02.05.2014 in Featured, Politics by NetRight Daily 109

Rewriting the grisly history of Communism

Gulags

By Tom Toth

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Brezhnev, and beyond.

The history of Communism — a bloody tale of forced collectivism, religious persecution, and mass-murdered dissenters — predictably spirals from a heroic idea for the impoverished worker into human rights atrocities and failed economics that eventually ravish a once-utopian hedonistic dreamworld-to-be into a failed state.

Hundreds of millions were murdered by the Marxist-Leninists and Stalinists to establish the USSR. Mao’s bloody military campaigns and disastrous “Great Leap Forward” economic plan ended in the death of tens of millions. And the ideologically-aligned American left doesn’t want you to care.

The far-left blog Salon last weekend published a provocative piece titled “Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism).” The article itself is a fairly comprehensive view of how Communism is observed and revered from the modern American liberal perspective.

The left’s individual arguments in support of Communism’s history and means to power — in the abovementioned article as well as most other modern socialist literature — whimsically abandon logic while grasping at any and all explanations and justifications.

The more absurd, the more fiercely promoted — for the abominable actions of their ideological comrades from years gone by in defense of their shared socialist utopian dream.

Salon’s defense of Mao notes “[t]he most horrifying episode in 20th Century official Communism was the Great Chinese Famine. … [R]esults [from Mao's Great Leap Forward] were extremely grim, but to claim that the victims died because they, in their right minds, would not volunteer for “a left-wing dream” is ludicrous. Famine is not a uniquely ‘left-wing’ problem.”

From the same vein, gas chambers are not a “National Socialist Party” problem. Ideas and choices have consequences.

Millions met their mortal end at the hand of Mao’s murderous Red uprising, but that’s never the end of the socialist story. Was the Great Chinese Famine a genocide in the traditional sense? No. But ideas have consequences — Mao came to power through the violent revolution demanded by all Communist conceptions and, once there, established a society and economy based solely on Marxist-Leninist principles. The consequences included a famine that killed tens of millions. Mao did not care. The modern socialist does not care. It’s a means to an end or at least speed bump on the road to utopian “progress.”

Salon also reached to defend Joseph Stalin’s streak of murder by noting that “a large number of the people killed under Soviet communism weren’t the kulaks everyone pretends to care about but themselves communists. Stalin, in his paranoid cruelty, not only had Russian revolutionary leaders assassinated and executed, but indeed exterminated entire communist parties.”

Again, this socialist perspective isn’t factually incorrect. The Stalinist brand of Communism was indeed particularly ineffective at consensus-building. Thus, mass murder was just another necessary means to the ends of the Communist utopia, and therefore morally OK — notice the following: this is an idea not challenged by Salon and the modern American left (see: the lack of attention to the Communist genocides of the 20th century from Hollywood and modern literature).

Salon, an effective mouthpiece for modern liberalism at large, disregards socialism’s historical skeletons and venerates the damnable principles of Mao, Stalin, and Kim Il-Sung to the modern American political palate by painting Communism as “an aspiration, not an immediately achievable state. It … is utopian in that it constantly strives toward an ideal.”

The truth, however, is that Communism has proven itself a cancer that demands unto itself a revolution baptized in the blood of human beings unwilling to subjugate themselves to the will of the sovereign man in his collective expression: the socialist state.

There is nothing ignorant or coincidental about the American left, as personified here from Salon, arguing as apologists for Communist history and principles. They see the same utopian Communist ends described by Marx and pursued by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, but argue that perhaps “given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane … and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed. … they can even include reforms with support among broadly ideologically divergent parties.”

Enter democratic socialism (i.e. the American Democrat party).

But Karl Marx’s vision was not one of peace or democracy. Marx was a man of violent action. The famous last lines of the Communist Manifesto read, “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Modern socialism (e.g. Fabian Socialists, democratic socialists) got the memo that genocide doesn’t win you much moral support from other peoples they’d prefer to conquer through concession than the barrel of a gun. But their ends resemble few to no differences from Marx’s original philosophy.

The United States and the hearts of the American people have traditionally been infertile  soil for ideas such as international socialism. Democratic socialism has effectively shifted that currant by methods including bastardized history such as that promoted by Salon.

In the United States centuries and decades past, there was a practical middle ground between the polar political persuasions. Some question, and rightly so, why the same is conspicuously absent from today’s political environment.

The fact is, there is no middle ground between the socialist and lover of individual responsibility, achievement, and liberty. At the end of the day, conservative annihilation is a necessary means to a socialist utopian end. If it cannot be accomplished by peaceful, democratic capitulation, history suggests the conservative watch his six o’clock.

Tom Toth (@TomToth3) is the social media director for Americans for Limited Government and a contributing editor for NetRight Daily.

  • DAY8293A

    ‘Enter the democrat socialism party” That defines Pelosi/Reed/Obama to a ”T”….

  • Pegasus

    Good day Mr. Toth, In my professional duty I read a great deal and I just wanted to compliment you on your grasp of reality and your ability to write as a true professional. Unfortunately I do not often see the occasion to compliment many in the “news business” in our society and I generally limit my personal contact with others, however I do appreciate your clear & cool headed manner of communication. You are a classy guy!
    Peace & freedom to you & yours,
    M

    <<>>

  • jwatersphd

    There are plenty of countries in Europe, including England, that have governments with strong socialist elements. Perhaps their inspiration and foundations differ from those advocated by the apologists for socialism and Communism you criticize, including Salon, whatever that is. Let’s leave that that academic distinction aside. Are you categorically stating that those who live in France, Germany, etc., and even vote for and like their governments, cannot possibly love “individual responsibility, achievement and liberty”? I would also note that Social Security and Medicare most likely are socialist in nature. Do you also argue that such programs aim to “annihilate conservatives” and that their existence is contrary to “achievement and liberty?” That is what I gather from your statement that there is “no middle ground” here. I do not follow Salon nor have I read their materials, but it seems to me that you’ve picked out a few selected issues to argue that we must have an “either-or” situation rather than looking at ways to solve problems such as Social Security and Medicare as consistent with American democracy and our republican form of government. I would argue that, in fact, it’s easy to have both, as long as one pays attention to what is happening. Even Tea Party adherents seem largely to be OK with those two programs. Are they deluded, having been unknowingly recruited into the 47% who are moochers, slackers and takers?

  • Myrtle Linder

    Maybe like combining Communism, Socialism and in case that they do not cover every evil, add Satanism before the writeup?? “Sounds like a winner”..for the corrupt, leading to hell.

    GOD’S PEOPLE NEED TO PRAY WITHOUT CEASING ABOUT, WHAT IS IN AND WHAT IS COMING TO AMERICA.

  • Linda Sills

    Great piece, and so true. The huge lie I saw in here was about the Ukraine and the Kulaks killed by Stalin. The “left” would have you believe, that Stalin killed more of his opposition than the poor Kulak farmer owners. In one year, he starved to death and murdered 4 million of them. Read up on your history and you will see. This heinous act preceded Stalin’s reign of terror..as if it could not get any worse, but it did.

  • darylj46

    jwatersphd, I know you have the right to your opinion as rightly so but one thing you have not noticed is that us seniors paid into social security for more than 40 years so that being said, we seniors are not getting a handout. socialism is the for runner to communism and history proves that The point that should be taken is that America is on free reign towards communism. The president was indoctrinated by his mentor Davis who by the way was a card holding proud communist and his affiliates (sorry can’t think of there name right now) that got Obama started in running for office (in the livingroom of the affiliate and his wife) were both communists. It is time that people in America wake up.

  • MaxEffectUSA

    “The goal of socialism is communism.”
    Vladimir Lenin

  • jwatersphd

    That’s an argument against what I said? Now you’re an admirer of Lenin? The goal of Social Security is Communism? Just because Lenin said this doesn’t mean anything.

  • MaxEffectUSA

    You’re obviously clueless of history.

  • http://www.arizonadon.com/ Arizona Don

    Socialism always leads to either communism or fascism. Always, that is the natural evolution of socialism. Always has been always will be. However, what is the one thing that takes place within socialism that opens the door for those forms of government? Of course it is the very thing we, who believe in our Constitutional Republic, are fighting against here in this nation today and the very thing the past four presidents have promoted (not to the extent the current president is but promoted nonetheless). That is the expansion of government which leads to the depletion of liberties and rights of the very citizens that government expansion is advertised to help. No citizen can remain free to pursue happiness under expanded socialism, or the final result of it, which is, communism or fascism. Consequently, the constitution must disappear. That is the course the current administration has chosen and is relentlessly pursuing. Those who do not see and understand that are the ones who still support obama.

    In the final analysis to quote a cliche “government cannot solve the problem because government is the problem.” We all know where that came form!

  • RogueRat

    We have been warned about this a long time ago.

    “When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label
    of communism; we will not take it under the label socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much.
    We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will.” Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
    Americans have no one to blame but themselves.

  • Jacob45

    Mr Toth seems to have been motivated or incensed by Salons whitewashing or minimizing of communism’s actual horrifying record of atrocities wherever it exists. You appear confused and are mixing European democratic socialism up with communism.

    While European democratic socialism is a form of government arrived at by nations of people who are historically monarchical/peasant and have matured into a more democratic form they are still nations of people used to being led by others. We Americans are not. European democratic socialism does not have as bloody a history as communism and matured over decades by people GAINING rights they had not had before, here in America we will be required to give up rights we have always had in order to move into that system. We may adopt some socialistic programs as you refer but we do not therefore become democratic socialist in so doing.

    What today’s liberal Democrats seek is closer to communism than socialism. That is why they seek to clean up communism’s history. Socialist and communist are relatives but they are not brothers. There is no communist country that does not have a bloody and totalitarian history. I think that is Mr Toths point.

  • Mark

    Don’t limit watersphd’s cluelessness to just history. He’s clueless about more than that.

  • Mark

    It’s easy to have both? Aren’t you the genius. The Tea Party is not particularly OK with those two programs, but they’re so entrenched after all these years that to dismantle them with something better would take time better spent elsewhere. Bush tried to make some common sense changes and the left threw a screaming hissy fit. You like being a big government toady, fine. A serf is a serf, you just happen to have been born into a country where you can be more than that. Sorry for that mishap of fate. Some of us don’t want to be serfs and we are smart enough to see liberal statists in this country for what they are-totalitatrian dictators in waiting. Chucky Schumer is a good example. No doubt you agree with his call to sic the IRS on the Tea Party. Fundamentally change yourself, leave the rest of us alone.

  • Mark

    Well said. Most leftists fall into two categories. Those who, like Chuck Schumer, see themselves as the leaders of their utopian designs on this country. The second are those who are basically peasants at heart or by circumstance and want a government to do for them what they cannot or will not do for themselves.

  • okseabat

    Anytime an individual, a group or a society is reduce to a dependency on a government handout socially or economically, the inner drive to self reliance is subdued, initiative is reduced and control is a result. However outwardly or sublimely administered or the name given to it, eventually the results remains the same. Those politicians that innovated and sponsored these handouts in this county were progressive socialists. Prior to the great lunge into the socialistic 30.s an 40,s continues today slowly strangling out the industrial revolution of the turn of the century.. Those politicians that were loosing control of this country were terrified that the people would be able to survive without their interference, so a group citizen were chosen, the elderly, to regain control of the weak and indigent and progresses into the lazy. It was mentioned that we paid for our social security. The amount paid in would not covered the first year of benefits. So it was not a savings account, but a price we had to pay to become subservient to the government tying their very existence to it. Yes their is a need to take care of our elderly and weak and for thousands of years the family, the religious organizations and the benevolent did a good job of it. Now we funnel our money and goodwill into the government to do a very poor job of what was being already done quite well. The government ran out of people to control so they created a new society to regain it, welfare. Instead of politicians being benevolent with their own money the decided to use ours instead receiving high pay for doing it. So for those that believe socialism is good deal and those that don’t pay any or very little taxes are fooling themselves about its worth. The elderly are put in homes to die a lonely miserable life and the lazy are housed in multistory tenements to live a very dangerous existence behind wire fences. Isn’t socialistic control great?

  • jwatersphd

    I am not talking about history. What Lenin said or didn’t say has nothing to do with the principles involved. Perhaps you are one of those who feels that everything repeats itself for no rhyme or reason. What’s your reasoning, here, that indicates that any socialist tendency will inevitably lead to communism? The fact that that happened in Russia and China is incidental. It hasn’t happened in England, for instance, as I pointed out. Nor has it happened in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, or numerous other countries. In fact, that was my entire point, which you seem to have missed by introducing an irrelevancy.

  • bplewis24

    Yet you can’t point to one reason why what he said is incorrect (because it isn’t).

  • bplewis24

    Provide examples of this totalitarian dictatorship in waiting? And while you’re at it, read up on the IRS scandal so you can understand the facts of what it was (and wasn’t).

  • bplewis24

    You just unwittingly undermined the entire point of the article. Thank you.

  • bplewis24

    By your logic, there wouldn’t be any success stories by people who relied on these programs at any point in their history. Seeing as how there are even prominent republicans that readily admit to it (Rubio), that undermines your argument.

    Besides, you may want to cite some proof for the claim you’re basing your entire thesis of your rant on, because otherwise you’ve pulled it squarely from your nether-regions.

  • RedRiverD

    A very well written article and VERY TRUE…..Watch your six!
    And it still amazes me that supposedly intelligent, educated people that run our government do NOT see the folly in their logic.
    The United States democracy has endured and thrived LONGER than any other form of government in history, an excess of 235 years while most other forms of government have not lasted 100 years…. Communism in Russia only survived 76 years before they finally succumbed to a democratic way of life, basically Capitalism….. And they are slowly enjoying the US Democratic, Capitalist way of life…..

  • bplewis24

    How about you give examples of this “free reign” towards communism? Or are you just another person who spouts horror story anecdotes or doomsday scenarios devoid of all evidence or proof?

  • bplewis24

    Socialism always leads to either communism or fascism. Always, that is the natural evolution of socialism”

    Oh, another person that just pulls declarative statements out of his ass despite the actual history that disputes it? Why don’t you give examples of your constitutional rights that have been violated these past 6 years?

  • darylj46

    Evidently you don’t know your Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. I would suggest you study them and then look outside the box (another words in the over all) and study what is going on in DC, with the president and his minions as well with the elected and the departments of government. It doesn’t take a genius to figure any of it out. I could go on all day with proof but it would do you good to get a real education as I have had to do.

  • Mark

    And where, pray tell, do I read up on the IRS scandal? Mother Jones? NBC? Salon? Open your eyes. As for the totalitarian dictatorship, your president would love to be a dictator now. He said the Chinese system is the most efficient. He won’t work with congress so he says he’ll do what he can to work around them. He changes laws without going through congress, which is unconstitutional. It’s people like you that defend his every move that will pave the way. Fortunately, there are many that can see what’s happening. So you go back to sleep, dear serf. All is well.

  • Mark

    Go back to sleep, serf troll.

  • Mark

    You were set straight by Jacob45. Pay attention!

  • Mark

    Logic? The kryptonite of the leftist troll is logic. Please.

  • pduffy

    In 1964, the Supreme Court (so-called) ruled that ‘Social Security’ was not a ‘saving account’ by which ‘contributors’ could withdraw money, as a certain individual had sued the federal government for benefits after being denied. In the ruling, (you can google it yourself to verify it), the judge said that all ‘payroll withholding’ were considered ‘a tax’, and that those taxes did not entitle those that had ‘contributed’ to any account or claim on the past withholding. In other words sir, you were paying taxes, not saving for your retirement. This is the basis for the entire ponzy scheme – those that ‘pay now’ are funding those that are collecting. It’s a form of inter-generational socialism or communism. Your exact contributions are not known, and are not accounted for (only estimated), and the day you die, the ‘benefit’ ends so there was no savings. So to keep your argument sound, you would have to argue that because you paid income taxes in the past, you are entitled to collect food stamps, and that’s not a ‘handout’. Social Security is not a savings account. It’s a social ponzy scheme that you were forced to participate in, but now that you have reached the approved age of collection, you generally are in favor of the scheme. And why not kick the next generation in the teeth? Your generation did it to you – eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth right? You are entitled to tyranny the younger population because the last one did it to you, is that how it is sir? When you get that ‘check’ in the mail, you are receiving stolen property, it does not matter if somebody stole from you in the past, it’s not only a handout, it’s pure immoral, unconstitutional, and evil – in my opinion. I surely doubt that any of my words will change your mind because you are hell bent on killing the greatest nation on earth because you want to ‘get back’ what you think you contributed. The sad irony is that there will soon be nothing left for you to collect because it will have been destroyed by this ‘social’ (security) system that you so dearly love.

  • jwatersphd

    I don’t think we have many differences though you seem to think you know more what I am thinking than you do. I’m not “mixing European democratic socialism with communism.” In fact, I am pointing out that they are different. Likewise, I have pointed out that we have adopted socialistic programs, as Mr. Toth seems to think is impossible – “no common ground” – without plunging into totalitarianism. Yes, that involved “giving up rights,” but it’s been selective. We actually have the capacity to control ourselves, though one has to watch out. As a matter of fact, currently, those on the far Left are just as incensed about the NSA etc as those on the Right. Those were my main points, and the fact that you found them confusing doesn’t mean I was confused. I don’t know who you mean by “liberal Democrats” who are seeking communism or some sort of bloody totalitarianism, and I already said I don’t know anything about Salon and other apologists if that’s what they are. Historically, liberal Democrats (e.g., JFK, LBJ) were staunchly anti-communist – e.g., the Viet Nam war. But that was not my point. I think we are pretty much in agreement as to the point I was making.

  • darylj46

    You are partly right and if you look at the whole case you will find that this person was trying to withdraw before he was old enough.

  • jwatersphd

    I am a senior and I don’t think I’m getting a handout. Don’t know what made you think otherwise, or that I “have not noticed it.” I certainly didn’t say that, and if you’re still in doubt, I’ll just say it’s not true. If you think a government program like Social Security or Medicare isn’t socialistic, I guess that’s up to you. I will point out that what you paid in is not what you get out, so it’s obviously not like a savings account or other investment that you have built up over the years. Yes, there’s a relationship to what you paid in but it’s not a close linkage. By the way, I’m also “awake,” even though I might have opinions that differ from yours.

  • Oldtexan

    Whinsical is the word, the lable and Toth is just another arch conservative Republican barking at the moon. The trouble with the communist Doctrine is not that it is not a great Idea! It is a Great Idea that wont work when it is applied to people. One man works and is not too smart so the smarter man lives off the labors of the not too smart guy! Sound like Republican noise? The problem arises when the smart guy wants to live like a king while the not so smart guy lives in a hovel Sound like Capitolism? Think about it!!!

  • raynbene

    Did you read this article, you ole’ communist ? If you think obuma and his bots are committed to the American way, then you are just another socialist, and know nothing of the American way – what do you have against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without an overrreaching government, such as we have growing now, under the watchful eye of elPresidente ? Socialism, as the article clearly lays out, is the worst system of governance ever created by man -

  • MaxEffectUSA

    Research it yourself if you want to know. They aren’t exactly socialist success stories. Why arent they out producing us?

  • Jacob45

    The liberal democrats I speak of are Obama, Reid, Pelosi and their cronies.In their arrogance they seem convinced that only they know what is “best for us.” Obama stated quite plainly that he will circumvent congress if they fail to act as HE thinks best. He has already shown he has no problem ignoring the constitution with Exec Orders, nor about violating his oath to uphold it or the laws of our country. He has His DOJ selectively enforcing laws and targeting his enemies. He has His EPA/DEQ targeting those he thinks should be eleminated (read coal, our largest power source).

    Harry runs the Senate like Stalin ran Russia or like Speaker Pelosi ran the house a couple years back. He changes rules to allow complete control!

    They do not seek a bloody confrontation if they can continue to fundamentally change our country, however they are aware they may cause one if they continue to flaunt the Constitution and the law. Their desire appears to be a socialist state controlled by the elite and the academic experts. The problem is that neither group has ever actually successfully done any of it. Theory is fine in the classroom but often fails in practice.

    As for JFK and LBJ they would probably be Republicans today. As you say “Historically, liberal Democrats were staunchly anti-communist.” They were also staunch supporters of the Constitution. Neither term seems to apply to today’s liberal Democrats nor many of the moderate Republicans.

  • pduffy

    Nope, he wanted to withdraw “his money”, and he was denied for two reasons. The initial reason was because he was deemed to be a member of the communist party! This is was the initial reason for his denial. Please read the case! The judges final reasoning was that the money was a ‘tax’ and that he was not entitled to it – period. Age or not, he had been disqualified because the government said so, not because he was not old enough. Furthermore, there are millions of Americans collecting social security before the ‘age’ requirement, under the ‘social security disability’ act, which made it legal to collect before the retirement age. Social security has nothing to do with a savings account or age, but those collecting it just can’t stop making this foolish argument because you are getting free (stolen) tax money.

  • Bill

    Liberty! Socialism! Benghazi! Libtard! Am I doing it right?

  • Pingback: Wednesday Wrap-Up (and Open Thread)

  • bloodaxe

    The only good communist is a dead one. Once upon a time, in a faraway land called Vietnam, I was a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division, based at An Khe in the Central Highlands. I was issued a wonderful tool for dealing with Bolsheviks: the M60 machine gun.
    There is no other way to deal with them.

  • bloodaxe

    Kiss my as s you filthy piece of communist shiit. You worthless wannabe murderer. You f**king scumbag from he ll. F U.

  • bloodaxe

    Go hang yourself. See if you can do that right. Good luck.

  • jwatersphd

    We aren’t even talking about the same thing. I never said anything about success or production. I don’t know whom you think you are arguing with, but it sure isn’t me.

  • jwatersphd

    I never brought up any of these points and I don’t want to argue them. Good to hear, of course, that you felt LBJ was a staunch supporter of the Constitution, since he’s responsible for Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.

  • Pingback: » February 6, 2014

  • MaxEffectUSA

    Who’s arguing?

  • Eric

    Jacob45, I agree that what we have today are basically marxists that want to do what is “good for us” by ramming it down out throats. They envision a world order with them at the top and us at the bottom. This is not America. Social security may be a “tax”, but because it is just another big government program. It is socialist in nature, and it is broke. Do I blame those that have been “taxed” all the years for wanting their benefit? No. It should be paid, morally, by government (us). But the program should end. Individual responsibility is the better way. Leave government in charge, and the social security “trust fund” is gone. There is no real protection of the fund as in other pension plans. So, we should be free to direct our money as we see fit. Government programs will break this country, as will overspending and the FED policies of printing money. After all, our Founders did not want a central bank. We got one, and the income tax, from Woodrow Wilson. Since then, our dollar has been debased and we are 17 trillion in debt. Big government doesn’t work. It eventually subjugates the people then breaks them.

  • Florida Jim

    You only need look at Obama and understand how he ignored the Constitution along with Eric Holder, both proud “constitutional scholars, as they boast, they and their cohorts would halt all dissent, stop all Fox News and any other comments they don’t like. Chuck Schumer has “the IRS should continue abusing the Tea Party”, just last week. All tyrants wait for the opportunity to strike and this describes Obama to a “T”. Rather than address the issues Obama distracted the audience from O’Reilly to “Fox news isn’t fair” an old, old Alinsky ploy which Obama never tires of.

  • Jacob45

    Eric, Amen.

  • Jacob45

    Congress is responsible for Medicare and do you see something unconstitutional about the Civil Rights Act?

  • jwatersphd

    You are correct about Medicare; advocated for by LBJ and passed by Congress. Nothing unconstitutional about the CRA as far as I can see. I would call both “liberal,” if pressed to categorize, and I think both have been positive. Neither seems to me to augur tyranny.

  • jwatersphd

    I thought you might be. Yes, only a possible result; none of those countries, that have many socialist elements, seems to be going communist. So if a program like Social Security or Medicare can help, yes, I think we should institute it because it’s not difficult to only add elements and not go to totalitarianism or interfere with individual initiative and responsibility. As I said, we have to be careful.

  • jwatersphd

    Mos’ def’

  • Robert

    Notice how Satan operates – he offers man something that at first appears good and pleasing, but in reality, proves to be harmful and destructive, usually after a significant time delay. Compare that to how the Democrats operate in America today – offering Americans the promise of an end to poverty, free health care, etc. They appear good and pleasing at first glance, but sufficient time has passed to show that the welfare state has had the harmful and destructive effects of breeding dependence on government, breeding and fostering destructive attitudes towards work and industriousness, and promoting indolence. And the promise of “free health care” was just cover for the government seizing power of life and death over every American citizen, and initiating the threat of blocking dissidents of the government from getting to see a doctor when sick.
    Notice also how that dovetails with the ambitions of Satan and those in league with Satan – to lord over, dominate, control, enslave, and abuse man, take away man’s choices, and restrict man’s free will. And finally, notice Satan’s main tactics in making his lies seem credible so that man falls for them – counterfeiting, corrupting, and concealing. And observe how the Salon article seeks to conceal the bloody cruelty of Communism, and the criminality of its kissing-cousin Marxist strains Socialism and Fascism. Observe also how the Salon article corrupts the truth that most of Communism’s victims were murdered for resisting Communist thievery of the fruits of a lifetime of labor, by saying “a large number” were themselves Communists, aiming to get the reader to think that “a large number” means “most”. And observe how Democrat politicians particularly counterfeit and corrupt what others have said and written, taking a snippet out of its context in order to deceive their audience about what their opponent REALLY believes. Like spiritual father, like spiritual son.

  • Patrick Reed

    Let’s pretend that I am coming to you for the wisdom you so obviously believe you possess. What is it that a non-genius could figure out regarding whatever it is you think you’re talking about? Humor me with just a few of the proof that you “could go on all day” about.

    A lot of folks in this comments section, and comments sections like it throughout the internet, would do themselves a world of good if they could form cogent arguments. It isn’t much of a debate when you’re all simply screaming, “SATAN!,” “LIBTARD!,” “CONSTITUTION!,” and “OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS!” What policies, precisely, do you believe are leading this nation towards genocide? And genocide of whom, exactly? Conservatives? Christians?

    The internet has opened the floodgates to uninformed (or ill-informed) critics that can spout nonsense and vitriol behind a curtain of anonymity. I shudder to think what face-to-face conversations would be like with some of you.

    I’ve digressed beyond my original reason for posting this comment, but perhaps we’d be doing everyone a real service if we asked ourselves, “would I say what I’ve written in front of my mother/spouse/child?” Perhaps the internet would become a more learned space.

    -a concerned REPUBLICAN

  • Patrick Reed

    “He changes laws without going through congress, which is unconstitutional.” Are you referring to issuing executive orders?

    I’m loathe to cite Wikipedia, but it’s all I’ve got for now:

    “United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.”

  • Mark

    No, I’m not talking about executive orders, which he also abuses, by the way. I’m talking of the changing of the stupidly named “Affordable Health Care” act. He changed the law as written by giving waivers and moving dates of application without going back through congress, the law making body. That’s blatantly Unconstitutional.

  • darylj46

    If your a true republican then I shouldn’t have to say anymore as you would also agree with me. Yes, I would say exactly the same to my kids as I love them and have their future as one of my biggest concerns. I would say this also to our president as it is my right to express my concerns of this nation that I gave years to defend. The health care is not for the wealth of our citizens but for control, The fast and Furious wasn’t to get the cartels as they know exactly where they are and who but it was to stir the opposition to guns for them to disarm the populist and the support in courts to force businesses to give service to gays even though it is against their Christian beliefs is a way to kill Christianity and the push for stopping anything that supports God in schools, military and public as well as in some cases private homes is the agenda to abolish Christianity. Now, research what the agenda of communism is and you will see that this all is in there agenda. The three issues that communism tries to abolish is Christianity, morality and to have citizens not armed as all these make a country extremely weak. I know that your going to disagree with me but search back in history. It is your right to disagree so go for it. I have listed a few and there are a lot more so instead of you pushing keys to make an irresponsible debate, start doing some real knowledge gathering as I have had to do. I will speak my mind whether you or anyone else likes it or not but I do have research and facts to back me. Enough of my pushing keys for you as I also have more research to do and work to get done. I have lived 67 years and have seen enough of the corruption and the downfall in this country and the worst is in the last 5+ years.

  • ifknluvtigers

    Are you suggesting that all members of a political party agree completely with every tenet put forward by the leaders of that party? If so, I truly fear for our political future. As rationale, thinking beings, I would hope that we could continue to be affiliated with a political party without having to blindly agree to every single talking point of a stump speech.

    I believe the fault in our current government is a lack by both parties to compromise. It’s as if that word has become a four-letter word.

    I will not argue with you about your views since, as you mention, we are each entitled to our own opinions. I’m simply suggesting that people do a bit of their own research to become informed about the topics they wish to suggest. And by research, I mean something other than tuning into FoxNews (for us conservaderps) and CNN (for the libtards).

  • Robert

    We can also add to his ignoring of the provisions of the so-called “Affordable Care Act”, Obama’s dereliction of duty in enforcing immigration law, in violation of his oath of office, his refusal to enforce the search-for-real-work provisions of the welfare reform law passed in 1996, again in violation of his oath of office. And I’m sure others will think of and add other examples. And this doesn’t even count his attempt to appoint an extreme radical to the NLRB as a “recess appointment” while the Senate was still in session, or his plan to pack the courts with other radical extremists, the purpose of Harry Reid nuking the filibuster in the Senate.

  • Robert

    Example #1 – The IRS, a government agency, performing unreasonable searches (and maybe seizures) of dissidents in violation of Fourth Amendment rights, by subjecting dissidents to harassment audits. If they were really looking to collect unpaid taxes due, they would go after the egregious and notorious tax cheats like Tim Geithner, and investigate phony “charities” like Media Matters, which is really entirely political. But they choose not to because of their political orientation. Nixon was threatened with impeachment for admitting he would love to sic the IRS on his political opponents to harass them. Obama has actually done it.
    Example #2 – Suppression of free speech in violation of First Amendment rights. Numerous 501(c)(3) status applications for charitable and educational groups were simply sat upon, because of their names. No approval, no outright denial, thereby preventing would-be contributors from knowing for sure if prospective contributions would be tax deductible charitable contributions or not. As a result, their messages were suppressed. And some were also singled out for slow-walk harassment, demanding irrelevant information not requested of any other applicants. Meanwhile, other applicants, whose names suggested they were in favor of bigger, more oppressive government, got lightning-fast approval, some even retroactively. For those singled out, it became a classic case of “justice delayed is justice denied”.
    I’m sure others can provide Examples #3, #4, #5, and #6, if you’re REALLY looking for examples of constitutional rights violated since Obama took office.

  • Robert

    Example #1 – The IRS, a government agency, performing unreasonable searches (and maybe seizures) of dissidents in violation of Fourth Amendment rights, by subjecting dissidents to harassment audits. If they were really looking to collect unpaid taxes due, they would go after the egregious and notorious tax cheats like Tim Geithner, and investigate phony “charities” like Media Matters, which is really entirely political. But they choose not to because of their political orientation. Nixon was threatened with impeachment for admitting he would love to sic the IRS on his political opponents to harass them. Obama has actually done it.
    Example #2 – Suppression of free speech in violation of First Amendment rights. Numerous 501(c)(3) status applications for charitable and educational groups were simply sat upon, because of their names. No approval, no outright denial, thereby preventing would-be contributors from knowing for sure if prospective contributions would be tax deductible charitable contributions or not. As a result, their messages were suppressed. And some were also singled out for slow-walk harassment, demanding irrelevant information not requested of any other applicants. Meanwhile, other applicants, whose names suggested they were in favor of bigger, more oppressive government, got lightning-fast approval, some even retroactively. For those singled out, it became a classic case of “justice delayed is justice denied”.
    I’m sure others can provide Examples #3, #4, #5, and #6, if you’re REALLY looking for examples of constitutional rights violated since Obama took office.

  • Eric

    jwaterspd, Well, I have a problem with Medicare, social security, Obamacare, etc. All are socialist and all are broke, except Obamacare, which will be broke as its costs are now being broadcast and not the crap figures they fed us to get it passed. It was all lies from day one. LBJ passed a war on poverty and it too is a bust, after trillions spent on now numerous, overlapping and overly expensive programs. Didn’t do a thing but create a dependent class, though that was probably his real intent as that is how control is gained by government. I much prefer to have, as individuals, us determine where our money goes. I do not want a corrupt government, way too big in size and scope, to control my “trust fund”.
    The Civil Rights Act really merely codified what was in the Constitution. Gave us a push though toward equality. And remember, Republicans gave LBJ more support to that act than dems.
    The left of JFK and LBJ may have hated communism, but we are facing the same system now. Or, possibly fascism.
    In any event, our government is out of control and is taking our freedoms, especially freedom of choice. It was never intended to be this big or insert itself into as many areas. We really need a downsize. I’m quite tired of being told by the feds what to do, what to drive, what to eat, etc., all in the name of doing it “for my own good”.
    Our Founders never wanted this system, that is why the Constitution was written as it was. They wanted no central bank and did not like political parties. Well, they were right, again. They knew how men and governments work and set up a system to try to avoid those tendencies. Then, Woodrow Wilson gave us the fed and income tax. Since it got easier to print money and go into debt, we have. All we have gotten for 100 years of ever increasing government is corruption, career politicians, a huge and out-of-control government, less freedom and 17 trillion in debt. Thank but no thanks.

  • jwatersphd

    Neither Medicare nor Social Security are “broke” though projected costs indicate that some adjustments are necessary to avoid a future problem. Removing the cap on the amount of income subject to social security tax would probably take care of it. What you say is simply not true. Likewise, you are repeating a distortion of what the war on poverty accomplished but I’ll leave you to read informed commentary rather than the sound bites that make the news. I do not know how to argue against your imputation of an intent to make people dependent simply for control. If you really believe such things, you probably believe things such as that Obama is really a Muslim, Kenyan, etc., that evolution is a hoax, and so on. You see depravity all around you … belief systems like yours can never be dealt with rationally, so I won’t try. I’m getting social security benefits but I also have my own retirement plan and I don’t feel ripped off or controlled. Probably you think I’m just a moocher or delusional. There’s nothing I can do about that, either. The Constitution did NOT treat all people as equals; the amendments passed around the time of the Civil War rectified that but we still had years of racial inequality and we still do. The Civil Rights Act was important in that, so I don’t know why you are minimizing it. Likewise, your sense of being deprived of all kinds of choices simply strikes me as weird. You can smoke, you can own a gun, you can kill yourself, eat whatever you want. You can marry whom you want, and, increasingly, you can do it whether you want children or not or whether your’re heterosexual or not. Where’s the problem? Yeah, you can’t buy a car without safety features… if that’s your idea of communism, fascism, totalitarianism, again, all I can say is, you have a strange perspective. Yes, there are health advisories against too much saturated fat, trans-fats, etc. That’s brutal repression? If you think so, I have no answer for you, except, maybe, to suggest you read something like Darkness At Noon, or Ann Frank’s Diary. An anti-smoking campaign is not a Concentration Camp. Our Founders started political parties. They’ve existed since the first elections. They wanted a stronger Federal Government than the original articles of confederation mandated so they passed the present Constitution. Even at that time they recognized that a society will not work without some centralized control. We fought the Civil War for that. Likewise, corruption and so on have been with us as long as there have been people. It has nothing to do with our current political system in particular and everything to do with people in general. You’re not going to escape it by wearing a three corner hat and a vest that doesn’t fit and parading around with a musket. None of this is simple and none of it is going to be solved by Tea Party ideas. That ought to be evident in the fact that hardly a week goes by without some new Tea Party idol who’s discovered to have feet of clay. Jesus, Cruz gave in to the budget crisis! He must be a faker. You want purity? You’re rarely going to get it. Reagan said a lot of silly things, but he was right when he said, “trust, but verify.” Stop expecting miracles – you’re not going to get them. Getting 300 million people together and all coexisting reasonably well is bound to be difficult, but it’s not impossible. We are doing fairly well in my opinion, and so are a lot of other places – England, a lot of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, much of Scandinavia. Most of these places have a mix of socialist government and vigilance about over-control. You can even shout in the public square that Obama’s a communist, a Muslim, a Jihadist and no one’s going to cart you off the the Gulag. And they’re not going to do that to all the people on this forum who believe you, either. “No thanks”? I hate to tell you, but as of right now, it’s an offer you can’t refuse because we are doing as well as we can. Pitch in and try to make it better, and give up your dreams that you can opt out. We’re all in it together, buddy. You can still do damn near anything you please, and if you don’t appreciate that, I’m sorry because it’s not going to change without some work.

  • Reco2

    What a joke!

    Hundreds of millions…where is the evidence?

    The fact that the Chinese population increased by 300 million million under Mao, the fact that life expectancy rose from 36-63?

    The worst famines took place in India under the control of the capitalistic British empire.

    gas chambers are not a “National Socialist Party” problem.

    Lets not forget who built these chambers….German capitalists that supported the Rightwing National Socialist party

    Topf and Sons built the ovens whilst IG Farben supplied the gas! Bruno Tesch(who profited from the extermination) got what he deserved!(executed at Nuremberg)

  • Scott L

    Care to explain?

  • Scott L

    Do recall that LBJ and democrats killed the civil rights act of 1957… It was only about republicans getting votes.. or so they said.

  • Eric

    Yeah, I see your point about social security and medicare, but you missed it. They’re broke. And as far as our situation, yeah, I’m working on it. I can tell a train wreck when I see it. And OK, it is men being men and nothing is perfect, but we are in a perfect mess, and no, I won’t get used to it. BUT I will continue to try to change it. We are doing all we can in spite of our government, not because of it. And, you can talk about 3 corner hats in the tea party all you want, but they are concerned about where we are going, loss of freedoms in a regulation-rich environment and the amount we are spending, and they are right. We are being lead to destruction by those who want an ever larger government, and it isn’t getting any better.

  • Scott L

    “Nothing unconstitutional about the CRA as far as I can see.”

    No, but then again totally irrelevant had we followed a common sense reading of the constitution… I mean, how could ‘separate but equal’ ever really pass constitutional muster except for some obtuse interpretation? Same with rights and access to vote…

  • darylj46

    No, I did not say anything like that in your first paragraph and your second paragraph can be a scary thing depending on what is being negotiated as so far I see that what is coming out of the republicans and democrats is real scary for our country and our rights and freedoms. It would be great if our elected would go back to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and also the Declaration of Independence. My research has very little to do with Fox News. Research is searching for facts and results and how in history how these same situations affected other governments and countries. History in itself is amazing learning tool but not the end of research.

  • Robert

    “Rightwing National Socialist party”? What an oxymoron! (Not to be confused with the moron who attended Occy who currently occupies the White House) I challenge you, or anyone else to name even one Rightist political party (which means one that favors strict limits on the government’s power, ESPECIALLY on its power to perpetrate evil) in the entire world that would be caught dead with “Socialist” anywhere in its name. I will go out on a solid limb and say that neither you nor anyone else will be able to, because there are none. All political parties that include “socialist”, “communist”, and/or some variation of “labor”, or “workers” are far-leftist to extreme-leftist parties (those who favor few to no limits on the government’s power to do pretty much ANYTHING, including evil). In the case of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, you have TWO of those terms indicating a far to extreme-leftist party. The idea of it somehow being rightist was Soviet propaganda, which was of course designed to deceive, not inform.

  • jwatersphd

    Don’t specifically recall but of course the old line Southern Democrats were very racist. So it would not surprise me. LBJ’s later years were sort of like Nixon in China . . . .

  • jwatersphd

    Thanks. I didn’t mean get used to it in terms of accepting it as OK but that we will have, always, a need to work on it. There are plenty of people outside the T Party that have the same concerns, including me. Maybe you mean SS and ‘care are “broken” meaning they need fixing; I agree with that. However, both are currently solvent and helping, though ‘care could be a lot better. If you think they are out of money, I just don’t think that’s true, but I appreciate your stance otherwise.

  • jwatersphd

    I question the notion of “common sense reading” as you are using it regarding matters about which there is actually tremendous controversy and disagreement. If you are talking about the original Constitution, including the 1st 10 Amendments or Bill of Rights, it did not allow women to vote (until 1920(!)), and it was not clearly enforceable that non-white persons could until the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, and the process of insuring that goes on today (ID cards, etc). Notably, Plessy v Ferguson, which is where “separate but equal” (actually “equal but separate”) comes from, established state sponsored segregation as constitutional in 1896, well after those amendments. Maybe there was no “common sense” reading in Plessy, or voter ID laws….unfortunately, that’s not a term that has force of law. Try this: Is it “common sense” that a corporation is a person? Given that one ordinarily qualifies that as “a person before the law,” I would say, “No.” Yet, it’s treated as “obvious” that a corporation has a “right” to free speech. And: Is it “common sense” that a fertilized human egg is a person? You can’t even see one… I’m not saying it’s not a person or is one, I’m just saying that “common sense” doesn’t help us very much. How do you think it’s a common sense reading of the constitution that women have a right to vote, and, if you establish that, why did we need a Constitutional Amendment to make it a reality?

    I just think you’re glossing over a lot of issues with that notion.

  • Eric

    jwatersphd, Appreciate your post. I do mean social security and medicare are broke. All social security has is IOUs from the feds, and they are broke. Like being owed money for your unemployed uncle. Long term prospects for repayment are dim. I agree with you that we have to work on these problems, and I feel that eventually these programs will be replaced. I would prefer state-run programs voted on the citizens of that state. The feds really should stay out of it. Constitutionally, it just isn’t their job.
    But, we have what we have and I will work to fix things wherever it can be done. Just the prospects of getting the feds to do anything right or efficiently is not a high hope of mine. I don’t feel they will give up power easily, but it need to happen. This mess we have now is not sustainable.

  • jwatersphd

    Thanks. I can see that. Maybe a difference between the two of us is that I’ve actually been mostly satisfied with both the Federal and my State governments. I can imagine if one had a different experience it would be a big difference. It’s not that there haven’t been any hassles, but they have worked out and both the Medicare and Social Security benefits I get are pretty substantial. I did not expect that they would be, being generally skeptical and pessimistic, but I have been proven wrong. Likewise, there’s a lot of crap at times with busybodies “regulating” places I want to fish, or windsurf, or camp, but, for the most part, I can still do those things, just not like “in the old days” maybe 40 years ago, when for the most part, there was nobody around. There are just more people now.

    You are most likely correct that getting the Fed gov’t to give things up is not likely. I am a lot more optimistic that, if I get a real problem that isn’t solved, like some of the documentation, etc. problems I’ve had with SS and ‘care, and with my taxes at times (which did get fixed), my congressman will be able to do something, and also that if there’s a real problem that requires change he/she will also take action … they actually do that. Not with a biggie, like, “just give me my social security money and I’ll manage it,” but more things like, “they screwed this up, and it looks like it’s bound to happen to other people.” Sort of medium-type problems. E.g., they threaten every year to cut back on what they pay doctors, but every year it is averted … yes, it’s nerve wracking. But that’s the kind of thing I (and my professional organization) apply pressure on and it does, often, improve.

    Be well.

  • Scott L

    The only thing I am glossing over is people’s intent and indeed need to subvert the clear meaning of the words in the constitution and perhaps that some people have a rather skewed discernment of common sense. I think people want the constitution to say what they want it to rather than what it says. This is particularly true of big government statists where power and control are the goal. While you are correct that ‘common sense’ holds no legal force, lack of it, particularly among the judiciary leads to a never ending parade of precedents that all but cause original intent to disappear.

    Definitions may change over time but the intent of the constitution is quite clear without having to rewrite it. The constitution used the word ‘men’ to describe all that fell under the umbrella of the document. The word may have changed in scope but never (and this is important) in intent. When it was understood that women and other races rightly fell under the umbrella of the word ‘men’ it changed nothing about the purpose. When it was understood that these groups of people naturally fit into the meaning of ‘We the people’, it should have inferred no new rights, no new privilege.

    The problem occurred with the enforcement, particularly within the government itself, of things like the equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment… wording was quite clear yet we somehow get ‘equal but separate’. Not only that but we comingled how the government should see and treat people with how people MUST interact with each other.

    You bring up a fertilized egg. To me, the only subject before the Supreme Court was with regards to the word ‘Life’…. Either the fertilized egg fell within the definition or not… period. Of course we have the problem of a child 1 minute old or one 1 minute prebirth. The courts only point to make in Roe v Wade was… “When does life begin” and because of the conflict between a ‘live unborn’ (if the court decided life begins prior to birth) and its mother, the priority of mother or child in life threatening situations. Never should the act of abortion been a legislative issue in a society that promotes liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is not to say that it might not be a moral issue but morality isn’t something for government to legislate.

    It’s like the expansion of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses… any reasonable person would understand that necessary and proper can’t possibly mean ‘anything ‘or else there would be no need for much of the rest of the constitution’s babbling on about ‘reserved to the states and the people’

    The mistake that we have made in States’ rights is not honestly vetting state laws against the umbrella of the US constitution…. If it doesn’t pass muster under the constitution, it can’t be a proper law under a properly written state constitution either. I don’t believe that you can negate a law like ‘Equal but Separate’ as being unconstitutional by creating a law that is its antithesis… it makes no sense. The precedent here of course is that if you can force people together… in another time and era you can find it unconstitutional and create a new version of the equal but separate.

    Interestingly, Jefferson wanted provision in the constitution for corporations but alas it did not make the final cut…. I don’t have a problem with the free exercise of speech from anyone or group, what I do have a problem with is that those same ‘people’ don’t get to see the inside of a prison cell from violating the same law you or I would…. Of course writing just law and enforcing it is another subject that confounds the term common sense.

  • Scott L

    Later years? What… he had an epiphany between 1957 and months immediately previous to his 1964 election bid?
    I mean, he as a democrat gets all the credit for the 1964 civil rights act… perhaps political expedience should get the credit instead.

    If you don’t specifically recall I will enlighten you with a 1957 comment he made:

    “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

  • Sovereign Mary

    bplewis24 – You can’t reason with mental amoeba’s such as yourself. Supporters of Communism have had their pilot lights blown out long ago.

  • Mad Mike

    I have warned about this “democrat party” being the new “American Communist Party” over 5 years ago! I was told that I was “a nut case”. It’s pretty simple to see the progression of these “liberals” over the past couple decades. They have been “commies” for many, many, years. Way back in the early 1950′s, the commies in Hollywood, Unions, and the left, were exposed. So many that the Washington “left” using (suprise), our then “main street media”, declared the whole investigation of communists infultrating our country and government was nothing but a “witch hunt” against innocent, liberal, americans. The public bought it, and the investigative committees ended. But not before hundreds of proven communists were exposed. Well, “ther’e backkkk”! In force. They are the Democrat Party, the Media, and infultrated, replaced and corrupted our entire federal government, (including planting communists and muslims into high ranking military officers commands). This is extreamly dangerous to our national security. Many other federal agencies, and key positions are now controlled by the “Obama regime”, including many of our courts! Meanwhile, our “gutless GOP politicians” remain intimidated and quiet about this takeover of our country. Through lies, deception, and voter fraud, many of these criminals are now in power and are “stuffing their pockets” and betraying our country as fast as they can.

  • Mad Mike

    The only views of any Communists or Muslim Terroists on U.S. soil, should be down the sights of a rifle barrel! It’s rapidly headed towards that reality thanks to the communists now running this country. It’s going to be them or us! Freedom cannot exist under communisum. No patroit American can exist without freedom! End of story!

  • Eric

    jwatersphd, And same to you. Hope the fishin’s good.

  • jwatersphd

    That’s not inconsistent with what I said. And your point about “expedience” is partly true. If you don’t emphasize its pejorative connotations, it’s simply true. The fact is that this is, and even was in the 18th century, a country with diverse individuals and groups of individuals – even before the “melting pot” days. Each group will have interests and principles or ideals, and often they cannot completely be reconciled. Nevertheless, we have to get things done. One of the early, brilliant expedients was to agree to take religion out of government, leaving no one who had strong religious beliefs and wanted them to predominate satisfied. However, it “worked,” i.e., it was expedient. LBJ and others, even to some extent including Reagan, recognized that compromises are going to be necessary, even with regard to firmly held values, beliefs, and – if you will, prejudices. LBJ was also able to manage the emotional side of things by what could be called, simply, “lying,” but dissimulation is a better word. Using a word like “uppity” would be reassuring to Southern bigot and he could use it even if he recognized that the aspirations of the “Negroes” were entirely reasonable. This is the kind of thing that the Tea Party and extremist groups before them, like SDS or the Black Panthers, don’t understand. For them, ideological purity is paramount. So, at this point, there are, what, maybe two people, Cruz and Paul, with any kind of political power, who haven’t been dissed and thrown out of favor – seen as traitors. The movement may have an influence, but it can never govern because it cannot accommodate diversity and difference. Nor could SDS or the Black Panthers. As long as you can get used to being frustrated and angry, there’s no problem with being an ideological purist. If you are going to govern, however, you have to get used to getting much less than you think is “right.”

  • jwatersphd

    I largely agree with you. However, I think the abortion and fertilized egg issue MAY illustrate my point that matters are not quite as simple as you suggest. But let’s see. If I follow some of your statements, you seem to be arguing that a social contract dedicated to fostering liberty and the pursuit of happiness would never tolerate a law against abortion. Am I correct? If so, I follow you. However, the social contract is for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that a fertilized egg is “alive” or “living” inasmuch as, unless something goes wrong, it will eventually be a baby (minor) and the eventually actually a “person.” That strikes me as “common sense.” As you (I think) imply, there is a set-up for a conflict between the mother’s “liberty and pursuit of happiness” and the “life” of the fertilized egg. Once the State is seen to have an interest in that – in “life” – it becomes a fit subject for laws as to whether it is permissible for anyone, including the mother, to do anything contrary to that interest, including certain forms of birth control. It’s not difficult, in fact, to extend that interest to an extreme, which is that any woman of childbearing potential should not be allowed to do anything that might imperil the life of a fetus, which will be a child and eventually a person. You can see where this logical extension of “common sense” is headed. If a reasonable compromise between the State’s interest, reflective of the social contract, in life versus liberty and happiness, were easy to accomplish, we wouldn’t have the struggles we do.

    Likewise, I agree that “men” ought to mean all human beings, but I just don’t see the basis for your contention that it was merely “statists” of the “big government” type that required an Amendment to the constitution to get the vote for women. How do you think the social contract, which seems to me an excellent example of “common sense,” is supposed to be instantiated except through government – i.e., “the state”? You don’t even have elections without a state. You seem to be suggesting that of course women would have been able to vote immediately without “big government.” What’s your foundation for that? Why did it take 130 years?

  • bplewis24

    Yes, I read the article. But you clearly didn’t read my comment. None of your irrational rant has any relevance to what was stated.

  • bplewis24

    Stay classy. And sane.

  • bplewis24

    Yes, I’m the amoeba…despite you making a claim with zero rationality or basis (that I’m a supporter of communism) and using an apostrophe for a plurality.

    Nevertheless, I dare you to try and reason. It would be a worthwhile and honorable effort.

  • bloodaxe

    Did it take you 3 days to come up with that?
    Go live in North Korea. You’ll love it there.

  • bplewis24

    Thanks for proving the point. First, the IRS doesn’t have a “political orientation.” That alone shows your inability to think rationally on this subject. The FACT that “progressive” groups were also on the BOLO lists along with conservative groups reduced the level of controversy surrounding this faux scandal, which initially had legitimate legs.

    Lastly, the fact that you use this as evidence of your constitutional rights being taken away illustrates a lack of grasping what it would mean to lose a constitutional right. That you attribute any of the blame to Obama just demonstrates a lack of paying attention. All of Rep Issa’s investigations and probes resulted in the same findings. Perhaps you should review them?

    And I defy you to go on and provide examples 3-6, considering your first two examples did no such thing, and only highlight your bias or inability to comprehend the information you’re being fed.

  • bplewis24

    Yes, some of us work, stimulate the economy and have other daily pursuits to deal with. And we also live in the real world.

  • bplewis24

    So, none, then? What a shock, especially from somebody who claims to know the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence so well. Because I don’t know of any conservatives that claim to love those documents yet have very little understanding of them

    /s

  • bplewis24

    “The health care is not for the wealth of our citizens but for control”

    Irrational conspiracy theory without even a single shred of proof. Your Fast And Furious rant (based on a program originally started under President Bush, nonetheless) is just the musing of an insane person.

    You’ve done know real education. You are a crackpot. Christianity, like all religions, is protected and will never be “abolished.” You wouldn’t know a fact if it slapped you across the face.

  • bplewis24

    Right, yet the person (presumably a conservative) stated an illogical premise in their assertion. If you have a good grasp of logic, I defy you to articulate the logic in their post.

  • bplewis24

    The author of this article is very clear in stating a couple things: 1) Communism and Socialism are inexorably linked, and 2) There is no “middle ground” between socialism and the extinction of socialist enemies.

    The poster here has articulated a debatable distinction between socialism and communism, and at the same time given examples of democratic socialism that actually does have a middle ground.

  • bplewis24

    You are either delusional or ignoring facts and history. Executive orders are NOT unconstitutional, otherwise Bush and most presidents before him would have been impeached. Obama through his first time has signed far less executive orders than those prior to him.

    The rest of your rant is so off-base that I’m guessing you watch Fox News or something. Obama has generally governed from just left of center on some issues, and right of center on others. Hell, the ACA is a REPUBLICAN-borne program. The Heritage Foundation (republican think tank) came up with it decades ago, and Romney implemented a variation of it in Mass. Get a grip on reality. Nobody has been flaunting the constitution, you just have no concept of what it is.

  • bplewis24

    How about you read the actual reports from investigations into the IRS scandal? I don’t care where you get the information from, as long as it’s verifiable.

    And, you probably don’t know what the word “dictator” means if that’s what you think. Either that, or you have access to information that literally nobody else on this earth does. And you obviously don’t understand the branches of government and the constitution if you think EOs are unconstitutional.

  • bplewis24

    It’s actually NOT unconstitutional. And this is a fact:

    “On the contrary, Treasury’s Mazur wrote to Chair Upton, such temporary postponements of tax reporting and payment requirements are routine, citing numerous examples of such postponements by Republican and Democratic administrations when statutory deadlines proved unworkable.

    In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch’s lawful discretion.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

    Also, here is the applicable text of law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

    You should probably consider the sources of your information from now on.

  • darylj46

    Thank you as you just proved how ignorant you are

  • ifknluvtigers

    How’d he do that? By accidentally stepping on your tin foil hat?

  • ifknluvtigers

    I’ll admit it’s lasted a long while, but the Ming Dynasty, the Shogunate in Japan, the British, and arguably Iceland’s government were all longer.

    That said, we’ll either continue chugging along being guided by a well informed, educated electorate or….wait, you guys seem to be the electorate. Well, it was a good run.

  • Jacob45

    I think you are much better at ignoring facts than I. You also seem to have a problem understanding simple statements. Yes exec orders are constitutional however a president cannot ignore or change written and passed laws at his whim which Obama has done multiple times (just with Obamacare). He did his own version of the Dream Act after it was soundly defeated in both houses. He has chosen not to enforce a number of laws with his leftist DOJ! You say “Obama has generally governed from just left of center on some issues, and right of center on others” and have the gall to call me delusional!

    You say “Hell, the ACA is a REPUBLICAN-borne program”. Obamacare passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE! State run Medical plans like Romneycare are totally different animals. I think you need to turn off MSNBC and get a grip. I can only assume you are from one of the states that legalized pot.

  • bplewis24

    Actually he CAN waive or postpone specific implementations of laws, which is what he did. Stating that the ACA passed without a republican vote has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that the Heritage Foundation proposed the plan decades ago as a republican response to a democratic proposal for universal healthcare. Romneycare is NOT a “totally different animal.”

    I’ve never watched MSNBC, I’m not from a state that has legalized pot, and I’ve never smoked it. I just tend to focus on facts and logic, which seem to be hard for folks to acknowledge when they really, really want to believe something.

  • Jacob45

    No he cannot legally. You lefties spin, spin, spin.

    The Dems have been trying to get Government run healthcare passed for decades. Remember Hilliarycare? One of the most liberal states in the union adopts a state healthcare plan while they have a Republican governor and you say it’s a Republican plan. A massive train wreck of a healthcare bill is passed without a Republican vote and you want to claim it’s a Republican entity? Now that is delusional. And you don’t see any difference between a State plan and a Federal Plan. And you truly believe you focus on facts and logic? Amazing. Go troll somewhere else.

  • winder50

    The problem with what Obama has done with changing dates on Obamacare is that hard dates were written into the law, and does not give the executive flexibility to change as he sees fit. If it had not done that Obama might be in the clear, but the way it was written, he does not have that authority, otherwise he is changing laws written by his own party. Of course, they don’t care, and want him to do it for political sake, and the Repubs don’t have the guts to stop him.

  • winder50

    Executive Orders are constitutional to a point, but he cannot change laws that have hard dates on his whim.

  • winder50

    Christianity is protected? What have they done in the military to Christian chaplains? The military won’t even let chaplains use bible scriptures to counsel soldiers, and there have been federal lawsuits against the government about this. Christianity is lampooned in the media, and schools won’t even allow prayer among students who want to do it in a group on their own. The government is doing everything it can to destroy our freedom, but has no trouble with allowing freedom of speech denigrating Christianity. We (taxpayers) paid for the “art” of putting a statue of Jesus on the cross in a bottle of urine.

  • winder50

    There may have been a few success stories, but by your own logic, you are pulling out a few anecdotal stories to underpin the whole system. Don’t you think there are far more who have been trapped into poverty by these programs than those who have gone onto greatness because of it? If that were the case, we would not have many more on welfare, because people would have been able (or wanted ) to get off it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people tend to go for the “easy fix”, and it is much easier to sit on the couch than it is to go out and make your own way.

  • guest

    Where is your proof, all I have seen from you is government paid disruption….

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily