Greatest Hits: What is Barak Obama?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

What is Barak Obama?In early 2010, I took a look at the philosophical underpinnings of the messiah. 

The political and religious “identity” of Barak Obama is a contentious and much debated topic these days.  Claims of, “He’s a Muslim,” and “ he’s a socialist,” abound.   The left, as well as the MSM are able to field these claims, and contradict them, at least partially.  They are able to do this because he’s neither of these things.

Religion: While Obama may have a soft spot for Islam, he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years.  While Wright’s teachings are radical, they are clearly not Islamic.  Like the rest of us, the radical wing of Islam would cut his head off, unless he converted.

It is well documented that he attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia.  That, in and of itself, does not mean that he is a Muslim, but unlike other Presidents, he has a depth of knowledge into Islam that unparalleled.  That might bias him, and blind him to the potential dangers that we face.  Either way, he does not appear to be Muslim, or, for that matter, Christian (or at least any Christianity with which we would be familiar).

Politics: You can call Obama a socialist.  It seems to fit his model of wealth redistribution rather nicely.  You might also call him a fascist, as his tampering in the banking, auto, and health care industries closely matches the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, for example, “Corporatism.”  You can also call him a “progressive,” as they believed that the state, run by an “intellectual” elite, can/should wield power to shape society into something more equitable and structured.  The common threads between all three are statism and elitism.  The idea that the state has primacy over all human activity seems a common thread though all of Obama’s policies.   And, of course, the idea of elitism; that a small group of “really smart people that know way better than you,” have the right and obligation to instruct everyone on how to live is central to any totalitarian view.

Some will say that the political theories and backgrounds conflict.  They do… and they don’t.  While that might come off as a contradictory statement, there is a case for stating it.  To draw the comparisons and contrasts, a brief look at history is required.

During the mid to late 19th century, new political ideologies were emerging.  Communism and socialism were taking root in Europe, and to a lesser degree, her in the US as well.  Also, the progressive movement was emerging in the US.  The leading minds of these movements were aware of each other, and followed each other’s writings and actions closely.  It is safe to assume that they influenced each other.

When it became apparent that Europe was going to explode into war (WWI), there was much excitement among the socialists/communists.  They had been predicting that if war came, the proletariat would rise, and there would be a vast, international communist revolution.  They thought that under the stress, death, and deprivation that would come with a war, that the people would grow weary with their governments and economic systems, and “throw off their oppressors.”

It didn’t happen.  With the exception of Russia, there were no successful communist revolutions.  Communists certainly did make a nuisance of themselves, but the established order in the West held.  More surprising was the fact that many socialists were patriotic and supported their nations in the war.

This is a crucial point in history for the socialist movement, as schisms were created by their differing reactions and ideas about the failure of the international revolution.   The hard-core communists decided to use the USSR as a “base” from which to spread communism throughout the world.  A smaller group of communists in Germany decided to examine what caused the failure of the international.  Working from the “Frankfort School,” they tagged Western Culture as the culprit.  Since Western Culture promoted patriotism, individualism, religious faith, capitalism, and self-reliance, they argued, communism couldn’t take root.  Their mission, therefore, was to find ways to negate Western Culture, and allow communism to take over.  We’ll get back to the Cultural Marxists in a bit.

However, it doesn’t end there.  There was yet another wing.  Some socialists, particularly Mussolini, decided that rather than reject national pride and western culture, that they would embrace it and use it to justify their socialism.  The terms, “National Socialism and totalitarianism,” were, if memory serves, coined by Mussolini.  Since the international revolution failed, he postulated that they could be done in single nations instead-hence, National Socialism.  He proved that assumption in his takeover of Italy.  Franco (of Spain) and Hitler followed suit.

The fascists, you see, were socialists.  They used socialist rhetoric and policies.  While they didn’t take over the means of production, they controlled it completely via regulation.  They did redistribute wealth.  They did tax heavily.  They did institute massive levels of government intervention; like heavy regulation of industry, gun control, socialized medicine, and so on.  They simply used the individual cultures and histories of their nations as a “wrapper” for their policies, corrupting the culture to serve their ends.  Even Hitler himself suggested that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had more in common than what separated them.  He simply saw them as a competing ideology, NOT an antithetical one.  From the opposite perspective, Lenin was said to lament the “loss” of Mussolini, as early in his career, Mussolini was a powerful and well thought of advocate of socialism.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

At this point, it is also important to note that there was no “pure” versions of either communism or fascism.  In each nation or movement, there were wide variations in doctrine and application.  For example, fascist Italy did not rely on antisemitism to forward it’s goals.  While Mussolini wanted to restore an “Roman Empire,” Hitler espoused the superiority of the “Aryan Race.”  All had variations, just as Leninism was different from Stalinism.

Meanwhile, the progressives continued to grow in strength in the US as well.  While they never seemed to gain a doctrinal type of theory or organization, they did press foreword with all sorts of governmental controls, such as eugenics (forced sterilization), increased government control over banking, labor, industry, and so on.  Many prominent progressives were also were great admirers of both Mussolini and Hitler (until Hitler’s anti-Semitism became too inconvenient to ignore).  In turn, the Nazis took some pages out of the progressive’s playbook in terms of media manipulation and eugenics.

So, we see that the Socialists and fascists are not antithetical, but “brothers.”  They were separated by their differing opinions on how to spread socialism.  Progressivism was a cousin, or at least a fellow traveler of Socialism and fascism.  They all knew about each other, often spoke kindly of each other, and seem to have “cross pollinated” each other’s ideas.

But what happened to the Cultural Marxists?  They were booted from Germany when Hitler came to power, and they migrated to here, eventually settling at Columbia University, where they continued their work.  They proposed a “long march through the institutions” in order to destroy western culture.  They made good on that idea, and now, education, media, law, and even theology have all been “infected” with cultural Marxism.  Here is an excerpt from an article that I quoted in a previous post on Cultural Marxism.

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Does that sound familiar?  Or what about this?

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

I would say that this is a correct assessment.

Needless to say, Cultural Marxism has infected all of our institutions.  When Obama said he associated with the “radical professors,” he was being steeped in Cultural Marxism.  The idea that it is somehow “unfair” that the US is so powerful and prosperous is part of that equation.  Think about many of Obama’s policies and actions, and you will see Cultural Marxism.

So, as a “progressive,” Obama stands on an intellectual base that has as its foundation, elements of fascism and Marxism.  Then, it’s finished off with a thick coat of Cultural Marxism.  It is safe to say that he is a fascist, socialist, and a “progressive.”  While none are exclusive, all are part of the foundation of his beliefs; and therefore, his actions.

Disclaimer: As usual, I could have wrote a book on this.  Kindly consider this post an outline.  However, Jonah Goldberg covered much of it in his fantastic book Liberal Fascism.

Share

Greatest Hits: I am an American

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I am an AmericanDon expertly explained his view…

old glory 001

 

I am an American.

I do not believe God tells me to kill all who do not believe in him.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to take my property, the fruit of my labors in order that it might redistribute it to those too lazy to work.

I am an American.

I want the borders of my country secure, so that those who truly want to be here and truly have something to contribute to my country will be welcome.

I am an American.

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of other countries, except where it directly threatens the safety and security of my country.

I am an American.

I do not want my government interjecting itself into the affairs of private enterprise.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me how to raise my children, or what to feed them.

I am an American.

I do not want my public schools to preach socialism, Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism or any other “ism” save for American-ism to my children. It is about time that we started recognizing our own culture for a change.

I am an American.

I want my children to be able to pray in school.

I am an American.

I do not want my children to have to pay for the excesses and out of control spending brought about by our current pack of politicians.

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to read, understand and follow the Constitution of the United States of America; to the letter.

I am an American.

I do not want to have to pay 4, 5 or more dollars a gallon for gasoline because some government bureaucrat thinks we need to save the planet.

I am an American.

I do not want my evening news program to give me its slant on the news, even if that slant is one I agree with or not. Just report what happens and let me decide what I think.

HT-Dont Tread on Me-2

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to be held to a responsible, reasonable, efficient budget because in my everyday life, I can only spend what I bring in, so they should as well.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me that I no longer have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of my home and family.

I am an American.

I want to know that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is a civil union, and those couples should receive the same rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

I am an American.

I believe that when it says our Creator granted us the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it should extend to ALL Americans; even unborn babies.

I am an American.

I feel that decisions have consequences and that our country would be vastly improved and better off if everyone had to be responsible for their own decisions.

I am an American.

I believe that you have the right to stand up and say whatever you want. And I believe this because so many before us have sacrificed life and limb to give us all that right.

I am an American.

I also believe that if I think there is something wrong with my government, or elected leaders that I can change that at the ballot box, or through speaking out, or by any number of ways protected to me by the 1st Amendment. I do not wish to use violent means, but I will not surrender the safety and security of my family because a politician says I cannot own a firearm.

I am an American.

I believe that God put me in the greatest country on his green earth, and that I want my children to have better, more and bigger opportunities that I have had.

I am an American – and a damn proud one at that.

Share

Greatest Hits: This is Your Grocery Store on Communism

Share

This is Your Grocery Store on Communism- And of course, it was someone else’s fault.

After reading Robert Stacy McCain’s complete dismantling of the pro-communist rantings of Jesse Myerson, I’ve kept my eyes peeled for other stories that show how, in the words of the late Yuri Bezmenov, “how the beautiful society of equality and social justice is in practice.”  Here is one such example.  The following video shows a typical Moscow grocery store was on a typical day, in 1986.

Now, besides the scarcity, did you notice that no one seemed to smile? No friendly exchanges, no banter, no warm greetings. Just mind-numbing obedience and drudgery.
That was communism in the 80’s, and will be communism where ever it is tried. It is a slow, painful death of the spirit. While all the time, the government and media tells you how great it is. It’s a psychosis that is caused by the contradiction of reality and propaganda. You’re in paradise, while you’re in misery. You’re equal-equally poor, equally oppressed, and equally unhappy. There is the practical application of social justice, while the party big wigs have the best of everything.

Share

Greatest Hits: How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda:  My thoughts from 2010 on how regressives have to kill hope in order to subjugate the masses. 

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

Raul Castro to United States And Obama: Thanks For The Lifeline, But We’re Still Commies!

Share

 photo raulcastro_zps5cbc614f.jpg

Hat/Tip to CNSNews.com.

Even though President Obama said that his actions towards Cuba were the best way to enact change for the people, Raul Castro sees it a bit differently.

Cuban President Raul Castro sent a blunt message to Washington Saturday as the White House works to reverse a half-century of hostility between the U.S. and Cuba: Don’t expect detente to do away with the communist system.

“We must not expect that in order for relations with the United States to improve, Cuba will abandon the ideas that it has struggled for,” Castro said.

And the three spies released by Obama were brought out in front of Castro’s speech to bolster his Communistic regime.

Also appearing before parliament, shaking their fists in victory, were three convicted spies just released from long U.S. prison terms. The last imprisoned members of the “Cuban Five” spy ring were freed this week in a sweeping deal that included American contractor Alan Gross and a Cuban who had spied for the U.S., both released from their cells in Cuba as a first step toward the restoration of full diplomatic ties and a loosening of U.S. trade and travel restrictions.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

I am an American

Share

old glory 001

 

I am an American.

I do not believe God tells me to kill all who do not believe in him.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to take my property, the fruit of my labors in order that it might redistribute it to those too lazy to work.

I am an American.

I want the borders of my country secure, so that those who truly want to be here and truly have something to contribute to my country will be welcome.

I am an American.

I do not wish to meddle in the affairs of other countries, except where it directly threatens the safety and security of my country.

I am an American.

I do not want my government interjecting itself into the affairs of private enterprise.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me how to raise my children, or what to feed them.

I am an American.

I do not want my public schools to preach socialism, Communism, Marxism, totalitarianism or any other “ism” save for American-ism to my children. It is about time that we started recognizing our own culture for a change.

I am an American.

I want my children to be able to pray in school.

I am an American.

I do not want my children to have to pay for the excesses and out of control spending brought about by our current pack of politicians.

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to read, understand and follow the Constitution of the United States of America; to the letter.

I am an American.

I do not want to have to pay 4, 5 or more dollars a gallon for gasoline because some government bureaucrat thinks we need to save the planet.

I am an American.

I do not want my evening news program to give me its slant on the news, even if that slant is one I agree with or not. Just report what happens and let me decide what I think.

HT-Dont Tread on Me-2

I am an American.

I want my elected leaders to be held to a responsible, reasonable, efficient budget because in my everyday life, I can only spend what I bring in, so they should as well.

I am an American.

I do not want my government to tell me that I no longer have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of my home and family.

I am an American.

I want to know that marriage is between one man and one woman. Everything else is a civil union, and those couples should receive the same rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

I am an American.

I believe that when it says our Creator granted us the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it should extend to ALL Americans; even unborn babies.

I am an American.

I feel that decisions have consequences and that our country would be vastly improved and better off if everyone had to be responsible for their own decisions.

I am an American.

I believe that you have the right to stand up and say whatever you want. And I believe this because so many before us have sacrificed life and limb to give us all that right.

I am an American.

I also believe that if I think there is something wrong with my government, or elected leaders that I can change that at the ballot box, or through speaking out, or by any number of ways protected to me by the 1st Amendment. I do not wish to use violent means, but I will not surrender the safety and security of my family because a politician says I cannot own a firearm.

I am an American.

I believe that God put me in the greatest country on his green earth, and that I want my children to have better, more and bigger opportunities that I have had.

I am an American – and a damn proud one at that.

 

Share

Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’

Share
joe garcia
Democratic Florida Rep. Joe Garcia

Hat/Tip to the DailyCaller.

Yeah, you read that right. An American ELECTED official is touting Communism. My only answer to that is to quote Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t It Ironic?”

Democratic Florida Rep. Joe Garcia — fresh off being caught eating his own earwax on camera — was caught red-handed (or is it yellow-fingered?) in another gaffe this week, claiming that low crime rates in border cities with lots of federal immigration workers is proof that “Communism works.”

Garcia made the comment during a Google hangout he convened last week to talk about comprehensive immigration reform with supporters. The Democrat attempted to point out how, for all their talk about limited government, many Republicans are fine spending loads of government money on border security.

“Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in,” he said. “So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?”

“And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”

“But that isn’t what we should be doing on the border,” he continued. “The kind of money we’ve poured into it, and we’re having diminishing returns.”

And of course, he is outraged that we took him out of context.

Out of context, hmmm. Out of context when he said, “And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”

Wow, how in the blue hell do you take that statement out of context?

In the interest of fairness, here is the youtube video with his comments.

 

.

Share

Earth Day 2014: Useful Idiots Pushing Earth Day, A Conversation with my Daughter and an Angry Mob of Teachers

Share

When I asked my daughter today what she learned in school today she said

Daddy, today we learned about how people are cutting down all the rain forests to make stuff. And that driving our cars is causing the ice caps to melt and all the polar bears to die. And that it is only going to get worse until we start doing things different.

Notice she didn’t talk to me about how she learned math, reading, or history- and she didn’t mention learning a new sports game, learning about values or morals, or learning how to write computer code. In her first grade class she learned as fact a bunch of propaganda pushed on her by her public school system. And when I talked to a couple other parents about this, they told me to just keep my mouth shut and go along to get along and just accept that this is now what they teach in schools. It isn’t- those sorts of political views and opinions are not in the state standards- but this is what is happening to our next generation- they are being taught to be useful idiots and tools of the communists and pagans who would destroy the traditional America culture and traditions.

This effort must be a systematic effort- my 1st grader in one public school talked this way and also this week I got involved in an email exchange with another teacher at my school who was involved in similar effort to push communism and paganism at our public school.

On Monday our entire staff at our public school was sent an email during the workday over the school email system from another teacher- “Hoping you all have a happy Earth Day and hug a tree today!”

Earth Day is morally and intellectually wrong- the worship of some sort of pagan green God and the pushing of government policies which take away our liberty and property both are offensive to me. Earth Day is just a way for the inner circle of pagan and communist manipulators- evil people- to get the useful idiots in the outer circle to support their agenda, and so any effort to encourage people to engage in this worship and celebration should be rejected. And pagan rituals- hugging a tree- are also to be rejected as they run counter to my faith.

While friends and family suggest that I just keep my mouth shut about stuff like this and go along with it by just nodding along and admitting that 2+2=5, I refuse to. So I replied back to the other teacher at my school- “Please do not email me any more emails pushing this pagan and communist ‘holiday’.”

Apparently I made the other teacher cry with this email, and she showed my email around to the building to other teachers. The next day during my prep hour an angry mob of useful idiots cornered me in my classroom and demanded that I apologize to the teacher and email the entire staff wishing them a Happy Earth Day. They believed that they were morally superior to me and that their faith in the green god gave them a higher calling and that I should recant my questioning of their holiday and do some publicly.

These teachers are useful idiots of the outer circle- unwitting tools and promoters of intellectual ideas that they are clueless about. When I began to talk to them about the intellectual and historical background and reasoning behind their ‘holiday’, they told me that I was just taking it too seriously and that I was wrong for doubting and should just recant and chant with them their slogans. And in the past I may have taken this subject less seriously- see my post Earth Day: A Communist Plot? where I treat as more of a joke their efforts. But in the face of this mob of fools I was struck by how unserious this actually was- that there was a larger and darker and much more serious movement here.

In The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (Penguin Classics), the famous author G.K. Chesterton described anarchists this way-

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system that has called it a punishment. They do not believe that the crime creates the punishment. They believe that the punishment has created the crime. These people talk about ‘a happy time coming,’ ‘the paradise of the future,’ ‘mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,’ and so on.

And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

Chesterton may well have been describing these useful idiots of the outer circle in my school and other schools around the nation who push their ‘Earth Day’ movement at young children and staff members, pushing formula’s (‘hug a tree’, say ‘happy earth day,’ recycle, etc) and rules that destroy human freedom and property, believing that if we just change our system and practices and give up our freedom and liberties that sin will be ended and that the green god will be happier, and that we can achieve a brighter future through these actions. These pushers of Earth Day are the outer circle.

But the inner circle is the one to fear, for they are the intellectual and moral center, and they know that the goal is not to erode property rights and human liberty to achieve any sort of higher calling, but rather to erode property rights and human liberty. They desire control over others, property of others, and want to control the lives of their fellow men- and have the ability to kill them if they go against their desires and wishes. The inner circle knows that mankind was born free and able to build buildings and harvest goods and mine for metals and work chemicals and have children and live in liberty- and they hate this and so push the worship of ‘Earth Day’ and other days which have as their goal darkness, control, and less human life. They are the inner circle because they know what they seek and why they seek it- the outer circle are just the large pool of useful idiots who take their message and push it without knowing what they do or why they do it.

In the face of this mob of idiots, outnumbered and threatened, I retreated physically by making up some sort of excuse to leave and promising to address the matter with them further in the future. Another day or two has passed and nothing further has come up and I suppose they hope that now I have dropped it and been cowed by their show of force. And in public schools right now I doubt I have any real ability to fight back- administration, the union, and other teachers likely would side with the inner circle over me- and it is probably safer for me to simply appear to give in. But in my own mind and in my heart they will not force me to ever give in.

Human liberty, property rights, and the love of life all are now too much a part of who I am, and so I reject the worship of Earth Day here and forever, and suggest you do so as well. And so I viewed my daughter’s comments as a good time to begin a real conversation with her about human action, historical variations in temperature, opinions of authority figures, critical thinking, and the wonders of progress. I intend on being my own inner circle of good and raising my children to be the same- and so should we all.

Share

Earth Day 2014: Is it Just One Big Communist Plot?

Share

EarthDayLenin

In honor of Earth Day 2014 Lenin’s Birthday, here is a classic post from A Conservative Teacher.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday
Is it a coincidence that I’m wishing you this today? I don’t think so. Earth Day arrives on the exact same day as Lenin’s Birthday. One of the very first Earth day celebrations took place exactly on the 100 year anniversary of Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Many former communists saw Earth Day, with its goals and interests, as being very similar to the goals and interests of the great communist Lenin. Does this coincidence convince you that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Friends of the Earth
The group that founded “Earth Day” was a group called Friends of the Earth. This group also promotes socialism- just as strongly as it does environmentalism. It advocates economic redistribution, government regulation of nearly all aspects of people’s lives, communal land ownership, control of production in the hands of the masses, etc. Its main bogeymen are: “evil” corporations (especially the Fortune 500 companies,) Big Oil, Wall Street, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and (naturally) George Bush. Oh yeah- it also founded Earth Day too. It is not far-fetched to think that by promoting and celebrating Earth Day, perhaps some of the other aims of Friends of the Earth will be advanced. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Symbol of Earth Day
The symbol of the first Earth Day is a circle with a broken cross, with the bars pointing downward. It is a New Age symbol meaning the rejection of Christianity. The goal was to replace the worship of the Christian religion with the worship of Mother Earth. Communist ideology demand you worship the state and not a Christian god, and so communists frequently also attack the church. Earth Day then fits very nicely with the goals of communists. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

Motives of Earth Day activists
According to wikipedia, the goal of Earth Day is to push for: Total state control of society, especially businesses and industry (to help the environment, I guess). Recognition of the sacred nature of Mother Earth, including an almost reverent worship of anything ‘green’ (to help the environment, I guess). Using force to change people’s behavior (to help the environment, I guess). Stopping or slowing ‘development’ or ‘progress’, to return to a Utopian world of equality (to help the environment, I guess). These goals are the goals of communists, are they not? Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: Earthday.net
Here are some of the goals, issues, and beliefs on www.earthday.net, one of the official websites promoting Earth Day: “Join the Revolution”! Pass laws that give more power to the government, in order to ‘stop global warming’. Stop building any new energy producing plants. “Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of climate crisis” by increasing taxes on the rich and redistributing that money to the poor and middle class. Unite all religions in the name of global warming. Teach children in schools less about rights and more about the environment, and their responsibility to fight poverty. Still not convinced that Earth Day is a big communist plot? Need more evidence?

More Evidence: The Wilderness Society
For teachers, The Wilderness Society (an environmental group) has resources on how to teach about Earth Day. Here are some of them: A coloring book for 3rd graders with the theme of “Stop drilling in ANWR”. A timeline that 7th graders can construct of all the laws that government passed, to see the “progress” of government. Stories to read about ‘environmental heroes’- also (coincidentally) all good revolutionary communists

Bush’s Version of Earth Day
Under Republican President George Bush, the official government version of Earth Day was a bit different. According to the EPA website then, as declared by President Bush, Earth Day was more about: Celebrating the gains we have made in protecting the environment. Achieving meaningful results in protecting the environment. Encouraging volunteer efforts to save energy, reduce or recycle, and educate yourself to be more friendly to the environment. Taking pride in America by maintaining our public lands

Obama’s Version of Earth Day
Under Democrat President Barack Obama, the official government version of Earth Day though looks very much like Lenin’s birthday. According to the EPA website now, according to President Obama, Earth Day is about: Learning about environmental justice, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Earth Day is about lobbying your local school to spend less time teaching reading and math and more time teaching environmental protection. Most importantly, Earth Day is about engaging in celebrations and festivals of worship on this most holy of days.

Earth Day: A Communist Plot
So, today when the news runs story after story about Earth Day, when teachers encourage you to ‘celebrate’ Earth Day, when google and yahoo ‘go green’, you can now respond back by saying-

“Happy Earth Day too, comrade”.

Share

Bad Ideas Die Hard

Share

It’s true, isn’t it? Take communism (advanced socialism) for example. How many times has it been tried and failed? Yet the idea of a communist workers  paradise won’t go away.

Mike Shedlock, better known as Mish of Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, is one of my favorite economic pundits. In his article, Mish postulates a new law, which he calls  : The Law of Bad Ideas. He writes:

A proposal by French president Francois Hollande got me thinking about “The Law of Bad Ideas“.

I did a search for the phrase and surprisingly, nothing came up. Thus, I get to define the phrase.

The bad idea that French President Hollande is promoting in the so-called Robin Hood Tax, otherwise known as the Financial Transaction Tax. But, rather than go into why the Financial Transaction Tax is and always has been a bad idea, let’s just stick to looking at and thinking about Mish’s new law. He not only defines The Law of Bad Ideas; he has come up with five corollaries to his law:

Law of Bad Ideas: Bad ideas don’t go away until they have been tried and failed multiple times, and generally not even then.

Corollary One: Left alone, bad ideas get worse over time.

Corollary Two: The overwhelming desire to implement bad ideas leads to compromises guaranteed to make things worse.

Corollary Three: Those in positions of political power not only have the worst ideas, they also have the means to see those ideas are implemented.

Corollary Four: The worse the idea, the more likely it is to be embraced by academia and political opportunists.

Corollary Five: No politically acceptable idea is so bad it cannot be made worse.

Is Mish brilliant or what? I wonder if Mish realizes how his simple Law of Bad Ideas explains so much about why the asylum we all have to live in has been and continues to be so screwed up? Please feel free to use the comment section to give examples that fit Mish’s law.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

Hillary, Your Radical Marxist Roots are Showing

Share

Hillary is more of an outright Marxist than Obama. Where his socialistic tendencies towards America stem from his hatred of this country’s supposed “colonialism.” We defeated Japan, but never occupied it. We defeated Germany, but never occupied it. The list goes on, but none-the-less America is a colonial power. But I digress, back to Hillary.

In 1971, twenty three Hillary Rodhamyear old Yale law student, Hillary Diane Rodham served a stint as a clerk for what was at the time, the nation’s most Communistic law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. This law firm made no bones about it’s connection to the Communist Party. Partner Doris Walker was a CP member at the time and another partner, Robert Treuhaft had left the CP in 1958 after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. They labeled him one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. His firm made their name defending clients too radical for other lawyers. They defended Communists, draft-dodgers and even members of the militant group, The Black Panthers.

Some of Hillary’s most ardent political supporters are dismayed about her time at the law firm. Of course those opposed to her White House ambitions state that it shows her radical Marxist ideology that she keeps hidden from the public.

I think the biggest item of interest from Clinton’s time at the Communist law firm is her work on a plea negotioan on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature in 1967.

In an interview for her book, “Hillary’s Choice,” biographer and author, Gail Sheehy asked Treuhaft about Hillary’s tenure there. He said, “She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm,” Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

In a 2007 policy speech on the subject of “Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”, then Senator Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society.

Now I ask you, is America ready for Hillary’s “Progressive Vision”?

And let’s not forget her radical Islamic-Jihadist ties.

Walid Shoebat is one of the founders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which begat one of the worst terror organizations in our world today, Hamas. After coming to America, he converted to Christianity and now reports on Jihadi activities. He reported a list of 63 names in the US Government that have ties to radical Islam. He said that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also on that list, was Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of ousted and disgraced Egyptian President Morsi, and his ties to the MB are not speculative. On the contrary, those ties are what prompted the Egyptian Military to take him out of office.

Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis was a 92 page dissertation on, and defense of the saul alinskyradical community organizer, Saul Alinsky. She idolized him, even bringing him to speak at her college in conjunction with interviewing him for her thesis.
She is in agreement with Alinsky on most things, save one.
“I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she explained in her 2003 biography, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”

In this, she is just like Obama in that she understands that much like the famous Cloward and Piven strategy, you cannot effect national change and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America from anywhere except inside the system.

So in summary, I actually fear a Hillary Clinton presidency much more than the Obama tenure. His incessant narcissism and refusal to work with leaders in EITHER party have rendered him much less effective and dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Hillary does not suffer from that problem. She will forge alliances, work with both sides and mow down political enemies to get what she wants, and what she wants is a Marxist America.

Share

This is Your Grocery Store on Communism

Share

After reading Robert Stacy McCain’s complete dismantling of the pro-communist rantings of Jesse Myerson, I’ve kept my eyes peeled for other stories that show how, in the words of the late Yuri Bezmenov, “how the beautiful society of equality and social justice is in practice.”  Here is one such example.  The following video shows a typical Moscow grocery store was on a typical day, in 1986.

Now, besides the scarcity, did you notice that no one seemed to smile? No friendly exchanges, no banter, no warm greetings. Just mind-numbing obedience and drudgery.
That was communism in the 80’s, and will be communism where ever it is tried. It is a slow, painful death of the spirit. While all the time, the government and media tells you how great it is. It’s a psychosis that is caused by the contradiction of reality and propaganda. You’re in paradise, while you’re in misery. You’re equal-equally poor, equally oppressed, and equally unhappy. There is social justice, while the party big wigs have the best of everything.

Share

Socialism And Communism Are Contrary To Christianity

Share

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is a friend of Ed Morrissey who gives a response refuting the popular myth that the Church’s “social justice” mission is compatible with Socialism and Communism. Rev. Marcel Guarnizo counters the belief that the ideas of socialist revolution and Communism have a place at the table with Christianity.  Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that Christianity shares some ideals with the socialist revolution.  It seems to them that Socialism, Communism, and Christianity all help the poor. Father Guarnizo outlines and exposes the errors of Communism. 

Father Marcel Guarnizo writes: “The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.”


Drawing from sound Christian teachings on economics and liberty Father Marcel Guarnizo explains his position in great detail and length. 


There has been much discussion in recent weeks over the debt of Christianity to—and its compatibility with —the ideas and praxis of the socialist revolution, and even of communism. Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that we share some of the ideals of the socialist revolution because it seems to them that communism, socialism and Christianity are for the poor. In addition to this most unfortunate error, the opposite fallacy has also been made popular in the minds of many, namely that capitalists and advocates of a free market economy, hate the poor. 

But the historical record of communism tells an entirely different story.  I have worked with the countries of the former Soviet Union for over 20 years, and I have seen what communism does to populations and nations. The scourge of the socialist revolution around the world gave us 6 million people killed by artificial famines in Ukraine and, as documented by The Black Book of Communism, 20 million victims in the U.S.S.R., 65 million in China, a million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, another 2 million in Cambodia, a million more in the rest of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and through the international Communist movement and related parties about 100,000 more victims in various nations.  This is a body count that reaches to 100 million victims worldwide. Communism completely destroyed the economy, social fabric, and political culture of dozens of nations. It hollowed out the intelligentsia, ruined every economy where the seed of socialism fully “bloomed,” and abrogated fundamental rights and individual freedoms of the nations it subjugated.  Clearly the Judeo-Christian commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not among the doctrinal teachings of communism and the socialist revolution. It is hard to believe that the socialist revolution—unlike Nazism—still finds promoters and defenders in the West. 

The compatibility of Christianity and its legitimate concern for the poor owes nothing to the violent and inhuman regimes created by the socialist revolution. No system in human history has produced more poverty and misery than communism.
No greater foe has the Church ever encountered, than the communist revolution. During the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of religious and priests were sent to forced labor camps or simply executed. Five year plans to abolish religion were implemented and no true believer was ever safe in such nations. What social doctrine of the Church was ever derived from such madness? Communism and the socialist revolution are not only the antithesis of Christianity. They are also incompatible with free, just, and democratic societies.
 

The case against the “wonders” of the socialist revolution can be put to rest by simply reminding people that brick and mortar walls, guarded by armed soldiers, were necessary to keep people from fleeing the manmade paradise of “social equality” created by communists. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the “…strongest proof of the failure of socialism is the fall of the Berlin Wall.” 

Neither is a complex apologia required to explain why there is no substantial difference between socialism and communism. Communism, as American writer Whittaker Chambers documented, is nothing more than socialism with claws. Theoretically the two systems share the same ideals and philosophical framework. Communism simply takes socialism to its logical, final consequences.
The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.
 

To mount a case against the socialist and the communist would seem completely unnecessary given the historical record. But it is necessary, because, as we see, communism’s ideology continues to ensnare the minds of the West and many of its leaders. Perhaps the statement of Whittaker Chambers, when he decided to defect from his service to the Soviet Union, that he had chosen to join, “… the losing side” is not altogether settled. Many think the fall of the Soviet Union proved Chambers wrong, but I submit that Chambers understood, perhaps more clearly than most, the lasting and insidious nature of the socialist revolution in the West. It seems to me, that the West’s great partial victory against the Soviet Union is far from being final. Though the Soviet Empire has fallen, the West remains in an equally powerful cultural battle, which the architects of the socialist revolution themselves anticipated.

 

Gramsci’s Tactic: Cultural Hegemony

The socialist revolution in the West has been greatly influenced by the tactics of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Writing in the 1930s, Gramsci recognized that the culture of the West, and in particular, the Catholic Church, stood as robust obstacles to a communist economic and political takeover in Europe. Gramsci proposed that a takeover of the cultural institutions—the achievement of cultural hegemony—was the necessary first step to the eventual takeover of the political and economic structures of a free society. 

This strategy meant that socialists should tirelessly work on the takeover over of universities and education, media, churches, and other cultural intermediary structures of the free world. He thought that the eroding of the cultural foundations would weaken a free society’s natural defenses and this would open the path for the economic and political aims of the socialist revolution. 

I would submit that the “cultural hegemony” of the socialist revolution is increasing in the West and at an alarming pace. The increasing loss of ground in our culture to socialism and its allies is creating a growing threat to the political and economic freedoms of America and Western democracies. 

Therefore, it seems to me, the battle between the free world and the socialist revolution is far from settled.  The errors of communism are legion, and the West should not slumber, as the battle is far from over.

 

The Errors of Communism 

  1. 1.   The Error Concerning the Nature of Man

Communism starts not with an economic error but an anthropological one. The economic and political effects of the communist system are but a symptom of a previous error, an error about the nature of man. 

The French 19th century political economist and writer Frédéric Bastiat clearly makes the point. Socialism, Bastiat argued, sees man as mere raw material, to be disposed of, to be molded by the “all knowing,” state. In his book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, economist Friedrich von Hayek launches a similar attack on the socialists and their “omniscient state.”  Hayek demonstrated the impotence of the socialist to run an economy 

Man is just matter: This materialist vision of man is the first and most profound error of the socialist revolution. The materialist vision of man is what justifies the communists’ insistence that they may legitimately do whatever it takes to achieve their utopia. We must be transformed by the state, into its image and likeness. 

This materialist view disregards therefore the true dignity of man and the true nature of the human person—his rationality and free will. The artificial social orders engineered by socialists are completely devoid of a proper understanding of man and the kind of being that he is. CONTINUED

Original Post: TeresAmerica

Share

Catchphrase For Communists: Economic Violence

Share

Economically NutsPelosi: We Must “End This Economic Violence” (Weasel Zippers)

#EconomicViolence started as a way for some on the Left to complain about, well, capitalism basically.Twitchy

“Nancy Pelosi wants to fight economic violence? Maybe she should start by getting Democrats to resign.”The Daley Gator

If there’s one thing at which our domestic enemies excel, it’s in coining inane slogans for the progressive Hive to murmur endlessly.  Designed to replace rational thought with bumper-sticker dementia, the socialists Democrats unveil a new one every few months, usually timed to coincide with the latest assault on our liberties.  Who could forget “Hope and Change,” for example.  Or “Forward.” Or “Betting on America.” Or “Winning the Future.” Or “We Can’t Wait.” Or “Greater Together.” Or “We Don’t Quit.” Or “A Fair Shot.”

Most of America, that’s who. As Aaron Blake writes, “A slogan is only as good as — or maybe slightly better than — the thing it’s aiming to sell.”  And what Obama and Pelosi are selling is garbage.

Related articles

PTG

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share

The Saga of Sarah Alcid, Your Intellectual Better & Committed Useful Idiot

Share

It certainly is true what is what is said about R.S. McCain-he attracts a higher grade of troll.  And over the last couple days, he attracted one Sarah Alcid, a queer feminist Marxist who took offense offense at R.S. McCain’s coverage of the DC slut walk. 

It isn’t every day that a “Queer Feminist” with a diploma from Bryn Mawr (undergraduate tuition $42,870 a year) decides she needs my attention, but I’m so grateful for Miss Alcid’s encouragement to expand on what I said this morning:

“Professor Aptheker is exactly right: If you want to be a
true feminist, you must be a Communist lesbian.”

The inherent radicalism of the women’s movement — its theoretical foundation in Marxism, its implacable antagonism to traditional marriage and other institutions of bourgeois society — is not generally understood outside such campus cauldrons as Bryn Mawr.

Feminism is a totalitarian ideology. It cannot be co-opted or moderated. You cannot negotiate or compromise with feminism, because the ambitions of feminism are without limit. They can accept nothing short of the complete overthrow of “hitherto existing society” (Marx and Engels) resulting in their own dictatorial authority. Halfway “reform” (to which the bourgeoisie may agree in its attempt to stave off this upheaval) can ever placate the revolutionary, because the radical does not seek reform, but rather destruction. And the problem that most conservatives have, in trying to cope with radical movements, is that the typical conservative cannot imagine how fanatical — how rigidly unreasonable, how full of passionate destructive hatefulness — the radical really is.

So, it is quite true that feminism has it’s basis in Marxism, and I’ll get to that in a moment. But, I want to make a point regarding the difference between Conservatives and regressives.  Conservatives tolerate the existence of liberals. We disagree with them, and vehemently resist their efforts to destroy our society, but they are allowed to spout their vitriol.  It’s their right.    But, their rights end when they try to indoctrinate children into vile ideologies and ban any expression or mere utterance that shows dissent from their opinion.  You see, they cannot tolerate dissent, because truth hits their points like a death ray.  We don’t have to “convert” everyone, but regressives like Sarah Alcid have to crush and dominate all resistance.   Simply put, they don’t play well with others.

Sara Alcid wants to smash your family, smash your faith, smash your community. This is what she means in denouncing “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”

Sara Alcid hates you, she hates every institution you cherish and respect, and she considers your love for these institutions to be hate.

Sara Alcid believes this because she has been taught this. The fact that you cannot afford $42,870 a year to learn to think like Sara Alcid thinks is further proof of your inferiority, and your inferiority in turn justifies Sara Alcid‘s fanatical determination to destroy everything you love — in the name of “liberation,” of course.

In these terms, Sarah Alcid is performing her assigned function.  To destroy the US, Cultural Marxists mustt destroy the underpinnings of our society.  If you recall, Cultural Marxism is the response to Marxism’s failure to destroy Europe during WWI.  The Marxists all over the world expected the peoples of Europe to rise and shake off the shackles if capitalism, and join them in a massive Red Terror bloodbath.  When that failed, they determined that the culture, God, marriage, family, self sufficiency, nationalism, and the like prevented their long awaited win.  So, they translated Marxism into cultural terms in order to attack the underpinnings of Western Culture.  Basically, they make good evil, and evil good.  We’re obviously seeing that more and more these days, and Sarah Alcid doesn’t want to be left out of the fray.

But, she wasn’t done with R.S. McCain. 

Sara Alcid is better than you, because she’s a Queer Feminist who attended a prestigious college, and you’re not. She is so much better than you that you can’t even comprehend her vast superiority, her erudition, her knowledge of advanced philosophies that only the most sophisticated minds can ever hope to understand. You are just an ignorant, inarticulate, hate-filled bigot — a typical American — and you are so insignificant that Sara Alcid can’t be bothered to notice.

Every day, Sarah Alcid and her Queer Feminist friends “work to critique and dismantle” those ”systems of domination” — religion, marriage, family, free enterprise — that the typical American loves. They claim to do this in the name of “equality,” but what they’re actually doing is demonstrating their own superiority, their authority to take away from you everything that you hold dear and thus to arrogate to themselves complete power over you.

Sarah Alcid deserves this authority. Sarah Alcid is entitled to this power.

You deserve nothing and you have no rights, and if you dare to speak back to Sarah Alcid, this just proves you’re a hater.

Narcissism, AKA unwarranted self importance is a common trait of leftists such as Sarah Alcid.   They are just sooo much smarter than the rabble in flyover country.  And these folks honestly see themselves as enlightened leaders of a bold new tomorrow of equality, social justice, and unicorns that fart rainbows.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As you all know, I’m a big fan of the late Yuri Bezmonev, reputed to be the highest ranking KGB official to defect.  In the early 80’s, Mr. Bezmonev made several videos describing his work in India, which, mirrors Sarah Alcid’s stated intent here in the US.  His job was to work with Indian leftists in order to subvert their government, and set the stage for Communist takeover.   According to Mr. Bezmenov, Sarah Alcid is a useful idiot.  She is trained and “brainwashed,” if you will, to attack the framework of our society.  Her function is to…

Sara Alcid wants to smash your family, smash your faith, smash your community. This is what she means in denouncing “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”

And if  queer feminist Marxists like Sarah Alcid can achieve their goals, society will  fall apart.  The ties that bind us all will be gone.  Children will be sociopaths, people will starve, economic activity will be conducted at the point of a gun,  anarchy would reign.  This is scenario desired by Marxists, as they would be the ones to come in and establish order.  They will be welcomed as saviors that will set all the old grudges right.  They will promise peace, food, and equality.  At least, they’ll call it that, though real justice and equality will be nowhere to be seen.  And ask any Ukrainian that survived the 1930’s about food.

However, once this point is reached, the useful idiots won’t be quite as useful anymore (unless the new Marxist overlords want to use them for the red terror).  No matter when, at some point, people like Sarah Alcid stop being useful.  Mr. Bezmonev informed us what happens then…

What people that Sarah Alcid don’t grasp is that they are pawns in a larger game.  They are little poison pills, or ticking time bombs set by an evil and discredited political ideology.  Her sole purpose is to destabilize our society.  She relishes this task, but hasn’t the foggiest notion as to why she is really doing it.  And, even worse for Sarah Alcid, winning means that while she might not be first to the wall, she’ll get there eventually.  She’s a tool, and a means to an end.  The saddest thing is that she’ll never realize it.

Share

Mamas Don’t Let Yer Babies Grow Up To Be Commies …

Share

In Praise Of

“Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.” — Barack Obama

Fresh off his $100 million dollar African excursion, where he compared ailing communist Nelson Mandela to George Washington, Big Red lost no time in claiming another Marxist icon — Ho Chi Minh, the late Hanoi Hangman — to be a disciple of America’s Founding Fathers.  This would no doubt come as a surprise to the million of his countrymen that Ho murdered — human liquidation, of course, being the one thing at which communists excel:

Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, famine, deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor. (The Black Book of Communism/Wikipedia)

Obama associate Bill Ayers, the once and future Weatherman, contemplated an even greater ideological carnage:

When Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn led the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground in 1969, a chance meeting led Army veteran Larry Grathwohl into joining the group. Grathwohl served as a courier, running messages between the group’s leadership (called the “Weather Bureau”) and individual cells that were to carry out attacks. Grathwohl was also an informant for the FBI.

In an interview from the 1982 documentary No Place To Hide that recently surfaced, Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism.

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

 And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

 And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Larry Grathwohl: If we are to believe Mr. Obama, he just didn’t know Billy was as radical as he apparently is. Really? Just like he didn’t know the Rev. Wright was as radical as he is? Obama is a politician and he wants me to believe that he never discussed politics with the Rev Wright or Billy Ayers?

Makes ya wonder just what exactly Barack Obama meant by the “fundamental transformation of America.”

Related articles

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share