Posts Tagged ‘Socialism’

Yet more bugaboo’s from the left…

November 23, 2008

On one blog the liberals are yet again trying to push the failed ideology of universal health care as some sort of inalienable right. Well? It might be thought that is so in Canada and other places. It is not listed in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution of the United States. The following by Mona Charen sums things up rather nicely concerning that, as well as what I see as a pretty decent assessment of the last election cycle. This was in last Fridays Patriot Post.


Unlike some who shall, in the interests of comity, remain nameless — conservatives do not cry foul when they lose elections. They do not whine that the election was stolen, or secured through dirty campaign tricks, or otherwise illegitimately won. Instead, they ask themselves where they went wrong.

The National Review Institute, a think tank founded by the late William F. Buckley and now headed by the dynamic and perspicacious Kate O’Beirne, hosted a daylong conference in Washington, D.C., to examine where conservatives need to go from here. It was a very clarifying day.

Yes, the Democrats got a big win on Nov. 4 and there is no gainsaying that Republicans and conservatives were rejected. Then again, it would have defied 200 years of American history if the party holding the White House for two terms and presiding over a huge financial panic should have been successful. Add to that the essentially content-free McCain campaign and you have yourself a drubbing.

But did liberal ideas win? Identification with the Republican Party is down. But the number of voters who identify themselves as liberal (22 percent) is nearly identical to the results four years ago (21 percent). Thirty-four percent, the same as in 2004, still identify as conservatives. And while slightly more voters expressed a desire for more government activism in 2008 than in 2004, the panting eagerness in the press for a reprise of the New Deal (note the cover of Time magazine) is not widely shared by the electorate.

Lacking political strength for the battles to come, conservatives will have to rely on the strength of their ideas. The most important battle, Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center argued, will be health care. If health care is successfully nationalized in America, the case for a smaller and less bureaucratic state becomes immeasurably more difficult. Throughout the developed world, in countries that have adopted socialized medicine, every call to limit the size and scope of government is instantly caricatured as an attempt to take medicine away from the weak and sick. People become awfully attached to “free” medical care even though it is emphatically not free (it is supported through higher taxes), even though it requires waiting periods for care (even in cases of cancer and other serious illnesses), and even though it deprives people of the latest technology (the city of Pittsburgh has more MRI scanners than the entire nation of Canada).

National Review’s Jim Manzi stressed a theme that has been circulating in the works of Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru (both of whom spoke later in the day), David Frum, and others, namely that the Republican Party erred by failing to address concerns of the broad middle class. Republicans tended to talk only of income taxes, neglecting the FICA or payroll tax that all wage earners pay. Douthat, author (with Reihan Salam) of “Grand New Party,” expanded on that theme. He outlined three traps facing the American right: 1) Demography. The groups that tend to vote Democrat — single women, Hispanics and other minorities — are expanding. The groups that vote for Republicans — married women, white Christians — are contracting. 2) Socio-economic. Middle-class wage stagnation over the past couple of decades has made the welfare state look better to more people (also, see single mothers above — the collapse of the two-parent family is probably a greater threat to future Republican success than any other single factor). 3) Ideological. Douthat argues that conservatives have confused policy with principle and have become wedded to particular solutions (like school vouchers) instead of flexibly seeking conservative approaches to new challenges.

We will need that flexibility as well as a renewed commitment to conservative principles now more than ever as we face a charismatic new president and a Democratic Congress. Republicans have been (myopically) tax-focused, which is a diminishing asset now that fewer and fewer Americans pay income taxes.

Not all of the cultural indicators are negative. Abortion is down, as is the divorce rate (though more people are cohabiting, which is terrible for kids). Crime declined when no one predicted that it would. Conservatives have won tough domestic battles (welfare reform) before — even with Democratic presidents. The next big battle is health care. After that, we shore up the traditional family. It won’t be easy, but this is the land of opportunity — and despair is a sin.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Gold Rush! Cash in while you can!

November 14, 2008

The continuing debate over the current financial crisis aside the dash for the latest government gold rush appears to be in full swing. Government policy started the crisis, not the so-called free market. Now, the government seeks to make matters worse while appearing to make life better. At least for those that have the ability to contribute the millions that it takes to stay in elected office.

When governments attempt to “fix” economies by meddling with the free markets that power them, these would-be market-driven economies become political footballs. Economic decisions that would have been fairly and justly arbitrated by unbiased, natural laws of economics become decided on purely political grounds. Markets lose stability in direct proportion to the extent of such meddling. This is certainly the case with the government “fix” known as TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program. The bailout package was originally crafted to relieve banks so that they would remain solvent, preventing further meltdown of the U.S. economy. But with $700 billion up for grabs, TARP’s original purpose was thrown under the bus in the gold rush that ensued. Now everyone wants in on the government’s largess, and markets have reacted accordingly. And why not? Why shouldn’t we all line up to “get ours” if the government is giving away “free” money? Sadly, this seems to be the new American corporate mindset.

Insurance giant AIG, for instance, is now slated to receive more than $150 billion in the largest single bailout allotment from TARP thus far. The government effectively nationalized AIG in the process, establishing a $40 billion stake in the world’s largest insurer. Eager to get in on the TARP lottery, American Express — that’s right, the credit card company — is apparently also now a “bank,” having been so blessed by the Federal Reserve. Evidently unaware of AMEX’s subtle approach, one draping the hat-in-hand recipient in “bank-like” trappings, U.S. automakers are pursuing more blunt-instrument strategies. Their game plan? Simply demand funds from Washington on the basis that, well, they need the cash, and everyone else seems to be getting an awful lot of it lately. Perfect.

The government has committed $290 billion so far without any oversight because Congress has yet to fill the positions it created. Somewhere in all of this thrash for cash is a lesson about the proper role of government in a free market economy. We just hope that this lesson hits home before The Great Depression, Part II does.

source: Patriot Post

People’s Weekly World: “Jubilation and Celebration”

November 11, 2008

A seismic shift, a watershed moment, an electoral landslide or the dawn of a new era. No matter what the turn of phrase, Nov. 4, 2008, will go down in the history books as the beginning of the end of the 30-year political reign of the ultra-right and its vicious pro-corporate agenda, and the end of a beginning of new politics in the United States of America.

Convinced by the power of one man’s arguments for hope, unity and change, his program and example, a 52 percent majority of voters rejected the old politics of fear, racism and red-baiting and elected Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States.

Perhaps it was historically inevitable that this country elected its first African American president. The dynamics of slavery, race and racism, together with the historic role of the African American freedom movement in helping propel the expansion of democracy for all people, have always been a central narrative to the making of America.

An accident of history, maybe, is the fact that in 2009 the country will celebrate the bicentennial birthday of another tall, lanky, transformative figure from Illinois: Abraham Lincoln.

In this age of 24-hour news cycles and instant information, when a seismic victory happens it’s important to take a breath and reflect even while celebrating. There will be analysis in the coming weeks in our pages and web site. We’ll be taking closer looks at the many different actors, issues and developments.

But here is an initial take, a basic framework to ponder and analyze such a momentous moment. This was a victory for the whole U.S. working class. And workers of all job titles, professions, shapes, colors, sizes, hairstyles and languages put their indelible stamp on this victory.

This is an important point to ponder, not only for people here in the U.S., but also for our sisters and brothers around the world. The U.S. working class is pushing for a new day — in which our country can be a good global citizen and not the “rogue state” the Bush administration has projected.

The most organized section of the working class — the labor movement — played a stellar role in this election, organizing more than 250,000 labor activists in critical battleground states. But it was its role in challenging and educating union members on racial bias, coupled with a program for economic recovery, that labor proved its invaluable mettle.

A powerful coalition of forces, inspired towards a new kind of politics, bubbled up from the ground of discontent sown by the authoritarian, reckless and greed-driven policies of the Bush administration. Union members and retirees of all races and the African American people as a whole joined with the emerging political might of Latinos — Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans and others — and with women and young people en masse to successfully challenge the power of the ultra-right. And the seeds of a renewed and strengthened Jewish-Black unity — historically so key to civil rights progress — are taking root.

Such unity — as President-elect Obama said — of “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled” is an idea that has been grasped by millions of people and made into a material force shattering the Republicans’ “Southern strategy” and forcing this party of the reactionary right into a meltdown.

The election outcome represents a clear mandate for pro-people change on taxes, health care, the war in Iraq, job creation and economic relief, union organizing and the Employee Free Choice Act. Reform and relief are in the air. Their scope and depth will be the arena of struggle. The best thing the coalition that won this victory can do is to stick together and help the new administration carry through on its promises. We suspect an Obama administration will have to govern from the center with progressive and left voices included in the dialogue along with conservatives. The ultra-right and corporate interests will do everything in their power to limit, and even steal, the people’s victory.

Jubilation and celebration, yes, along with realization that the hard work is just beginning

SOURCE

Well, the Bolsheviks certainly appear to be happy. Almost reminds me of the shouts of glee that would emanate from the Students Union at U.C. Berkley during the sixties when the daily American casualty counts would be announced by Walter Cronkite.

The election

November 3, 2008

Some people are just never happy. That is why most places have the ability to write in your choice for an elected position.

I myself, have never seen a “perfect” candidate. At least one that I agreed with 100 % and that was polished in debates and so on. But when I look at what we are being offered this time around I just want to puke.

Obama wants to start up his own gestapo. McCain has worked against the first amendment. Barr helped write law that was diametrically opposed to the Constitution, and then plays wiggle worm when cornered about it. All three have actively worked against the Second Amendment.

So then what to do..? Look ahead toward a better day in the future. I think that if the socialists do gain an overwhelming majority that after a single term Obama will look worse than either Jimmy Carter or George Bush to most Americans, and then perhaps they will understand that there is a very real danger in allowing people like that to come into power. Heck, he might even take the place of most hated president while living from Richard Nixon. I look at this moral mess that we have up before us to choose from, and think one name, Spiro Agnew. The nausea reminds me of post surgical morphine. Too bad I don’t get the analgesic effect to go along with it.

Then we have all the dire predictions from both sides and all persuasions. Riots if Obama loses. Riots if Obama wins. Survivalists organizations resurrecting as well as militia movements in preparation for what those people believe to be the inevitable outcome irrespective of who wins. The ever present threat of Islamic terrorism as well as home grown terrorist factions. Factions that play on religious differences, or race, or sex, anything to get people worked up to the point of violence. Perhaps even a “Night of the long knives” here in America. Foisted upon us by those that know better than we do how we should live our lives. America appears to have become a roller coaster. The emotions doing a pretty good immitation of bi-polar disorder, never finding a middle ground of stability.

I fear for my nation. This balkanization could very well lead to a civil war the likes of which the world has never seen before. Or, it could lead to a new America that is the hope of the world.

Time will tell.

Obama, and socialism… Tape located

October 28, 2008

The more Obama tries to cover his tracks, the more apparent his totalitarian goals become exposed.

“We now have Obama on tape saying the Constitution is this country’s problem and stating that socialism, beginning with the federally enforced redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have less, are his core philosophies. What the hell have I been telling you for more than a year now?”
Gunny Bob 850 KOA
Strong work Marine!
What was found
Then we have his ideas about the Constitution.
I myself am pretty fed up with the people that think Obama is no threat to our way of life.

Socialists, on the short road to Communism…

October 17, 2008

There’s a new bank bailout today. The government is taking a $250 billion ownership stake in a bunch of failing banks, which is great news, because at long last, banking will be as efficient as going to the DMV. And there’s a debate going on right now about the whole thing. Financial analysts are saying, what does this mean for the country? On one hand, some experts say that buying up private companies makes us socialists, but others say it makes us communists, and it’s hard to decide.

Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live!

I vote for Socialists, on the short road to Communism

Obama endorsement or not..?

August 13, 2008

Obama endorsement or not..? It would appear that the Communist Party USA is a bit confused. I think, based upon CPUSA’s history, that it is an endorsement. That would be in character for them, and they would be in good company too.

Communist dictator Kim Jung-il of North Korea, the Muslim terrorist group Hamas, Muslim terrorist strongman Moammar Ghadafi of Libya, Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro, terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, racist hate group leader Louis Farrakhan, racist hate group leader “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Nicaraguan Marxist strongman Daniel Ortega, traitor Sen. “Hanoi” John Kerry, Ku Klux Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd, and so on. source

But, I suppose I should post a link to the actual article. You decide…

Obama Will ‘End 30 Years of Ultra-Right Rule,’ Communist Paper Says

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; }

The left wants, and needs global warming

May 19, 2008

“[The left] wants and needs man-made Global Warming as a way to counter what it considers the most potent threats to its agenda—faith and family. The left must have its scapegoat. This is absolutely essential. For Marx it was the bourgeoisie. For the ‘60s New Left, it was America —spelled with a ‘k.’ White males are the villains of multiculturalism. Now, it’s babies and retrograde churches that are destroying the planet. The environment has assumed the role of the proletariat, the Third World and racial minorities in earlier models of damnation and salvation. In particular, the left cringes at the thought of Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and Mormons having lots of children—passing their misogynistic, homophobic, species-centric, suicidally archaic worldview to the next generation. The left has always worried about the reproductive patterns of certain people. As Jonah Goldberg explains… from the beginning, racial eugenics was a project of the left—or progressives, as they called themselves then and now. H.G. Wells, a hero of pre-World War II progressivism (a socialist who wrote science fiction, much like Al Gore), said that in order for humankind to move to the sunny uplands of utopia, ‘swarms of black and brown, and dirty (lower class) white and yellow people’ would have to be discouraged from breeding —or physically eliminated. Moreover, Goldberg explains, ‘The foremost institution combating eugenics around the world was the Catholic Church.’ For those like Oliver ‘Buzz’ Thomas… hordes of rapidly multiplying Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals and Orthodox Jews have taken the place of ‘swarms of black and brown, and dirty white and yellow peoples.’ The irony here is that, unlike Global Warming, rapidly declining birthrates is a reality, not a theory.” —Don Feder

Don Feder nailed this one! Source: Patriot Post