Paging Comrade Stalin: Democrats Propose “Windfall Profits Board”

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.

When we discuss the left as Marxists, critics go into a spasm of Alinsky, and attempt to ridicule any accusers.  Then, however, Democrats, or their allies, say and do some rather Marxist things.  For the latest, we go to The Hill, and see about the newly proposed Windfall Profit Board…

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit. 

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

Er, what is exactly a “reasonable profit,” and where in the Constitution does it say that the government get’s to arbitrarily confiscate someone else’s property?  Yeah, I know, they aren’t going to let something as simple as the Constitution to stand in their way.

Moonbattery also has some analysis...

Meanwhile, Obama just killed the Keystone XL pipeline, sending Canadian oil to our communist Chinese adversaries. As a result of his policies, gas already coststwice as much as when he took office; it would cost still more if not for the sluggish economy.

Consequently, shrill lies regarding oil company profits will keep getting louder — as will calls by Democrats for straightforward nationalization of the oil industry. By controlling gasoline, they will be able to control our mobility — which is also the point of “alternative transportation” programs. (emphasis added)

I have mentioned that it would seem that, when taken in it’s totality, that Democratic energy and transportation policy has the intent of restricting human movement.  We have to remember that Ray LaHood, the Sec of Transportation, and what he had said…

They have dropped some of the pretenses and have started “sharing” more and more of their true intentions.  Let’s take a look at what the current Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, has been up to, as reported by CNS News.

In Newsweek magazine last week, nationally syndicated columnist George Will published a piece critical of Lahood, entitled, “Ray LaHood, Transformed–Secretary of Behavior Modification.”

“He says he has joined a ‘transformational’ administration: ‘I think we can change people’s behavior,’” Will reports that LaHood said over lunch.

The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.”

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.

Lahood then made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.

“Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives,” said the moderator. “How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.” (emphasis added)

Well, that’s one piece of the puzzle.  Our “friends” in government have the stated intent of getting us out of cars.  But that’s not all.  Remember Cash for Clunkers?  I wrote this when that program started…

In the “Cash for Clunkers” plan, how many cars will be taken out of the market?  How many fewer Americans will be able to own a used car due to this?  New cars that are to be made to the messiah’s specifications will be more and more expensive.  To reach the mileage and emissions goals, more, newer technology will have to go in, increasing the cost.  With so many used cars sent to the crusher, where will people go for a car when they cannot afford the newer ones?  Funded with $1,000,000,000, the initial plan was to scrap 250,000 cars.  The congress wants to add another $2,000,000,000 to the plan, does that mean a total of 750,000 cars?   How many people will that “coerce” onto public transportation?

Then, we got the answer about a year later…

I think we have the answer to my last question, courtesy of Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

In other words, there was real and rational demand for the cars that the Obama administration sent to the grinders.  That demand hasn’t stopped, even if tainted with political incorrectness.  The top four vehicles for price increases in Edmunds’ used-car tracking are all high-end, larger cars or SUV:

Cadillac Escalade – 35.6% increase
Chevy Suburban – +34.2%
Dodge Grand Caravan – +34%
BMW X5 – +33%

As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them.  The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new.   By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction.  Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families.  Nice work.

So, we have the fact that the Cash for Clunkers program increased the cost of used cars, as they took at least 250,000 used cars off the market.  But, there is still more, as that shiny car on the dealer’s lot will be more and more expensive to take home…

I’ve often said that the “progressives” won’t directly ban or outlaw most things.  You’ll still be technically able to own a car, but your actual ability to do so will be increasingly limited.  Here’s the latest from Detroit News.

The new regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and theEnvironmental Protection Agency establish emissions and fuel standards for model years 2012-16. The changes will boost overall fleet fuel efficiency to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. But it will also cost automakers about $60 billion and add an average $1,300 to the purchase price of a new vehicle.

Now, if this is like most other government estimations of costs, it will be much higher.  But how many people will not be able to afford cars if the cost keeps increasing?  Also, it is being said that people will save money with more efficient cars- more than the increased initial cost of the car.  However, do those alleged savings account for the increase cost of fuel over the life of the car?  How many people will, as a result,  have to depend on some government entity to get to work or to shop?

So, when you take a number of factors into consideration, a pattern emerges.  Government simultaneously wants to “coerce” people out of  their cars.  Then, they seek to make that car more and more expensive to own and operate.  Of course, one can say that this is coincidental, or just yet another example of government triggering the law of unintended consequences, but since they are talking openly about it, we might as well connect the dots.

I remember reading about, and seeing documentaries on the automobile.  Many of them have suggested that the invention of the automobile was the most freedom-enhancing development of the 20th century.  Their reasoning was that cars gave people mobility in a way that the trains did not.  They could choose where to go.  Farmers could leave the farm for town easily.  City residents could get out to the “country.”  People could get out of the cities and live away from the messes that liberal politicians made in urban centers.  The car made it far easier to communicate, socialize, exchange ideas, and generally get around.  Basically, it is hard to control people, where they live, where they go, and where they work, when they can move about freely.  It’s far too much disorder and chaos for our would-be regressive masters.  So, by working at the fuel supply, increasing prices, and otherwise making it increasingly impossible to own a car, the government can gain more control over us. And that seems to be exactly what they are doing.

But none of that is the slightest bit tinged with Marxism, is it?

 

Share

Useful Idiot of the Year 2011: This Time, it’s for Keeps

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.

Actually, it’s always for keeps, but it induced just enough drama into the title, did it not?  Seriously though, it is time to nominate candidates for Useful Idiot of the Year.  For anyone who is new to this, a useful idiot is a person that, knowingly or otherwise, promotes Communism.  They were called that by Lenin and Stalin.  Their purpose was to destabilize a Western nation in order to create crisis.  Then, it was hoped that a Communist regime would be installed to deal with the crisis.  Then, most ironically, the useful idiots would be mostly jailed, exiled, or executed.  After all, the Communists can’t allow ideological pawns to interfere with their tyranny, can they?

So then, the process is simple-the readers nominate useful idiots.  Then, I put them in a poll, and we all get a chance to vote.  Again, we are not ACORN, or the SEIU, so you only get to vote once.

Ready, set, go!

Linked by:  The Daley Gator, Reluctant Rebel

Share

Blog Focus: If you Read Anything Today, Read This

Share

And I don’t mean this post either.  R.S. McCain posted something that is mandatory reading for anyone that is interested in understanding OWS, or the indoctrination machine as a whole.  Here are some excerpts from; Indoctrination: What the Occupiers Believe and Why They Believe It

Not everyone in the New Left followed Timothy Leary’s advice to “tune in, turn on and drop out,” however. Many of the radicals made the Long March Through the Institutions. This is how Bill Ayers, a terrorist leader who spent years as a fugitive wanted by the FBI, eventually became an influential academic, along with many others who shared his revolutionary vision if not his penchant for revolutionary violence.

“We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men . . . deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.”
– Bill Ayers, et. al., “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” manifesto of the Weather Underground, 1974

In all the 2008 uproar about Ayers’s association with Barack Obama, few seemed to take alarm at the thought that, from 1987 onward, Ayers was a professor of education — a teacher of teachers — at the University of Illinois. Ayers’s acceptance within academia suggests that many other administrators and faculty were sympathetic to his radicalism. And if, for the past quarter-century, admirers of Marxist revolutionaries have been so influential in our nation’s most prestigious educational institutions, are we surprised to find 17-year-olds sympathizing with the Occupy mobs?

Trust me when I say that this is just the tip of the educational iceberg.  Marx and Lenin are discussed.  If you want to understand indoctrination, hit the link and read the entire article.  You won’t be disappointed.

If anything, McCain points out the incredible importance of education, especially for the political left.  If Liberalism were a a biological weapon, education would be it’s most preferred delivery system.  You need to look no further than OWS, and the examples in McCain’s post, for the results.  Education, dominated and shaped by evil men like William Ayers,  is the dagger pointed at the back of the Republic.  Ayers knows it-he’s devoted much of his life to it, and the hard left as a whole is waiting for the chance to finish their job.  I think it’s safe to say that this is why you see people coming out of the woodwork to support OWS.

Another point made in the post is that many of us know what Marxism is.  We know history, and we have followed the millions of dead back to the actual application on Marxist-Leninism.  For all of it’s claims of equality and social justice, it requires the empowerment of government to obscene levels.  Of course, the only way to gain, and maintain that power is to brutalize the entire population, and kill millions of them.  However, our useful idiots haven’t been taught Marxism in it’s full form.  They’ve been taught the notions of it.  They know social justice, but they haven’t been taught what social justice looks like in actual practice.  They’ve been indoctrinated, and they are in the streets; protesting for vague notions-knowing not where those notions lead.  So, we we try to educate them, they don’t understand.  And, they’ve been conditioned to attack, verbally or otherwise, anyone who tries to show the truth about that evil ideology.  Videos from OWS show that, and Yuri Bezmenov predicted it almost thirty years ago.

These truths are why education is one of our biggest battles.  Eliminating the Department of Education is a step in the right direction.  However, this battle needs to be fought in every state capitol, at every local school district, and at every university that has an education department.  As long as we allow the political left control these institutions, they will continue to turn out more and more useful idiots. These useful idiots are the cannon fodder for the “revolution.”  They are used, and then discarded, by the Lenins, Stalins, and Maos of this world.  Because they are historically illiterate, they fail to see the fate that they would suffer in the future “utopia” that they would help create.  Ironically, we would save then from that fate.

Share

Operating on Thinking vs. Feelings, and why it is Potentially Dangerous

Share

Kindly take a view of this video, because it shows something about the hard left that is potentially dangerous.

Much has been made of this video in terms of the fact that they rejected the Congressman, who was a hero of the civil rights movement. Ironically, he would have been welcome at a Tea Party event.  However, there is a larger point for me to make here.  Did you notice how many times the man conducting the meeting asked the assembly how they “felt?”  It was a repeated phrase, and it means far more than many of you might know.  It has been a persistent observation that the left uses emotion to drive their movements.  While that may seem superficial at first, it has drastic consequences for all of us.

Obviously, we all have feelings.  We experience anger, sadness, guilt, anxiety, and all the rest.  These are inherent to the human condition, and  they enhance our existence.  Without joy, love, and happiness,  life would be rather drab.  And while sadness, anger, and anxiety are often unpleasant, they can often be channeled into positive action.  However, without higher order thinking to provide a check on emotion, feelings turn us into something feral, and therefore very dangerous.  Without idea, morals, and standards to guide us, emotions can rule rather than enhance our lives.

This brings me to some alarm with what we are seeing from the left.  We have noticed that many of the protesters have no idea why they are there.  We have also seen irrational behavior from some of them.  While that might be drug-induced, we also see that they are long on emotion, and rather short on facts, or the thinking to process information that might be presented.  This, my friends, creates the perfect recipe for the creation of  useful idiots.  There are people that get upset due to some irrational and unrealistic beliefs, and then, their anger is focused on a specific group.  Think of how many atrocities were perpetrated by Communists, and Fascists in the last century.  Did these movements not focus anger over injustices, real and imagined, and created states guilty of killing millions?  Have we not seen considerable violence from leftist movements in a variety of countries, including the US, over the last few years?  These are the hallmarks of people that feel, and do not think (of course, some of them do think carefully, but they are likely sociopaths).  These are the people that our late friend Bezmonev refers to a “demoralized.”  They cannot process facts.  They run on emotion, and are easily fed by simple propaganda.  And since they cannot process factual information, they will be easily mislead by organizers/leaders that give them an easy target for their anger, and promises of an even easier future utopia.  This is a recipe for a great deal of violence.

Consider how many of these people get to this state.   They come from many backgrounds and circumstances.  Many were indoctrinated by public education.  Many are simply looking for a free ride.  Some have fallen into Marxism to escape their own failure or resentment of that others are more successful.  Others naively believe that Climate Change The Big Lie, is a direct threat to humanity.  There are many reasons for people to be upset, some of them legitimate, but the application of their anger is misplaced.  All of them fail to process the facts that show them to be incorrect.  To an extent, they are unthinking, or their thinking is limited by their indoctrination.  No matter how they arrived as useful idiots, they are the perfect foot soldiers for, and eventual victims of  a future Marxist state.

Sadly, because of their indoctrination, they are embracing a system that is the greatest killing machine in human history.  Communism, Fascism, and even Progressivism killed millions in the 20th century, yet these poor souls have embraced it totally.  Yes, they might be calling it something else, and they might have convinced themselves that either all of the deaths did not occur, or that this time “it will be different.”  Of course, we know history, and what will happen if leftists try to install a Marxist state.  It will eventually devolve into a tyrannical state, killing any one who opposes it, and even innocents-all in an attempt to maintain power.  And more unfortunately, these useful idiots will be among the first to die once a new order is established, however, their demoralization will prevent them from learning that historical lesson-until it is too late.

In the end, these people seem peaceful, but they are deluded by a destructive and murderous philosophy.  They also appear to be thoroughly demoralized, and are running on emotion rather than fact.  For those reasons, they are a potential powder keg.  Given the proper spark, violence might start, and be difficult to stop.  Similar movements around the world have resorted to violence when their demands were not met.  I can see no reason that this one will not as well.  However, I would be happy to be wrong.

Share

Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

Share

Many of you might have noticed that I often put quotations around the word, “progressive.”  Over the last couple of years, I’ve probably wasted a thousand keystrokes doing that, so I might as well explain why.

For the vast majority of human history, mankind has lived in a state of tyranny.  This probably started not long after cave man Ugh realized that his neighbor, Argh was weaker than him, and carried a smaller club.  After Argh’s untimely demise (with the exception of some tribal societies), the course of mankind was set.

As mankind developed from hunter gatherers to simple agrarian societies, to city states, and then empires, a variety of chieftains, kings, dictators, warlords, priests, priestesses, and self declared “gods,” have ruled mankind.  During those  countless ages, the average person lived, or died, at the whim of his or her self-appointed leader.  Economies were controlled, taxes were high, incomes were close to nil, and the average person often died as penniless as they were at birth.  Economies centered on the wealth of the leaders, not on the people, so  pestilence and starvation killed many when it did not need to happen.  There was little to no income distribution.  There was the top class; the leaders and their enforcers, and there were the peasants.  There was not even a hint of equality or justice, just oppressive rule.  (I know that Rome was, for a time, a republic, and some Greeks practiced democracy, but even then, they were a drop in the bucket when compared to the total history of man)

These tyrannical leaders did not tolerate dissent, or even the chance of dissent.  people were tortured, maimed, and executed to insure the power of the ruler(s).  People were killed for treason, heresy, or for simply knowing someone who might have done something.  There was no, “taking to the streets.”  Such events would have been met with lethal force.  Not only that, the entire town in which such a thing occurred might be razed in retaliation.

The leaders during those dark times were said to be wiser, stronger, more suited to rule, and it had been ordained by God that they should have power.  And all the while, excesses and corruption were the order of the day.

However, as the centuries passed, progress-REAL progress, was made.  The Magna Carta established that people have some rights, though it is not as codified as are the rights in our Constitution.   Also, John Locke, among others, formulated the ideas of natural rights and the social contract.

Our Founding Fathers were the next in line for real progress.  They created, in the Unites States Constitution, the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised. They embraced the idea of Natural Rights, in the human freedoms are from God, and that government exists to protect those rights-and cannot take them away.  Humans were protected in their right to free speech, their freedom of religion, their right to defend themselves, their right to property and all the others that we tend to take for granted today.  In our Republic, man rules himself, and government exists only to do those functions that man cannot do for himself, such as national defense, enforcing contracts, establishing courts, coining money, and so forth.  Or at least, that’s is how it’s supposed to be.

However, the forces of tyranny did not rest or concede when true human freedom started to emerge.  The next stages of tyranny were  Communism, followed by the original “progressive movement,” and then Fascism.  All of these are related in terms of the fact that they center power in an elite, that then control all aspects of human behavior.  Their only differences are in process and scope.

The results were horrific.  Over a hundred million people were killed in the name of Communism.  Fascism might have  equaled  that, had they not been stopped by WW II.  The “progressives,” operating in Western Democracies, had to move slowly.  Incrementalism has been their primary operating procedure.  However, they inspired the Nazi’s with their love for eugenics, and were “fellow travelers” with the other two movements.

Over the decades, “progressives,” operating under a variety of labels , have moved through our institutions.  They have used a variety of justifications to give the Federal government more power.  They have taken control of education.  They are in control of the MSM.  They have crafted  regulations  that destroy business and industry.  They created social programs that have encouraged dependency, and then have created economic crisis to fill those programs to unprecedented levels.  They have legalized sexual assault in the name of “security.”  They have also used the created and false crisis of global cooling, global warming, climate change in order to justify the reduction of our lifestyles.  All of this, of course, will be monitored and controlled by the authorities.

Their desire for control extends to all aspects of human life.  Government wants to tell us what kind of food can we eat- even if we can grow our own.  We are told how much water our toilets can use.  The kinds of car we can own-and eventually, even if we can own one is to be determined by unelected  bureaucrats.    What kind of house we can build, the healthcare we can recieve, and a host of others, are all in the crosshairs of the “progressives.”  They even seek to control mass media and the internet to control the free flow of information.  In the end, are we free if the government dictates so many of our basic human functions?

We also see how the “progressives” treat those that disagree with them. Conservative and Libertarian students are threatened and punished on   campuses, where free speech is curtailed, and labeled as “hate.”  Union members and other “progressives” engage in violence and intimidation to silence those that dissent.  The Consitution itself has been declared “outdated,” or “irrelevant.”  The Founders themselves are attacked and discounted.  After all, if we are to be controlled by an all powerful government, the very ideas of freedom have to be attacked, silenced and discredited.

As you can see, “progressives” are not progressive. They are REgressive.  They seek to return us to a state in which we are controlled and dominated by a small elite.  And just as the monarchs of old, they seek the “divine right of kings,” in order to gain and maintain control over us.  Of course, they tell us that it’s for our own good, but they proceed from the faulty premise that they know better than us, and that we cannot self govern.

We were born into a state of freedom.  In terms of human history, this is a rare and precious gift.  Only the tiniest fraction of all humans that have ever lived have enjoyed these freedoms.  If we allow the Regressives to take them away, it might be centuries before they re-emerge, and hundreds of millions will die in the process.

Are we going those freedoms, and the future of mankind, over to a small elite that “knows what’s best?”

NOTE: This is yet another post that could be turned into a small book.  Obviously there are things I could not touch on without making it my first book. Feel free to let me know what I missed in the comment section.

Share

Quick Hits: Why are Your Children Still in Public School?

Share

One of my most frequent suggestions here at the CH 2.0 is for parents to get their children out of the public schools-preferably yesterday.  Today, here are two quick looks at reasons why that suggestion is still relevant.

First up, Soylent Green recently posted this story about training teachers to indoctrinate children.

 

When you go to their website, you can take a look at some of the workshops they’ve offered in the past. Here are some excerpts…

Examining Your Hidden Curriculum to Improve Social Justice in Your Classroom

This workshop will present a guided tour of the hidden ways we teach, such as what is on our walls and whose voices are heard through texts. Participants will map their own classrooms and in small groups develop a plan for positively using hidden curriculum to promote more social justice.

K-12

Jacque Ensign is a teacher educator who focuses on culturally relevant approaches to teaching.

Learning Israel-Palestine: Connecting with Palestinian Youth and Uncovering Conflict in the Middle East

This session explores teaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with special emphasis on incorporating into the classroom the Global Citizen Corps two-way blog and live video conferencing program (formerly the Mercy Corps “Why Not” program), which connects U.S. students with youth in the Palestinian territories.

Secondary

Ken Gadbow teaches high school social studies at Trillium Charter School in Portland; he facilitates live conversations between U.S. and Palestinian students through the “Why Not” program.

(Still) Rethinking Columbus: How the Columbus Myth Teaches Children that Racism and Colonialism Are OK — and some ideas on what to do about it

The Columbus-discovers-America myth is the first time in the curriculum that many children encounter different races confronting each other, different cultures confronting each other. Children begin to learn that social inequality is normal. In this workshop, through slides of children’s Columbus biographies, participants will examine deep biases that are imparted to students in literature and textbooks. We will also engage in classroom-tested methods to equip students to develop their critical reading abilities.

K-12

Bill Bigelow is the curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools magazine, has taught high school social studies in Portland since 1978, and is author or editor of numerous books on teaching and learning.

If you like to see more, head over there are take a look.  It’s basically tons of Marxist evil to stuff into the heads of our children.

The second comes from The Daley Gator.  Apparently, a third grade teacher isn’t bothering to hide her role as an indoctrinator.

“The process of addressing budget cuts with my students taught me an incredible amount,” Weiss recently wrote. “I learned that laying a social justice foundation for young students is a complex process. I learned when issues are addressed, they need to be revisited many, many times.”

“Social justice foundation?” Oh wait, dear readers, the giddy and proud Ms. Weiss explainshow she set the 8- and 9-year olds up for a fall:

“Several weeks later, right as the bell was about to ring at the end of the school day, I casually mentioned to my students that I wanted to learn more about doing art with children since Ms. Sue [the art teacher] would not be with us next year. The students clearly were taken off guard:

“But I thought if we wrote letters to the school board there would be more money for MPS and we could keep Ms. Sue.

“Michael and Dakota read their letters at that meeting, and they asked for more money for our school. I really thought we would get more money. But now I don’t think it happened.

“Looking at the disappointment on their faces, I realized I had unintentionally led my students to conclude that if we believed something to be unfair and took action, the unfair situation would turn into a fair one. I remembered saying over and over: ‘There is always something you can do to try to turn the unfair situation into a fair one.’

Yet my students heard something quite different. In their hope and optimism as 8- and 9-year-old children, they knew that their actions would bring about a miracle. My heart sank; I felt I had let my students down.”

To Ms. Weiss and other unionists, the students are little more than political pawns in their game. They’re setting them up to do their dirty lobbying work.

Weiss once called those pesky, fact-filled textbooks “the enemy of progressive education.” In advice to first-year teachers, she explained:

“In content areas where I felt the strongest, I tried out many different ideas and did my best to be creative. But in areas where I felt a lot more challenged, I stuck real close to those textbooks. This helped me gain a better grip on the curriculum as well as understand how students grasp ideas and learn. Then, I was better able to slowly move away from the textbooks and create more of my own curriculum.

“Much of my first year of teaching was spent trying to bring together the world of my political activism and passion for equity and justice, with the new world I was entering as a teacher. I know I made lots of mistakes and learned some things the hard way. But I learned a lot of valuable lessons as well.”

As I have done these posts, it has become more and more apparent that these types of activities, while not in every school, are likely far more widespread than most of us have thought.  In essence, if you allow your children to remain in public school, you run the risk of having them taught some ideas that aren’t just anti-American, but anti-human.  We have to remember that what these people are teaching children is the same ideology that killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century.  Apparently, they want to try to top that in this century.  Think of it as the “mother of all do-overs.”

The question is, are we going to let them use our children towards that end?

The choice is yours.

Share

Some Thoughts on Marxism and Islam

Share

One of the more shocking (at least for me) things about the “Arab Spring” is the association between Marxism and Islam, and more specifically, Sharia Law.  We’ve heard of this association in the past, and even communists are touting it.

Workers from factories across Egypt and from many unions, including the newly founded Federation of Independent Labor Unions, and various left parties marched around the square, carrying their banners and signs high. Political organizations represented included the Egyptian Socialist Party, Egyptian Communist Party, the liberal Ghad Party, the Revolutionary Socialists, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Workers’ Democratic Party.

So, we have a basically Godless ideology in league with a ruthlessly brutal religion.  Angel, from Woman Honor Thyself, featured this cartoon, which can be seen as a conventional way of looking at this.

On the surface, it would  seem that this union, made in the lowest pit of hell, might be mutually exploitative, with each side using the other as useful idiots.  However, there might be another way to look at it.  Both Islam and Marxism are entities of control.  They both use violence and mass murder to gain and maintain control of the populace.  They both view the individual human being as meaningless and worthless.  The both reduce their populations to poverty and scarcity.  Given those comparisons, they might compliment each other very well.  Both may act as complimentary control systems.  The Marxist wants economic control.  The Islamist wants spiritual and behavioral control.  Both hate dissent, so stonings, beheadings, gulags, torture, rape, and random terror serve both entities very well.  As scary as it might seem, we might be looking at the birth of a political/religious union that will kill hundreds of millions in the rest of this century.

I’d hate to see the end results of the war that it will take to stop these people.  Of course, we can hope that they collapse under the weight of their own failure, but that might amount to wishful thinking.

Share

Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison

Share

There has been, in my opinion, a monstrous perversion of Christian teachings.  In order to promote Marxism, a variety of of Christian organizations and denominations have been infiltrated and influenced to promote an anti-Christian message- “social (in)justice.”   Many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.

Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  How does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?  I don’t recall Jesus holding a gun to someone’s head, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che certainly did, and in millions of cases, their minions pulled the trigger.

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poor people!  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. No one bothers to mention that in the war on poverty, poverty won.  And, in fact, the government’s efforts helped poverty win, and will continue to do so.

Share

Cultural Marxism and the Breakdown of Society: Intentional Cause and Effect?

Share

Glenn Beck has made much of two videos that were posted at The Blaze, a news web site that he owns.  Here are the videos…

Initially, I really thought nothing of it.  There are college riots.  Kids get drunk and go on rampages.  It has happened before, it will happen again.

Then, I caught myself.  Having been initially desensitized to these events, I then realized that there is something a bit more sinister behind all of this.  These videos show a lack or respect for property, and any source of order.   That logically extends to the owners of the property that was destroyed.  They do not respect the owners, as evidenced by the fact that they destroyed the property.

Then, I thought to myself, where have I seen this before?  My first thoughts when back to the aftermath of WW II.  It was said in that in areas of Germany that were controlled by the Soviets, it would be easier to find German women and girls that were NOT raped.  That’s how rampant it was.  There was an overwhelming lack of morality among the Soviet troops.  I know, some are going to say, how are these two things related?  Well, both stem from a lack of respect for others, either in their property, or their persons.  Without morality, there in nothing within a person to prevent them from engaging in horrific acts of violence.

So, where did that come from?  In Marxist states, the concept of a higher power, and the morality that stems from that higher power, is absent.  Not only is it absent, but those that espouse that belief and morality are often persecuted.  The Marxist educational system, inescapable and totalitarian, insures that all are indoctrinated.  The media, the government, and all other official institutions, mock, persecute, and otherwise discredit any faith.  In the Marxist/Fascist/”progressive” state, the only “god” is the state, and that “god” is a jealous one, and acts swiftly and aggressively against any competition.  The Marxist “god” isn’t satisfied with “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” they want it all-body, mind, and soul.

But where does that leave the indoctrinated masses? For more, here is an excerpt from Lew Rockwell.

There is a name for a country where there is no security, freedom, or justice, and where criminality is woven into the fabric of everyday life: moral nihilism. Not only it is not clear who the good guys and the bad guys are. It is no longer clear that there is any pervasive belief that there are such things as good guys and bad guys.

What brings about such a situation? We learned after the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and Russia that socialism had been all too effective in creating a new socialist man. The lack of respect for contract, property, and life itself became evident in the reform process. The cultural foundations that might have led to a stable and secure freedom were just not present.

Why is this? Because violence blessed as an official civic policy is a demonic teacher of populations. In any society, the problem with crime extends beyond the immediate victims. Pervasive violence whittles away the cultural and moral foundations of society itself.

Does this sound familiar?  While Rockwell was discussing Iraq in his article, we see that Socialism and the nihilism that comes with it, destroys social order. There are no more “good guys and bad guys,” just charlatans from all sides that lie their way onto the “moral” high ground.

While Marxism was inflicted upon the masses in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the US were afflicted with Marxism’s brother, Cultural Marxism.  In essence, Cultural Marxism de-emphasizes the class struggle, for the attack on traditional, Western Culture.  The idea is to relentlessly attack morality, Christianity, individual freedom, capitalism, self reliance, and so on.  This unrelenting attack is meant to collapse the culture, enabling an eventual, and more gradual transition to a totalitarian state.  Consider it Cloward-Piven for the culture.  To expand on this, here is an excerpt from 2009…

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

Now, the meaning of the term “Western Culture” is not made explicit here.  To elaborate, here is a definition:

Western culture is a body of knowledge derived from reason.

This foundation of reason has made possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature, including human nature.

This understanding is represented in several core ideals and values, which include individualism, happiness, rights, capitalism, science and technology.

Western culture can also be referred to as advanced culture; this is because its ideas and values promote the development and sustainment of advanced civilization.

So, when offered Communism, the workers rejected it.  Western Culture interfered.  The ideas of individuality, self reliance, success, work, owning property, the ability to rise above one’s origins, all give hope to the people, especially when the people can act upon and achieve these hopes.   The ability to earn, and keep what you earn; all lead to resistance to Communism.  After all, why would you give up the ability to earn and be successful to join a de-humanizing collective?

Christianity has another powerful role on resistance to Marxism.  Marxism is “Godless,” by it’s own description, however, I have often postulated that this is an incorrect.  I believe that in a Marxist state, God is replaced by the state as the giver of life and all things material.  Religion, and its reliance on a higher power creates a situation in which loyalty to the state is secondary to the loyalty to God.  This is intolerable to the Marxist.

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Our free society relies upon the people being “good,” as a moral people will do “good” even when no one is watching.  Hence, when the people are moral, there is little need for external control of the populace.  Now, if the that moral order of society is disrupted, people will not behave morally.  They will cheat, steal, vandalize, lie, murder, rape, abandon their children or spouses (if they even bothered to marry), and create mass disorder.   As a result, the people will ask government to take more and more power to deal with the that resulting disorder.  Of course, that will do little to deal with the disorder, but it will give the government the power that it craves.  In the end, the breakdown of the culture is the crisis that the left will use to gain more power.

As we look at the union activities in Wisconsin; death threats, vandalism, physical assaults, and the like, are we seeing the efforts of the Cultural Marxists coming to fruition?  Generations of Americans have been influenced by both the traditional, class based Marxism, as well as the Cultural variant.  Both, it would seem, lead to violence.  And, if you want a Marxist revolution, you’re going to want to have people without morals to conduct it.  They want a revolutionary that isn’t afraid to threaten or brutalize men, women, or even children.   Dissenters must be intimidated or shouted down.  The opposition must be vilified and otherwise attacked.  Rent-a-mob needs to be dispatched on a moments notice.  All of these are best done by individuals that have little to no moral compass.

You see, in a Marxist state, the level of terror must be maintained, and moral people won’t do that.   But train a mass of people that are without morals, and there are your enforcers.  I fear that what we are seeing from our left is the low level beginning of such a revolution.  And, I think that this is the intention.  By creating a mass of people that have no moral center, and indoctrinated into the thinking of Marxism and Cultural Marxism, our left has created their revolutionary foot soldiers.

As usual, I have engaged on some conjecture here.  Feedback and discussion is welcome.

Note: I use the term “Marxist” a great deal in this post.  “Progressive” can be easily substituted, as there is very little difference in methodology.

Share

The Fate of the Useful Idiots Redux

Share

As I have watched rank and file union members join in common cause with Marxists, Socialists, and other components of the rent-a-mob, I am reminded of this post from December…

I’ve been seeing some repeating themes as of late.  We have the hard left calling for the revolution.  We have people on our side lamenting the fact that there are millions of Americans that have not seen Obama and the left for what they really are.  That, in spite of overwhelming evidence, we didn’t win both houses of Congress by record margins.  And that Obama has any approval rating at all…tells me something.   All of these snippets made me go back to one of my favorite sets of videos.

The videos were made in the 1980?s and feature Yuri Bezmenov, the highest ranking KGB official to ever defect to the West.  Take a  listen to how our proud useful idiots will meet their end.  Also not the personality traits that Bezmenov attributes to them.

It’s freakin’ uncanny if you ask me.  This man, back in the 80?s, was describing, in great detail, so many of the useful idiots that we vote for every month. And he was saying it over 20 years ago.

The Major Downside: You have to realize that some of us that have gone public will be targeted.  Just saying.

As for the people that won’t wake up, there is a reason for that…

There is much more to Bezmenov’s interviews.  They can be found on both YouTube and Google Video ( for longer versions).  But again, when we look at reality, and see things fall into place just as we predicted, or, even as our opponents  said they would, and people don’t get it at all, there is a reason for that.  The simple answer is that they aren’t supposed to get it, and they probably never will.  Until, that is, they are about to be lined up against the wall.  That is why I have not advocated a ton of outreach to the left.  They are programmed to deny reality, rendering them useful only as idiots, and temporarily at that.

Please share this with anyone who you think might respond.  Things are getting worse-much worse.  We may, in the next year or so, see much of what Bezmenov predicted come to pass.

Here is the full version of the video…

 

Share

Blog Focus: Social Justice at Marion High School

Share

We have a new friend in the blogosphere, Rotti’s Political Bark.  Right away, I saw that they had a fascinating post.  I obtained the admin’s permission to post the following excerpt.

We have all been made aware of the creeping social justice or socialism introduction into our public schools. I will never forget the video about kindergartners praising Obama.  We should all check out our children’s books they bring home, especially those dealing with social studies or history.  It is a well known fact that many of those books are being altered and no longer teach the “real” history.

Now it has come to my attention via email from a fellow patriot friend that one of our local parochial schools, Marion High, is now being indoctrinated as well with social justice.  Parents need to be made aware of that, especially if they have not been informed of those programs being launched in their school.

The following is an excerpt of what one mother of a Marion student wrote:

“….. A couple of you already have your girls there and you may have heard about the “assembly” on Tuesday. Your daughters may or may not have told you about the assembly. You may or may not find it and it’s contents offensive. To sum it up, I have never felt more outraged and undermined since my children began school. I am pleading with you and your fellow alums, if what I relay does not represent the Marian that formed you and that you so dearly love and want to embrace for your daughters, to complain to the administration over what is going on.

In short, an assembly took place without parents’ knowledge or permission which included “Bishop” Gumbleton, another priest who shared his views, and several “nuns” of the same ilk. The panel went on to preach to the kids for 90 minutes about the importance of “social justice”, while reminding the kids that they are the future leaders of our society. (hint, hint, half of you will be voting in two years) Many of you probably know that the term “social justice” has been co-opted in the past several decades and it is a buzz word for socialism. The children were told they are not good Catholics if :

*they do not support socialized medicine
*they do not support all immigration. (there should be no such thing as illegal immigration)
*they do not accept that Jesus’ teachings tell us that everyone should live equally, not just equal opportunity (socialism)
*they do not accept that people from all life styles should be respected. (gay rights)
*they did not support the programs that are being offered to save the earth (hmmm, cap and trade??)

They went on to demonize Glenn Beck and upheld MICHAEL MOORE (with a huge picture displayed) as some sort of person to be emulated. “Bishop” Gumbleton went on to say that he is called a communist, and that’s okay with him because he knows that it means he is doing good work.

My daughter, who has a wellformed conscience and has been brought up in an orthodox, Catholic home was physically shaking she was so upset, as were several of her friends. One courageous teacher left in disgust.

Take a look at the full post by following the link.

I know, some of you are saying, “so what, more school indoctrination.”  However, we do have to track this.  Daylight is the best disinfectant.  Also, this allegedly came from a Catholic School, so those of you that have kiddos in Catholic schools might want to look into curriculum very carefully.

Now, I also must acknowledge that this is a claim made at another site.  I cannot verify it other than to say that a commenter at Rotti’s place claims that their child was exposed to this as well.  Also, the “Bishop” mentioned in the post does exist,  is apparently VERY LIBERAL, and was forced into retirement by Rome.

So, I think that the Church has some housecleaning to do.

Share

Blog Focus: Socia.list

Share

Our good friend, the Mind Numbed Robot, has taken considerable time and effort to show us the actual size and scope of the Progressive States Network.  Kindly take a look at his latest page, Social.list.

Socia.list

What is it?

An idea I had while researching the Progressive States Network.

What is the Progressive States Network?

The Progressive States Network’s Board of Directors at the time of this posting consist of:

Rep. Garnet Coleman, Texas House of Representatives, Co-Chair

Sen. Joe Bolkcom, Iowa Senate

Wes Boyd, President of MoveOn.org

David Brock, President and CEO, Media Matters for America

Anna Burger, International Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU

Sen. Morgan Carroll, Colorado Senate

Sen. Spencer Coggs, Wisconsin Senate

Leo Gerard, President, United Steelworkers, Vice President, AFL-CIO

Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Political Director, Skyline Public Works

Del. Tom Hucker, Maryland House of Delegates

Steve Kest, Executive Director of ACORN

Sen. Nan Orrock, Georgia Senate

Rep. Hannah Pingree, Majority Leader, Maine House of Representatives

John Podesta, President and CEO, the Center for American Progress

Lee Saunders, Executive Assistant to the President of AFSCME

Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona House of Represenatives

Naomi Walker, State Government Affairs Director

Why the list?

Because, you need to know who your friends are in government. Likewise, your foes.

These names are taken directly from the Progressive States Network website and are noted as having signed the PSN HealthCare letter supporting ObamaCare.

As such, it is my never so humble opinion that these individuals have no clue as to the limits the Constitution of the United States places on the Federal government and should either reconsider their stance on this issue or lose their office.

ObamaCare is unconstitutional, socialistic and furthers the implementation of and forces a soft tyranny on every American citizen with its overreaching federal intrusion into our lives.

Vote these people out of office. Support their Republican opponents, if available.

I should also note that due to the lateness of the hour in terms of the November election, I’ve chosen, with one exception, to include only Republican opponents. While I vote my true conscience as to libertarian/conservative values in Primary elections, I believe in voting for the most conservative candidate that can win in this important General election.

For now, the only ones listed are Texans. In time, more will be added. However, if you’ll notice the list below, there are over 1000 signatories to the PSN Healthcare letter to Obama.

How does it happen that those whom otherwise may be very sane people can ascribe to such philosophy? Anymore, I don’t care. I’m just here to stop the bleeding. We already have a diagnosis. The prescribed treatment is a transfusion of new blood, preferably TEA.

The rest of the information can be seen at the Socia.list page.  The Robot shows us the state legislators, by state, that are supporting the Progressive States Network.  Go there and be educated!!!

Please share this information with your local Tea Party, local candidates, and whoever will listen.

Share

Just in Case you Wondered About the Left…

Share

With all the talk of the Ground Zero mosque (Definitely NOT an AP approved term) and Barak Obama’s religious status, there is a reminder of what it is that we are confronting.     We always talk about Marxism, and the left’s complete lack of tolerance, but there is an increasing transparency on the part of the left.  I don’t know if they are bolder due to Obama’s election, or they just don’t care anymore.  Perhaps it is just that we are paying more attention and are therefore noticing more of the openness.  No matter the cause, there are groups and individuals on the left that are simply operating in the open as Marxists.

For our current example, we look at Code Pink.  Most everyone here is aware of them, but some of their more recent activities are all the more repugnant.  Case in point, how Code Pink has acted towards our military, and to the families of fallen service people.  Take a look at this from Big Peace.

Numerous times over the past four years I have confronted the antics of Jodie Evans and her anti-war Code Pink cronies. We’ve all seen the nightly news with them being arrested time and time again throwing their leftist temper tantrums with their pink boa feathers wrapped around their necks as they kick and scream like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum to get attention. They have sent over $600,000.00 to the terrorists in Fallujah, or as they called them, “freedom fighting” heroes. You would think treasonous acts like this would have them locked in jail. Over and over they have attacked our military recruiting offices causing thousands of dollars of damage to the offices and threatening the recruiters.

In 2008 they barricaded the recruiting office in Berkeley with the blessing of the Berkeley City Council. We at Move America Forward had all we could stomach when we heard them tell the Marines they were unwelcome, unwanted intruders, not in Iraq or Afghanistan but on American soil in Berkeley, California. Americans from across the nation joined us in Berkeley to counter-protest these anti-war hippies. Numerous times they told me they support the troops but not the war, yet over and over when I asked if they had sent care packages, phone cards, written letters, or helped the families left behind in anyway, they conveniently couldn’t remember anything they had done. Yet they had a successful fundraiser to send $600,000.00 to our enemies in Iraq?  Yet Jodie Evans and her Code Pink degenerates taunted me and made light of my son’s sacrifice telling me, “Your son deserved to die in Iraq if he was stupid enough to go over there.” It took every ounce of reserve in my body to not level these idiots to the ground. These same people who call terrorists “freedom fighters” says that my son, who gave up his life for their freedoms, deserved death. (emphasis added)

I get that people disagree with the war.  Many people do.  Dissent a right…one that the left exercises; yet one they would eagerly deny to us.  However, this behavior goes beyond simple free speech.  They apparently raised money for people that were trying to kill our troops.  Then, they attack family members of fallen servicemen.  While at least this is free speech, it shows their overall lack of tolerance, as well as their lack of humanity.

But there is more.  Jodie Evans held a fundraiser for Jerry Brown, at her own home. The Powerline Blog has coverage of this, along with this pic…

Yes, that is Jodie Evans with Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.  This is the same Hugo Chavez that has taken over any dissenting media, jailed political opponents, and even jailed people for being critical of his economic polices on Twitter.  And Jerry Brown is going to take money from her?  What does this say about Code Pink?  I think we already know the answer to that.  But what does it also say about “governor moonbeam?”  Should we be surprised that a mainstream Democratic candidate is accepting money from a group that has essentially committed treason, and openly supports a communist dictator?  I suppose not, but should there be some outrage out there.  Maybe there’ll be some coverage from the MSM?

Waiting…five…four…three…two…one…nothing.

This, among other examples, is why I do not think there is any sense in engaging the left.  Frankly, arguing with a leftist is like trying to have a rational conversation with a five-year-old.  They post an asinine comment, I respond with facts, they eventually resort to name-calling and it falls apart from there.  As a result, we are polarized as a nation.  To be honest, I think we should be.  While some will say that we’re the radicals, I submit that it is our left that is on the fringe.  It is our left that is embracing dictators, like Chavez and Castro.  At this blog, we’ve chronicled the left’s assaults on property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the Tenth Amendment; the list could go on and on.  Groups like Code Pink and others invoke our freedom when it suits their purposes, and then acts to restrict those same freedoms for the rest of us. These are not simple disagreements based on detail or scope; this is the left attempting to enslave the rest of us.  I believe that it will either be us, or them.   They will either enslave us, or we will remain free, and recover the full use of our freedoms.  There is not longer a center position.  Frankly, we might as well be from different planets.

As I have stated in other posts, this is not a fight that will have a definitive ending point.  There will not be a VE or VJ day, after which we can relax.  Our leftists will never go away.  Since their beliefs are not based in reality, they cannot/will not recognize that their policies have failed everywhere they have been tried, and simply persist.  If the people reject them, they will say that the people are wrong, stupid, or mislead by freedom.  If defeated, they will go to ground, stay in their hijacked institutions, and indoctrinate another generation of leftists, and the game will go on and on.

Code Pink might be a fringe group but the certainly do attract a lot of mainstream attention, but not mainstream condemnation.  Add to that the fact that there are 70 Congress Critters that are openly socialist, and you see what I’m talking about.  It’s them or us.  There well be no quarter, no mercy, no summits, no bipartisanship.  It boils down to freedom, or slavery.

Share

Profiles in Useful Idiocy: Ron Gochez

Share

As we discussed one week ago.  Ron Gochez is a school teacher in LA, that has some revolutionary ideas (of the Marxist variety).  In my last post on Mr. Gochez, I showed a video of him making a speech supporting La Raza.  That video has made a major splash on the internet, and made FOX News by midweek.  The MSM, of course, chose to ignore it.  Here is the original video.

On Thursday, FOX News interviewed him.  Here is that video.

Now, there are two item in FOX interview that raise questions for me.  First, in the FOX interview, he states that he does not teach his political ideas in school.  However, at the very beginning of his first video, he states that the previous speaker was one of his students, and how proud he was of that student. The second aspect is that if you go to his personal page at his school, you see that he is a…

School of Public Service and Social Justice faculty member (Emphasis mine).

So, if he is teaching “social justice,” he IS teaching Marxism.  You can’t just change the name and tell us that it’s something different.

Additionally, he is not asked about, nor does he explain the anti-Semitic comments he has made in the past.

Well, we find more on Ron Gochez with a little digging. For one thing the guy’s a rabid anti-Semite. In 2002, he published a Letter to the Editor, at SDSU’s Daily Aztec, entitled “The Jewish-owned media continue to blind the masses with propaganda to keep them in fear.” The letter’s been taken down, but not the responses to it.

So, as you can see, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.  For additional insight into Mr. Gochez’s beliefs, here are two more videos.

“Occupied territory of Mexico?”

And he helps folks evade immigration.

My opinion is simple, the words from his FOX interview, and his words and actions described in the videos above, do not match.

Mr. Gochez is listed on the Useful Idiot of the Month poll.  For the uninitiated, the term, “Useful Idiot,”  was allegedly coined by Lenin to describe people in western countries that supported communism.  Unfortunately for the useful idiots, they were often the first to the wall when the communists took over.  After all, you can’t have idealism interfering with your totalitarianism, can you?  Hopefully, Mr. Gochez won’t have to embrace that reality.

Share

School Teacher Calls for Revolution, Complains About Jews, Teaches Social Justice

Share

As we’ve been covering the flag tee-shirt story, a related incident has emerged.  Gateway Pundit, The Other McCain, and America Power Blog have been discussing a video made at a La Raza related event.  Here is the video.


While the content is pretty clear, the details about the speaker are a concern.  The speaker’s name is Ron Gochez, and he is a teacher at a Los Angeles high school.

I personally chuckled when I read that he is a “School of Public Service and Social Justice faculty member.”  So, a would-be Communist revolutionary is teaching Marxism in a government school.

Should we be surprised?

But wait…there’s more.  American Power Blog also reports that along with his Marxism, Mr. Gochez appears to be a racist as well.

Well, we find more on Ron Gochez with a little digging. For one thing the guy’s a rabid anti-Semite. In 2002, he published a Letter to the Editor, at SDSU’s Daily Aztec, entitled “The Jewish-owned media continue to blind the masses with propaganda to keep them in fear.” The letter’s been taken down, but not the responses to it.

Follow the link to find the reactions to Mr. Gochez’s alleged anti-semitism.  I’ve screen capped it in the event that someone tries to scrub that as well.

BTW, I think Mr. Gochez just earned himself a spot on the Useful Idiot of the Month Poll.

Note: The video at the post by Gateway Pundit was “removed by user.”  While there are still multiple versions available on YouTube, I would recommend archiving a copy in the event that the other copies are scrubbed as well.  It seems like someone wants to hide Mr. Gochez’s acts of sedition.  We won’t let that happen.  The internet is forever, and fair use is a great tool.

Image Credit: Free Republic

Share

Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison

Share

I’ve been reading a lot lately that Jesus would support social justice.  I’ve also seen that many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.

Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  How does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poor people!  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty.

Share

Happy 99th Birthday Ronald Reagan!

Share

On this, Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday let us all give thought and thanks to a man who helped this great nation in ways that are still being recognized to this day. Reagan didn’t govern by the polls; he didn’t succumb to political pressure, instead preferring to do what was the right thing, even when it wasn’t the easy thing.

All our loyal and regular readers here at CH 2.0 know that I am a HUGE Reagan fan. I recently posted an article entitled, “The Prescience of Reagan” in which a stump speech he gave in 1988 articulated and described so very accurately then candidate for Senate, Harry Reid. It seems that Ronald Reagan’s penchant for pinpointing and highlighting issues in a way that resonated with the public are still working long after his death. President Reagan had a talent that not even he was aware of; he seemed to be able to read the future. Now maybe he could or maybe the face of liberalism never really changes. Either way, his words from decades ago lend themselves to the problems we face in America today. Problems like combating liberalism and deciding the fate of the GOP.

I submit for you portions of his speech to what was then the 2nd annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Convention in March of 1975.

“Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.”

——————————

“Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation — a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.”

——————————

“Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.” This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society.”

Reagan touched on many issues in this speech. Isn’t it amazing how his words ring true today? Time after time when he would speak, he connected with the American public. Even those who were his political rivals admired and respected him, with nary a negative word being spoken about him. Reagan is being touted as the spiritual leader of the Tea Party Movement and even though I know his values and those of the Tea Partiers are in harmony, Reagan would warn us of a third party and the damage that it could do to the conservative cause.

In 1977, at the 4th annual CPAC Convention, Reagan addressed this issue:

“You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues — law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems — are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues — inflation, deficit spending and big government — are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism — or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?”

What Reagan is saying here is that united we stand, divided we fall. Today, the phrase “Big Tent” is thrown around quite a bit, but Reagan was espousing just that philosophy over three decades ago. Easier said than done, but it was achieved, for if it had not been achieved then Reagan would never have been elected to the Oval Office. But how do we do this? How do we reconcile the different branches of conservatism? Let us once again turn to Reagan:

“Let me say again what I said to our conservative friends from the academic world: What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

This will mean compromise, but not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new: something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.”

Reagan then went on to explain what he saw as conservative answers to the issues of the day:

“When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing — he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.”

Lastly, Reagan made certain that he believed in keeping the integrity of the two party system against populist ideals that would only serve to fracture the process and ensure Democratic majorities.

“Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.

The New Republican Party I envision is one that will energetically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national defense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand. Inflation isn’t a textbook problem. Unemployment isn’t a textbook problem. They should be discussed in human terms.”

Again, President Reagan’s words could be used today. So let us draw power and knowledge from them and put forth a strong Conservative movement that holds the GOP accountable to the people, for Government that governs least, governs best.

Share