all in a manner that makes the impossible understandable.This involves virtually everything from class politics, to gun control, and beyond.

Three cheers for a job well done at Romantic Poet!

It is a rather extensive post, and well worth the time needed to read it.

The Election is not over yet

December 2, 2008

As much as most of us wish that the election was over it is not. There are still races that could determine whether the forces of freedom will prevail in some small measure. Or if the socialist juggernaut of the Democrats will simply steam roll us all into some reworked version of the Soviet Union.


Gun Rights in Jeopardy
-- All Eyes on Georgia Senate Race

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
703-321-8585
http://www.goapvf.org

Monday, November 24, 2008

Your gun rights may be hanging in the balance, depending on the
outcome of elections in Minnesota and Georgia.

The Democrats currently control 58 seats in the Senate. If they get
to 60 (the number needed to overcome a filibuster), it will be nearly
impossible to stop the gun control agenda of incoming President
Barack Obama.

The Minnesota Senate race between radical anti-gunner Al Franken and
pro-gun Sen. Norm Coleman is coming down to the provisional and
absentee ballots. Sen. Coleman's lead of fewer than 200 votes is
slipping away, while Franken and his legal team are busily trying to
steal the election.

With the growing possibility of Democrats getting to 59 Senate seats,
all eyes are now focused on Georgia.

Pro-gun Senator Saxby Chambliss is in a tight December 2nd run-off
election.

Saxby is "A" rated by Gun Owners of America. His opponent, Jim
Martin, refused to respond to the Gun Owners of America candidate
survey, but he has an anti-gun record from his days in the Georgia
State House.

No wonder that Sen. Charles Schumer, the anti-gun extremist from New
York, is so excited about this race. Schumer, who heads the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is pouring tons of money
into Martin's campaign.

But the stakes are much higher than just getting another anti-gun
Senator. If Democrats can get to the magic number of 60, the minority
Senators will lose their ability to stop any gun control legislation
that is anointed by the leadership. Therefore, a world of
possibilities opens up for anti-gun Senators like Dianne Feinstein,
Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Frank Lautenberg.

President-elect Obama and the Senate leadership know what is at stake
in Georgia. That's why they’re descending on the state by the
thousands and pouring in millions of dollars.

Pro-gunners need to do the same. If Saxby loses this seat, there
will be dire ramifications for years to come. Without the ability to
stop the anti-gun leadership, we could see:

* The reauthorization of the Clinton gun ban;
* Legislation to close down gun shows;
* A ban on .50 caliber rifles;
* Massive expansions of the NICS background check system;
* More and more gun stores put out of business;
* Ratification of an anti-gun UN treaty;
* Lock-up-your-safety requirements like personalized handguns, and
more.

Gun owners, sportsmen and anyone concerned about the erosion of
liberty in this country should engage in this battle in Georgia.

If you live in or near Georgia and can volunteer to make calls, knock
on doors, etc, please call or e-mail the Chambliss campaign right
away. Go to http://www.saxby.org for contact information.

Saxby also needs the financial resources to reach as many voters as
possible in the final days before the election. Please go to
http://www.saxby.org/contribute.aspx to contribute to the Chambliss
campaign.

This race is extremely close. Senator Saxby Chambliss has stood with
gun owners in the U.S. Congress. It's time for us to stand with Saxby
now. Please visit http://www.saxby.org to help Sen. Chambliss win
this election.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

Of mice, men, and politics

August 5, 2008

A viable new political party is often the subject at hand, all, or in part at various blogs such as Stiff Right Jab, TexasFreds, and here. This would be a serious, and difficult undertaking. I worked for ballot access here in Colorado, and it was difficult to say the least. That would be just one of many problems that would have to be overcome when establishing a serious alternative to the present situation. Certainly one should look to the past to learn about the things that would lay the ground work. Below is from the Patriot Post. It is worth the read…

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Demonomic deja vu

By Mark Alexander

The current “change” in economic policy, as proposed by the latest protagonist of Leftist ideology, can best be summed up in the inimitable words of that great philosopher Yogi Berra: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Politicos come and go, but the essential philosophical divergence between conservatives and liberals remains as stark today as ever. That disparity is most evident in how conservatives and liberals have always viewed the role of government, and its policies concerning taxation, spending and regulation.

While one may correctly argue that the majority of elected Republicans do not justly honor the conservative principles set forth in the Republican Party Platform, the majority of Democrats certainly march in lockstep behind their Leftist despots, and their electoral lemmings are close behind. (As George Bernard Shaw once noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.”)

So what informs the two distinctly different visions from the Right and Left?

Essentially, conservatives, as the root word implies, strive to conserve the principles outlined in our Constitution, and our vision for America requires robust support for individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional Judeo-Christian values.

On the other hand, the Left one, liberals, as the root word implies, aspire to liberate the nation from its founding tenets by promoting a “Living Constitution,” as a primary tool for constricting individual liberty, expanding the power of government, regulating all manner of enterprise, gutting national defense and advocating relativism.

Conservative economic policies are founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom advocated in the historic writings of Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say and John Stuart Mill, and further refined by such economists as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and most recently, the late Milton Friedman. Economic liberty is embodied in the practice of free-enterprise capitalism, which functions best if largely unconstrained by government taxation and regulation.

These are the economic principles advocated by our founders.

As James Madison described it in his era: “[I]f industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”

Madison certainly understood the threat of centralized government power, writing in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Madison noted further, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson similarly observed: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. …[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” He noted correctly, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Jefferson was clear on his disdain for taxes: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But the Left adheres to a very different group of economic philosophers.

Barack Hussein Obama’s economic plan is nothing more than a remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s class-warfare proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

In fact, Roosevelt’s “principle” was no more American than Obama’s. Not to be confused with the biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required…” (which, ironically, some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies), Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Jesus used parables to enlighten the heart, in this case, about our personal responsibility. Marxist methods are a bit more coercive—rejecting God and anointing the state as the supreme deity.

Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” paradigm shift, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas), echoed that sentiment: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

We are much closer to that day in 2008.

Obama insists we have “an economy that is out of balance, tax policies have been badly skewed, and wages and incomes have flatlined.” To resolve this he says we need a “tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly—we’re going to capture some of the nation’s economic growth… and reinvest it.”

Obama says that free enterprise is nothing more than “Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself… tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”

Obamanomics is nothing more than a Marxist echo, and Obama himself a “useful idiot,” a Western apologist for socialist political and economic agendas advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

Obama’s campaign theme, like that of all useful idiots before him, is built on “The Politics of Disparity,” class warfare.

Between now and Election Day, Obama will be faking right and looking centrist. He has been invoking his version of another Yogi Berra witticism, “I didn’t really say everything I said.”

Of course, Yogi also said, “You can observe a lot just by watchin’.” In deference our great national heritage and our Founder’s legacy of liberty, one would only hope that a majority of voting Americans are sufficiently observant to see through Obama’s deception.

(To compare U.S. tax tables since the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913, see Tax History 1913-2008. The Patriot also offers a comparison between the FairTax, Income Tax and Flat Tax. For additional constitutional context, read “To secure these rights…” on The Bill of Rights and A “Living Constitution for a Dying Republic”. For additional resources, see The Patriot’s Topical Essays and Policy Papers page and our Historic Documents page.)

The Democrats

June 17, 2008

Soon, the Democrats will be coming to town. What with re-create 68, and several other groups that are at least seemingly hell bent on destruction I had to stop and think about the roots of the modern democrat political mind set. Leave it to the Patriot Post to serve up a very well written piece in such a timely manner!

“Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP. They have molded the Party into a force working stridently and unashamedly against a Commander in Chief during wartime. They have made it a den of treachery devoted to American defeat in Iraq. They preside over an institution advised and influenced by moneyed, non-governmental groups and individuals with unquestionably anti-U.S. agendas who help make the Party a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans. Those ideas are shaped into agendas which are then forced on the public by an activist leftwing judiciary and by a major media and arts consortium shot through with utter disrespect, indeed contempt, for traditional American values, religions and institutions. The Democratic Party has devolved into a club for the illegitimately aggrieved, the self-absorbed, the self-hating and the perpetually [angry]. It is a sanctuary where solipsistic malcontents and their disjointed causes find refuge and support. It has long ceased being an earnest gathering of broad minds where man’s timeless problems are examined against the backdrop of the Constitution and solutions to them proposed based on the actual realities of the human condition…[Barack] Obama is in step with that radical element and with that leadership.” —Rocco DiPippo  #top_move_select658918432, #bottom_move_select658918432 { visibility:hidden; }

All is not well among Latinos it would seem…

November 11, 2007

SANTIAGO, Chile – The Ibero-American summit ended on an unusually heated note Saturday, when an angry verbal spat culminated with the king of Spain telling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to “shut up.”

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21724631/

It appears that the Spanish are little amused by the shenanigans of Hugo Chavez. The Castro wannabe went off in his usual manner, and was promptly put in his place so to speak.