marxism

May 26, 2017

‘Free’ cars from Bernie

BernieMy article as originally published in American Thinker:

While the Hillary campaign is headed toward the ditch, more and more vehicles are appearing on the roads and in parking lots displaying “Bernie 2016” or “Feel the Bern” bumper stickers.  By showing support for a socialist/Marxist, it’s as if the owners of these cars are in essence exclaiming: “I have a right to your stuff!”  It’s like looking at tiny billboards that flash the message: “I have zero respect for your liberty and property rights.”

So why, pray tell, should we in turn show respect for their property?  Couldn’t the tables easily be turned on these Bernie supporters by instead reading the bumper stickers to mean “free car for the taking” or “community car”?

Now, I’m not suggesting people take arms and demand Bernie supporters give up their autos at gunpoint.  That’s something only our benevolent government can pull off unscathed.  But these Bernie stickers could make for some great conversation-starters.  So if you encounter a car sporting one of these anti-American stickers and you (or someone you know) don’t own a car or you just spot one that you really, really, really like (notice many are on much nicer cars than one would normally expect to see on lefty-mobiles) because it’s way cooler than the one you own, why not politely ask the “privileged” owner to redistribute it to you in the name of fairness and equality (of outcome)?

Now, if a Bernie fan suddenly comes down with a case of “socialism for thee, but not for me” syndrome and flat-out refuses to give you ____ (insert preferred gender identity here) car, before you give up and call ____ a spoiled hypocrite, at the very least request that ____ give you a “free” ride somewhere.  And ask ____ to stop and throw in a “free” cup of coffee or perhaps even a “free” lunch while _____ is at it.  We could call it the “Bernie Car-Share Program” or simply “The People’s Cars.”

While Uber perfectly exemplifies the superiority of the capitalist system and the redundancy of most government regulation (think unnecessary, high-paying cushy jobs for bureaucrats and rampant cronyism), why call up an Uber driver and waste your own resources when you can hitch a ride with an idealistic Bernie driver – for “free”?

The support of an open socialist (read: honest Democrat) by so many young hipsters highlights the dismal failure of our education system, including esteemed institutions of higher learning (and no, not because college isn’t “free”).  Socialism in all its forms (Marxism, Communism, Nazism, et al.) has always failed, yet the left continues to prop it up like the corpse in Weekend at Bernie’s.  And yes, Bernie Sanders is confused, as even Scandinavian nations are not good examples of socialism “working.”

Like him or not, Trump has awakened a pro-America sleeping giant, while on the other hand, Sanders has awakened sleeping tyrants.  The sad irony is that if Bernie supporters were to get what they wish for and he is elected president, they and the rest of us will in fact “Feel the Bern” and end up with a nasty (and possibly incurable) case of VD (Venezuela Disease).

 

 


In a way, Hillary was right in saying that businesses don’t create jobs

My article as originally published in American Thinker: 

Hillary Clinton may be an economic ignoramus for saying, “Don’t let anybody tell you its corporations and businesses that create jobs.”  In fact, Daniel Greenfield does a wonderful job dismembering her so-called wisdom in his piece at Frontpage Mag.  But I’m not thoroughly convinced anyone could be so dim-witted as to truly believe such malarkey (except for maybe Elizabeth Warren), so perhaps the “world’s smartest woman” deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one?

I know she’s now attempting to walk back her remarks but I just don’t buy it.  So could it be that the woman who had her presidency stolen from her in 2008 was instead just taking a subtle jab at President Obama’s economic policy?  After all, given six years of Obama’s “fundamental change,” there are clearly some elements of truth to her claim.

As is the case with the multitude of half-truths the Left presents as facts, proper context is required here too.  And within the context of the following, Hillary is absolutely correct in her assertion:

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they see companies nationalized or contract law thrown out as was done during the whole GM and Chrysler debacle.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they are burdened with the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when government unleashes thousands of pages of costly new regulations upon a stagnant overregulated economy.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they witness a President use his pen and his phone as a Constitution-killing weapon of mass destruction.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they learn that an administration was willing to use the IRS to punish its political enemies.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when a President threatens to put an industry (such as the coal industry) out of business.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when money is extracted from them and given to crony companies such as Solyndra.

Corporations and businesses don’t create jobs when they watch the government take control of 1/6th of the U.S. economy via the healthcare industry and then can’t even build a simple website.

Corporations and businesses didn’t create jobs just because a President arbitrarily decided that 2010 was to be the summer of recovery.

Corporations and businesses clearly aren’t creating jobs which may explain why the labor participation rate is at a 36-year low in spite of government’s historically massive “stimulus” and money-printing programs — the vary things that Hillary thinks create jobs.

Businesses do however create jobs in a free market protected by the stable rule of law under a more limited government, like they did during the “era of big government is over” economy that Bill Clinton inherited from President Ronald Reagan.

Corporations and businesses most certainly do create the jobs.  They just don’t do it when they’re terrified by an anti-business tyrant such as President Obama.  I wonder what Hillary Clinton would do to make sure “corporations and businesses don’t create jobs” if elected President in 2016?

 


Obama’s Pirate Politics

Continuing the plunder: 

Everything in this column will be established by logical proof, as in geometry. There will be no name calling, or mere assertion.

You probably heard again last night that President Obama still thinks “the rich,” a crass term implying low class social envy, do not pay their “fair share.” He has been barnstorming America saying precisely that for his more than four years in office now. But the indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.

[snip]

President Obama’s belief that “the rich” still do not pay their fair share can only be explained on the basis of Marxist principles. To a Marxist, the top 1% earning anything more than the middle class is not fair, no matter how they earned it, fairly or not. So “the rich” are not paying their fair share as long as they are left with more than they “need,” as in a true communist system. This is the only logical explanation of Obama’s rhetoric, and it is fully consistent with Obama’s entire background, and his own published writings.

Notice that Obama kept saying that “the rich” don’t need the Bush tax cuts. That rhetoric follows the most basic Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Read the rest at The American Spectator:         

Back to our Homepage


Kill the Rich Says head of Teachers Union

Kill the rich Have we really moved this far to the Left?  From Thomas Lifson over at American Thinker:

In a December 2nd speech just recently made public, Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, placed mass murder on the table as a political tactic for union movement. Carefully steering clear of actually calling for violence, Ms. Lewis noted that in the past, union leaders had not shied away from advocating killing the rich. She also noted that conditions today, in her view, are reminiscent of that same era. But the time is not ready, yet.

Read the rest at American Thinker:       

Back to our Homepage


It’s About Control, Not Guns

My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Don’t for one minute think that the Left’s core motive for demanding ever increasing amounts of gun control is the reduction of crime rates in any meaningful fashion. When the Left exploits a tragedy such as the one in Aurora Colorado and then calls for even stricter gun control, it has little to do with removing guns from criminals’ hands or saving lives, and everything to do with the control of law abiding citizens. The Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, is nothing but an obstacle to the Left’s desire for such control. This is why you rarely hear about the countless incidents in which guns are used to prevent crimes or save lives. It simply doesn’t further the Left’s agenda and is therefore ignored.

There is plenty of evidence showing that increased gun control does nothing to lower crime rates. John Lott’s book More Guns Less Crime is one of the best books out there on the subject and provides solid statistics to back up what many consider to be nothing more than common sense. And that’s without even delving into our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. For more on that I recommend The Second Amendment primer.

The truth is that Gun control “works” to reduce crime just like Obama’s economic policies have “worked” (and not in the way Obama claims) to fix the nation’s economy. In the case of Aurora, law abiding citizens appear to have followed the theater’s strict “gun-free” zone rule but predictably, the criminal just ignored the rule (as if those willing to commit mass-murder worry about violating any gun laws). So with the help of gun control, the shooter was given a theater full of easy targets to pick-off at will.

Imagine what one citizen with a concealed carry permit could have done to possibly save lives if allowed to carry a gun inside the theater. Those who blame guns over the individual never stop to think about what a determined insane person would be able to do to a large group of people with a car, can of gasoline or any number of other readilyavailable potentially destructive items. The fact is that crazy will always find a way, so it’s best to be prepared.

So why is the Left so determined to suppress constitutional freedoms that, as a side benefit, actually lower crime rates? Because those on the Left are interested in control first and foremost, even if said control results in more deaths or damage to property. It seems the end always justifies the means with the Left.

Similarly, when President Obama said that he would raise taxes as a matter of “fairness,” even if it resulted in less tax revenue, it showed that he had far more interest in the control of people than in what one would think would have been his goal — maximizing tax revenue.

In truth, the push for gun control is really just about making life safe for certain politicians so they can force their far-left agenda upon the public. And as we’ve been witness to as of late, that agenda goes well beyond the control of merely guns. When will Americans wake up and realize that control is a far too common theme amongst the Left? From the control of sodas, to cheeseburgers, to housing, to automobiles, to healthcare, to light bulbs, to plastic bags, to energy; the Democrats think that they, not the individual, are the ones that know best and should be empowered to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Perhaps President Obama should change his campaign slogan from “Forward” to “Control” because that appears to be the one true goal of the President and those who share his ideology.


The Many Faces of Socialism

Two must-read articles discussing socialism from American thinker:

The implication is that the Western opinion of socialism has justifiably evolved to one of acceptance. Sure, socialism gets a bad rap for all those times in history when it went horribly wrong and, you know, killed all those millions of people. But the right people weren’t in charge, you see, and their ideas were the wrong ones. What is being offered today in France is a newer, smarter socialism. The one that’s never been tried before — the one that works.

Read the whole thing at American Thinker

And this:

Allen West was the latest to get his knuckles rapped for saying there were “about 78 to 81” members of the Democratic Party who are members of the Communist Party.I His crime, like McCarthy’s, was in raising an uncomfortable subject. We may never know who is or isn’t a communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or Leninist in Congress, since all socialists work by deception, define words with obscurities, and refuse to identify themselves, with exceptions like Dohrn and Van Jones. Even in the heyday of communism, the most influential of its comrades were never “card carrying members” and lying was a way of life, which included obligatory perjury. But regardless of their nuances, deception is an integral part of their political ideology.

Read the rest at American Thinker  

Back to our Homepage

Bill Whittle’s New Afterburner Video: Merchants of Despair

Bill Whittle sums up the Obama Administration a little too well in his new PJ Media Afterburner video:

Who is responsible for the current economic malaise? If you ask Bill Whittle, it’s Obama’s pals like David Axelrod, Harry Reid and Tim Geithner, some of the many Merchants of Despair. These merchants are costing taxpayers trillions and creating deep national divides based on class and race. Will the despair continue for another four years? Find out.

See more at http://www.pjtv.com

Back to our Homepage

 

The End of the Progressive Era?

You kill a frog by putting it in a pot of cold water and slowly turning up the heat because otherwise it would just  jump out.  Barack Obama has placed America in a boiling pot.

Another great article by Steve McCann in American Thinker:

The people of a nation that has experienced unprecedented peace and prosperity for an extended period of time are often lulled to sleep, believing there will never be an end to their good fortune. Many powerful countries throughout history have floundered and decayed as they gradually descended into chaos, not realizing the ultimate fate that awaited them. However, the United States has been granted an opportunity to escape this fate through what appears to be a long-term disaster potentially turning out to be its long-term salvation. That event is the election of Barack Obama as president.

Read the whole thing at American Thinker     

Back to our Homepage

 

Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up!

People are finally starting to connect the dots.

The Obama campaign knows its carefully manicured narrative is wearing thin against the drip-drip-drip of revelations about his extremism. And it can’t risk the incumbent being reintroduced to voters this election as an untrustworthy imposter who’s hiding things about himself and his agenda.

Indeed, these are things that must be hidden from the average voter. They are unpatriotic and unelectable things. Things that would concern any red-blooded American, if not the parlor Bolsheviks inside the Beltway media and the Ivory Tower.

Drip-drip-drip………

Read the rest at Investors.com    

Back to our Homepage

Obama Has Removed His Mask

For many of us the mask was transparent all along. 

Have you noticed that some of the people who most fear the direction that this country is headed have come (or escaped) from a country that embraced the very policies we are currently headed towards?

A must read by Steve McCann at American Thinker:

The mask is fully off. Barack Obama is the most corrupt, power-mad president in this nation’s illustrious history. By his actions in bypassing Congress and making appointments that should be subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session and innumerable extra-constitutional actions since he became president, he is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century.

Read the rest at American Thinker

 Back to our Homepage