Free Markets, Free People

socialist


How important is this next election?

Allen West caused a bit of a stir the other day when he claimed that about 80 members of Congress were communists (my guess is he was speaking mostly of members of the liberal caucus).  Democrats reacted predictably and the usual flurry of denials was seen.  Even the Communist Party USA weighed in denying any members of Congress were members.  The fact that none are members or carried on the CPUSA rolls doesn’t really make a convincing case.

However I’m not even going to go there. 

But can anyone deny that there has been a rising drumbeat of leftist calls that would lead directly to a form of socialism if they had their way?  Bill Ayers?  Van Jones? 

And while members of Congress may not officially be “communists”, can anyone deny that a good number of them would be more comfortable with a socialist form of government than the relatively free one we enjoy now?  If so, explain Bernie Sanders.  If so, explain most of the liberal caucus.  If so, explain much of academia.

Richard Fernandez writes:

The thing about Communism, at least to the uninitiated, is that it appears to be identical in all respects to a hereditary aristocracy. If one didn’t know better it would seem that the more Communist a country, such as North Korea, the more it resembles a monarchy. In China the children of the Polituburo members are actually called princesses and princes and they gad about in a style that make the current European royalty look like a bunch of low-rent grifters.

How admirable then, that intellectuals like Cornell West, Van Jones and Bill Ayers can go around and seriously sell socialism and Marxism in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism”. You know, because they are one with the Common Man. Their superior educations must provide a true insight into the nature of Marxist societies because to uninitiated the whole thing looks like a scam to trick people into waging “revolution”, in which a few odd million will be horribly killed, to create a worker’s paradise and Green society. Except all the resulting outcomes we actually examine reveal only societies ruled by an aristocracy no different from, nay more lavish than the Court of the Sun King’s at Versailles. Versailles didn’t even have indoor plumbing.

But at least it had trees and bushes in the garden. North Korea doesn’t. North Korea’s forests have been burned down by the happy peasants to cook their gruel and to keep from dying of cold in winter. Defectors heading south know they’ve reached the Republic of Korea because they can see trees again. In capitalist South Korea. And as for the environment in China … well why do you think the Red Princes and Princesses go to Paris to dance the night away?

Future generations may wonder how it was possible for sophisticated Western intellectuals to actually devote their lives to bringing about Communism as if it were anything more than a swindle.

The left loves to talk about “code words” when talking about race.  Well if there were ever code words for socialism or communism they can be found in the words and phrases the left associates with “equality” and “egalitarianism”.  Those concepts come to us not from the British enlightenment, but instead from the French Revolution.  And everyone knows how wonderfully that Revolution turned out for the majority of the French. 

The fact remains that, given the copious examples of the results of communism, a variation of socialism, through out the world, one can’t help but wonder at the intellectual bankruptcy of those who continue to tout it or its variations.  They claim them as an answer to a system that has some how “failed” even while it has provided a standard of living and a level of freedom never before seen on this planet. 

Theirs is nothing more than an ideology based in a belief.  A cult. A secular religion that drives those who have given themselves to this false god to proselytize their faith and work toward its establishment.

And they are the people Fernandez identifies plus plenty of others. 

Whenever anyone begins to talk about equality of outcome, fair shares and level playing fields, you should know where the discussion is headed.  Code words and phrases which lead to other good sounding ideas that eventually end up with individual mandates, “tax the rich” and other economy killers.  Once the economy is sufficiently crippled and the narrative is established that capitalism has failed, then “government is the answer.”

And you get speeches like this:

"If we would just convert these investments that we’re making through out government in education, research and healthcare. If we just turn those into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, then somehow the economy is going to grow stronger. That’s the theory," President Obama said about the right at a campaign event on the tax code in Boca Raton, Florida today.

"Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we’re being told now — this is going to lead to faster job growth, it’s going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn’t," he said an audience at Florida Atlantic University.

Rewriting history to justify larger and more intrusive government.  Because the expansion of government is key to establishing their ideological preference.  The only thing different about this approach as opposed to the Russian or Chinese revolutions is it is a slow and stealthy takeover vs. a violent revolution.  The result will be the same at some point if it is allowed to succeed. 

And, as Fernandez points out, the result will be far from what anyone would reasonably identify as “egalitarian”.  It will be, instead, the establishment of a totalitarian regime and an aristocracy (based in the best of intentions, of course) focused on expanding and maintaining power.  It will indeed become Orwell’s worst nightmare.

Fernandez imagines future generation wondering how so-called Western intellectuals could actually devote their lives to establishing this misbegotten ideology. 

The answer: there’s no “intellectualism” involved at all.  It is unfounded faith which has them pursue it and hubris that has them believe it will succeed.  And in the end their simple ignorance of human nature, something they continuously and inevitably ignore, will again doom their belief to ultimate failure.

But not before they ruin the lives of millions, cast the nation into an unending downward economic spiral and so weaken it that recovery may not be possible.

It has been said this is the most important election in 50 years. Of course, we’ve heard that said about many recent elections.  In the case of this next one, though,  I think it is the most important election in 50 years.  Unless we want to have a lame duck president who is no longer answerable to the people (and happily informed the Russians he’d have more “flexibility” after the election), has been associated with people like West, Jones and Ayers and has demonstrated a propensity for executive rule, it is important to see he’s sent into early retirement. 

If we want to blunt or, hopefully, stop this relentless ideological creep toward bigger and more intrusive government and its inevitable result, this is the election with which to begin (and trust me, the GOP is no rose among thorns, many establishment GOPers are going to have to be booted out at some point as well). 

If you’re interested in returning to the path of prosperity, freedom, and smaller, less intrusive and less costly government, the guy in the White House needs to sent to his old house in Chicago in January of next year.

Yeah, this is serious.  It is time to make an effort to renew the revolution and reestablish the fundamental principals that made us the richest and most powerful nation on earth. In November we have a way to peacefully begin that process.  Or, as Dale has often said, the possibility of a less peaceful outcome, given the seemingly irreconcilable differences of the two side, may see us go in another direction altogether.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO


How important is this next election?

Allen West caused a bit of a stir the other day when he claimed that about 80 members of Congress were communists (my guess is he was speaking mostly of members of the liberal caucus).  Democrats reacted predictably and the usual flurry of denials was seen.  Even the Communist Party USA weighed in denying any members of Congress were members.  The fact that none are members or carried on the CPUSA rolls doesn’t really make a convincing case.

However I’m not even going to go there. 

But can anyone deny that there has been a rising drumbeat of leftist calls that would lead directly to a form of socialism if they had their way?  Bill Ayers?  Van Jones? 

And while members of Congress may not officially be “communists”, can anyone deny that a good number of them would be more comfortable with a socialist form of government than the relatively free one we enjoy now?  If so, explain Bernie Sanders.  If so, explain most of the liberal caucus.  If so, explain much of academia.

Richard Fernandez writes:

The thing about Communism, at least to the uninitiated, is that it appears to be identical in all respects to a hereditary aristocracy. If one didn’t know better it would seem that the more Communist a country, such as North Korea, the more it resembles a monarchy. In China the children of the Polituburo members are actually called princesses and princes and they gad about in a style that make the current European royalty look like a bunch of low-rent grifters.

How admirable then, that intellectuals like Cornell West, Van Jones and Bill Ayers can go around and seriously sell socialism and Marxism in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism”. You know, because they are one with the Common Man. Their superior educations must provide a true insight into the nature of Marxist societies because to uninitiated the whole thing looks like a scam to trick people into waging “revolution”, in which a few odd million will be horribly killed, to create a worker’s paradise and Green society. Except all the resulting outcomes we actually examine reveal only societies ruled by an aristocracy no different from, nay more lavish than the Court of the Sun King’s at Versailles. Versailles didn’t even have indoor plumbing.

But at least it had trees and bushes in the garden. North Korea doesn’t. North Korea’s forests have been burned down by the happy peasants to cook their gruel and to keep from dying of cold in winter. Defectors heading south know they’ve reached the Republic of Korea because they can see trees again. In capitalist South Korea. And as for the environment in China … well why do you think the Red Princes and Princesses go to Paris to dance the night away?

Future generations may wonder how it was possible for sophisticated Western intellectuals to actually devote their lives to bringing about Communism as if it were anything more than a swindle.

The left loves to talk about “code words” when talking about race.  Well if there were ever code words for socialism or communism they can be found in the words and phrases the left associates with “equality” and “egalitarianism”.  Those concepts come to us not from the British enlightenment, but instead from the French Revolution.  And everyone knows how wonderfully that Revolution turned out for the majority of the French. 

The fact remains that, given the copious examples of the results of communism, a variation of socialism, though out the world, one can’t help but wonder at the intellectual bankruptcy of those who continue to tout it or variations of it as an answer to a system that has some how “failed” even while it has provided a standard of living and a level of freedom never before seen on this planet.  There’s no “intellectualism” involved there.  There is nothing in the past that supports the call for its imposition.

It is a belief.  A cult. A religion that drives those who have given themselves to this false god to proselytize their faith and work toward its establishment.

And they are the people Fernandez identifies plus plenty of others. 

Whenever anyone begins to talk about equality of outcome, fair shares and level playing fields, you should know where the discussion is headed.  Code words and phrases which lead to other good sounding ideas that eventually end up with individual mandates, “tax the rich” and other economy killers.  Once the economy is sufficiently crippled and the narrative is established that capitalism has failed, and government is the answer.

You get speeches like this:

"If we would just convert these investments that we’re making through out government in education, research and healthcare. If we just turn those into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, then somehow the economy is going to grow stronger. That’s the theory," President Obama said about the right at a campaign event on the tax code in Boca Raton, Florida today.

"Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we’re being told now — this is going to lead to faster job growth, it’s going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn’t," he said an audience at Florida Atlantic University.

Rewriting history to justify larger and more intrusive government.  Because the expansion of government is key to establishing their ideological preference.  The only thing different about this approach as opposed to the Russian or Chinese revolutions is it is a slow and stealthy takeover vs. a violent revolution.  The result will be the same at some point if it is allowed to succeed. 

And, as Fernandez points out, the result will be far from what anyone would reasonably identify as “egalitarian”.  It will be, instead, the establishment of a totalitarian regime and an aristocracy (based in the best of intentions, of course) focused on expanding and maintaining power.  It will indeed become Orwell’s worst nightmare.

Fernandez imagines future generation wondering how so-called Western intellectuals could actually devote their lives to establishing this misbegotten ideology. 

The answer: there’s no “intellectualism” involved at all.  It is unfounded faith which has them pursue it and hubris that has them believe it will succeed.  And in the end their simple ignorance of human nature, something they continuously and inevitably ignore, will again doom their belief to ultimate failure.

But not before they ruin the lives of millions, cast the nation into an unending economic spiral and so weaken it that recovery may not be possible.

It has been said this is the most important election in 50 years. Of course, we’ve heard that said about many recent elections.  In the case of this next one, though,  I think it is the most important election in 50 years.  Unless we want to have a lame duck president who is no longer answerable to the people (and happily informed the Russians he’d have more “flexibility” after the election), has been associated with people like West, Jones and Ayers and has demonstrated a propensity for executive rule, it is important to see he’s sent into early retirement. 

If we want to blunt or, hopefully, stop this relentless ideological creep toward bigger and more intrusive government and its inevitable result, this is the election with which to begin (and trust me, the GOP is no rose among thorns, many establishment GOPers are going to have to be booted out at some point as well). 

If you’re interested in returning to the path of prosperity, freedom, and smaller, less intrusive and less costly government, the guy in the White House needs to sent to his old house in Chicago in January of next year.

Yeah, this is serious.  It is time to make an effort to renew the revolution and reestablish the fundamental principals that made us the richest and most powerful nation on earth. In November we have a way to peacefully do that.  Or, as Dale has often said, the possibility of a less peaceful outcome, given the seemingly irreconcilable differences of the two side, may see us go in another direction altogether.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO


Bernie Sanders–“when is enough enough?”

Yes, our token socialist (declared socialist that is), during his filibuster of maintaining the current tax rates (i.e. calling for a tax increase), asks the question of the “crybaby rich” – “when is enough enough?”

He goes on to lambast the “rich” for being “greedy” and “addicted”.  Here, listen for yourself:

But, in fact, who is the “crybaby” here?  Who is “greedy” one calling for more and more money that he hasn’t earned and can only get by taking it from those who have?  Who is it who is “addicted” to spending and refuses to acknowledge it, instead projecting all of his vices on those who actually work to earn their riches?

This sort of class warfare is destructive.  Both literally and figuratively.  Primarily it attempts to set the rest of America against those the Bernie Sanders of this world arbitrarily designate as “rich”.  The purpose of such attacks is to dehumanize them and rationalize taking their money without guilt.  It is also designed to deflect the issue to a lack of revenue vs. an addiction to spending and an outright greed for other people’s money.

And those who parrot the line that this will “cost” the government x amount of money are just as guilty.  This isn’t costing the government one red cent.  This is about keeping the tax rates we’ve had for over a decade current.  Anticipated revenue based in a hoped for change in the tax rates is not a “cost”.  Spending anticipated revenues before they’re authorized or collected isn’t a “cost” either – it’s a criminal breech of the public trust and addiction that needs to be stopped immediately.   We aren’t in the fiscal shape we’re in from a lack of revenue – we’re in the shape we’re in because people like Sen. Bernie Sanders have spent other people’s money recklessly and without a thought to the future. And it turns out they’ve hocked our future and the future of our children and grandchildren through their profligate behavior. It is they who are the problem – not the "rich".  It is we, the people of the United States who should be asking of Bernie Sanders, “when is enough enough”?  The answer is “you had enough a long time ago and you’ll get no more – from anyone”.

If anyone is a crybaby, addicted and greedy, it is the man in the video.  And it is men and women like him who need to be run out of DC post haste.

~McQ

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet