Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
beadaniel

Registered:
Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #26 
if someone wants to research Bernie Sanders background they need to do it quickly before it vaporizes.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #27 

Bernie Sanders promoted the anti-capitalist newspaper "In These Times"

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) asks if anyone would be surprised to know Bernie Sanders promoted an openly socialist, anti-capitalist newspaper?

Image778.jpg

In These Times was founded by James Weinstein (1926-2005), who was a Chicago based socialist activist, writer and publisher (again Chicago). Weinstein joined the Communist Party USA in 1948. He broke with the party in 1956 after the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

Weinstein came to the attention of the FBI in 1949 when he gave a ride to a "friend of a friend," a man who "didn't utter a word" for the entire trip. This passenger turned out to be Julius Rosenberg, who would later be executed for passing on atomic weapon secrets to the Soviet Union.

On his death, Bernie Sanders called Weinstein one of the intellectual leaders of the American progressive movement.

Was comrade Sanders ever a Soviet agent?

You’ve got to love how the paper asks for payment right under Bernie’s anti-capitalist message.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Birther Deluxe

Registered:
Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #28 
NameCommie.jpg

0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #29 

Bernie Sanders is a Communist

Image704.jpg
Give him power and you'll see what a Communist he is!

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) says prominent Democrats have repeatedly ascertained (see here, here, and here) that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. Is there a difference between a Socialist and a Communist? Not if you're Bernie Sanders:

If Sanders were vying for a Cabinet post, he'd never pass an FBI background check. There'd be too many subversive red flags popping up in his file. He was a Communist collaborator during the height of the Cold War.

If they had known each other, Sanders could have been one of Obama's Communist mentors.

While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a Communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People's History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as "America's greatest Marxist." …

Sanders still hangs a portrait of Debs on the wall in his Senate office.

In the early '70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

He became mayor of Burlington, where he developed a reputation for hostility against free enterprise. Not subtle about his affinities, he named the city softball team the "People's Republic of Burlington" and the local minor league baseball team the "Vermont Reds."

Sanders took several "goodwill" trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. …

He adopted Managua as a sister city and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the US. He exalted Ortega as "an impressive guy," while attacking President Reagan.

According to Sanders, the Communist dictator was a more legitimate leader than our elected president, because he had "substantially more support" from The People.

Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. He put up a Soviet flag in his office, shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.

Then, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council -- a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to "the triumph of Soviet power in the US."

Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua and other communist states to America.

Like any Communist demagogue, Sanders offers free everything to everybody. How will he pay for it? He can't so he won't, as he has essentially admitted by refusing to release any information more specific than his vague intention to pay the $trillions in costs "progressively."

Sanders will waste all our wealth, and then prevent us from creating more. Whereas we have been rich and free, we will be poor and enslaved. Then his mission will have been accomplished.

America spent $billions building up a nuclear weapons arsenal to defend us from people like Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, it is of no use when it comes to defending us from the malevolent idiots who would vote for him.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #30 

43% of likely Iowa caucus Democrats identify as Socialists

Image686.jpg

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is that she’s running as a Democrat in a party that’s been taken over by Socialists. No wonder Bernie Sanders is doing so well.

The Washington Post reports:

Can Clinton find the spark to fend off the challenge from Sanders?

It seemed unimaginable that a Clinton, particularly a Clinton who could become the first woman U.S. president in history, could be overshadowed in a political campaign this year and yet that's currently the case. Trump and Trumpism loom over the entire country. His candidacy is the talk everywhere, for better and worse.

Sanders also creates his own energy force with an unabashedly liberal, big-government agenda that brings cheers from the progressive wing of the party. He has tapped into pent-up frustration on the Left that has proven to be a potent force.

Little noticed in this week’s Des Moines Register-Bloomberg Politics Iowa poll was this finding -- a remarkable 43 percent of likely Democratic caucus participants describe themselves as Socialists -- including 58 percent of Sanders's supporters and about a third of Clinton’s.

In 2008, leftists seethed if you called Obama a Socialist.

Funny how things change, huh?



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #31 
Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter
Posted By James Simpson On January 12, 2016 @ 4:15 pm In Special Report

This is a report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

BLM PosterThe Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) casts itself as a spontaneous uprising born of inner city frustration, but is, in fact, the latest and most dangerous face of a web of well-funded communist/socialist organizations that have been agitating against America for decades. Its agitation has provoked police killings and other violence, lawlessness and unrest in minority communities throughout the U.S. If allowed to continue, that agitation could devolve into anarchy and civil war. The BLM crowd appears to be spoiling for just such an outcome.

Nevertheless, BLM appears to be exercising considerable leverage over the Democratic Party, in part by pressuring and intimidating Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (VT) into embracing their cause. The movement could also assist President Obama’s exploitation of racial divisions in society beyond his final term in office.

This report examines in detail, for the first time, how communist groups have manipulated the cause of Black Lives Matter, and how money from liberal foundations has made it all possible.

Continue to read at this link . . .

0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #32 

Another Democrat can't define the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist

Here's Debbie WhatsHerName-Schwartz unable to describe the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.

Again, WhatsHerName-Schwartz is unable to differentiate between a Democrat and a Socialist.

And Hillary doesn't know the difference either.

Asking a Democrat that question is like asking them which came first,  the chicken or the egg?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #33 

Yesterday's Communist is today's Progressive

Image242.jpg

Nick Short says the new American morning shadowed with trepidation. What new crisis will emerge wholly created by this administration that pits one group of Americans against each other? New morals, values, laws and rights are established at the benefit of a few to the detriment of the majority. All the while this is happening we meaninglessly drift away from the norms established in the past as our own history fades away from popular discourse.

In the blink of an eye, or in a generation, society itself unravels as it seems today to have lost the ability to retain the qualities that once made America exceptional. Liberty, freedom, truth, and the Constitution have given way to ideology, entitlement, and moral relativism. What we are left with is a pervasive atmosphere of decadence and moral bankruptcy that stands no chance in fighting an ideology that is consuming us.

Thanks to a "progressive," anti-intellectual educational system we have created a generation of students who can't read or write as they function like zombies attracted to materialistic greed and outraged at the latest perceived instance of "injustice." As Leonard Peikoff in The Ominous Parallels writes, students today are "brainwashed into feeling that their minds are helpless and they must adapt to 'society', that there is no absolute truth and that morality is whatever society says it is." Writing in the introduction to The Ominous Parallels, Ayn Rand notes, "It is a tragic irony of our time" to forget that the bloodiest tribe of our history, the Communists of Soviet Russia, were "motivated by brute powerlust and a crudely materialistic greed for the unearned."

Rand goes on to write that the Communists only showed respect "for the power of philosophy (which they called ideology)" as they spent "billions on propaganda and indoctrination, realizing that man's mind is their most dangerous enemy and it is man's mind that they have to destroy." The group-think mentality that dominates society today is an example of this, and to dare question the mob is to be ostracized, marginalized, and politicized as being radical. The ability to think for oneself is a virtue that has been lost on a generation that cannot see past the future of tomorrow, let alone the repercussions of their actions today.

With both political parties devoid of principles or respect to their own constituents let alone country, America's future looks to be heading at breakneck speed towards Soviet Russia's past. The underlying principle that serves as the catalyst for this is the prevailing ideology of socialism and communism. It goes by the much friendlier name of progressivism today and all that it asks of you is to abide by its principles without question while it slowly and methodically takes from you your rights until you're rendered defenseless.

"Communism," wrote Whittaker Chambers, "is what happens when, in the name of mind, men free themselves from god. Man does not, as a rule, become a communist because he is attracted to communism, but because he is driven to despair by the crisis of history through which the world is passing. The Communist Party has the least to offer a man bent on personal advantage. For the intellectual of any ability, it has nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of gain…it only offers those who joined it the certainty of being poor and pariahs…for the party must always demand more than it gives."

Communism, like socialism, attacks the principle of private property as it holds in contempt the liberty of each individual. In his Critique of SocialismAlexis de Tocqueville summarized the ideology of progressives by writing the following:

"They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom."

Tocqueville goes on to conclude that "Socialists offer us, a formal, regimented and closed society where the State has charge of all, where the individual counts for nothing, where the community masses to itself all power, all life, where the end assigned to man is solely his material welfare." This ideology does not value each man at his highest, as it makes of each man an agent, an instrument, and a number for it desires equality in constraint and in servitude. Progressivism is anathema to the principles that founded America and it is destroying this country from within aided by both parties in Washington, compounded by the sheer extent of the public's willful ignorance.

Fredric Bastiat, the great French classical liberal theorist explained that "the parties need to destroy us" as "they are all against us having the same goal of tyranny." Bastiat continues, "They differ only on the question of knowing in whose hands the despotism will be placed. This is why the thing they fear most is a spirit of true freedom." What the establishment class in Washington fears the most is an enlightened citizenry that recognizes this. It is why both parties continue to allow this administration to pit one group of Americans against each other by race, religion, class etc. By constantly ginning up crises where they do not exist by adding solutions to problems that are figments of their imaginations, the establishment in Washington is content with keeping us distracted by hating each other as long as we don't turn our attention towards them, our "representatives."

It's quite interesting to note that as soon as we turn our gaze towards these progressives and charge them for espousing a communist and socialist agenda, they become enraged. This is precisely because they cannot grasp the difference between themselves and those against whom the charge was made. Whittaker Chambers elaborates that "men who sincerely abhorred the word communism, in the pursuit of common ends, found that they were unable to distinguish communists from themselves…For men who could not see that what they firmly believed was liberalism added up to socialism, could scarcely be expected to see what added up to communism." This is why every attack against communists and socialists is felt by the progressives as an attack against themselves.

While it may seem extreme to call the majority of our politicians in Washington as being socialists or communists, it cannot be refuted that their agenda is leading this country down the very same path. You can act as if Republicans and Democrats are different, but over the course of the Obama administration we have seen that this notion of "difference" between the two parties begets reality. They may use different means to justify the end, but the end is all the same.

The longer we continue to ignore this while we fight among each other over the latest fabricated issue of audacious act committed by Barack Obama with the aide of congressional capitulation, the harder it becomes to counter. If we are unwilling to let go of our personal animosities against each other in favor of turning our energy against those in power who are destroying us, then we leave for the younger generations a future that will destroy them.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #34 

For the first time ever, a majority of Democrats now view Socialism favorably

Over at Rasmussen, the pollsters have discovered that -- for the first time in history -- self-identified members of the Democrat Party now view socialism favorably.

The man currently running a distant second for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is a self-declared socialist, and most of his party's voters now have a positive view of socialism. They are almost evenly divided as to whether they like capitalism or socialism more.

Socialism, Communism, Maoism, and National Socialism (e.g., the Nazi Party) are all offshoots of Marxism. They are all branches of the same defective tree.

Marxism has failed in literally every venue it has been tried, despite progressives' laughable efforts to claim certain countries have implemented it successfully.

No country has and no country ever will, because -- as Margaret Thatcher sagely observed -- "[the] problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

[080608-communist-t-shirt3]And those who point to the "success" of European countries that still maintain the semblance of civil societies have yet to see the Marxist endgame play out:

• All of these states have rung up immense and unsustainable levels of debt thanks to the socialists' endless wealth redistribution schemes. Only a series of elaborate can-kicking exercises have kept the European Union from economic collapse.

• Thanks to open borders policies, courtesy of Left-leaning do-gooders, Europe faces demographic upheaval, seen most recently in countries accepting swarms of Islamic immigrants.

Where "Marxism Light" -- socialism -- gave way to its more extreme flavors (e.g., Communism, Nazism, Maoism) the inevitable result was mass murder by government.

According to a study conducted by academics at the University of Hawaii, Communism in the 20th century alone led to the murders of 110 million men, women and children.

Isn't it ironic? When it comes to their own ideologies like climate change, progressives like to shut off debate by claiming that "The science is settled."

In this case, the record of history is settled. Marxism and it descendants have failed in every situation and in very region across the world.

That the majority of Democrats could embrace such a twisted political philosophy is an indictment of not only our media, but also our failed, union-controlled educational system.

They can't or won't appreciate the intricate system of government created by our Framers that inarguably built the most magnificent economic miracle in human history. They live in the lap of luxury, unappreciative and stupefied, unable to explain how even the lowly pencil is made in our society.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #35 

Hospitable takeover

Toon21.jpg



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #36 

Political analyst says Democrat Party aligns with radical Socialist Bernie Sanders

IMage138.jpg

S. Noble is reporting that host George Stephanopoulos asked political analyst Mark Halperin about Bernie's new more aggressive tone and Halperin said what we all already know. Bernie Sanders, radical Socialist, is closer to the core beliefs of the Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton though she's pretty close from my vantage point.

George Stephanopoulos:

"Let me begin with your guys since you're in Iowa, the big speeches last night at the J-J dinner. Mark Halperin, we just heard John Podesta take off a little bit on Bernie Sanders' new tone. How tough was it?"

Mark Halperin:

"It was medium tough. You know, he never mentioned her name. He did point out a lot of contrast. Look, George, he has a ton of material to work with. There are a number of issues where he is more in line with the party than Hillary Clinton, where Hillary Clinton's position has either shifted or she can't erase what she's done in the past. Its' a range of issues. The question I think going forward is was last night the start of Bernie Sanders drawing these contrasts? Or is that as far as he's willing to go."

The Democrat Party has moved to the far-Left and the membership seems happy to follow them there. As for Bernie's "tough tone," he's not running seriously for president, he's running to bring Hillary to the far-Left and maybe obtain a cabinet post for himself.

In that eventuality, I might open a relocation business for conservatives who want to flee the country.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #37 

Capital punishment

Toon16.jpg 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #38 

Introducing the "Democratic Socialist Party"

Image92.jpg

David Harsanyi says the Left loves to ridicule Republicans for standing on the "wrong side of history." And let's concede, for this piece at least, that conservatives hold hopelessly archaic views on social and cultural issues. But what if there were a party whose economic case rested on undermining the most successful, poverty-reducing, prosperity-creating idea ever known to mankind? What would history say about that?

No one seems too troubled that Democrats ratchet up the collectivist rhetoric every election. We mock conservatives for red-baiting and throwing around the word "socialism." And let's face it, the term is overused and misunderstood. But as we saw in the Las Vegas the other night, the Democratic Party is not a party of Great Society liberals anymore. We're not talking about lifting the marginal tax rates a few points, at least not rhetorically. Bernie Sanders isn't only pulling a quarter of Democrats to his cause, he's pacing the field ideologically.

In a New York Times piece this April describing Hillary's alleged progressive epiphany, we learned that the Democratic Party front-runner believes a sound economy requires the "toppling" of the wealthy. Where taxes were once conceived to fund safety nets, police, education, communal improvements through infrastructure, and the nation's defense, nowadays Democrats talk about taxation as if it were a tool to take from the undeserving -- whose ill-gotten gains are built on a foundation of skulls from the victims of a "rigged" system -- and give to companies, people, and programs to create societal equality, justice, and harmony.

Has history ever proven that this works?

Theory versus practice

In practice, of course, there's not any difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Progressive Democrat -- Hillary's preferred designation these days -- other than, perhaps, the speed at which one wants to work. (Ask her to explain the difference.) Sanders likes to stress the distinction between a Democratic Socialist and your commonplace authoritarian. But state coercion against individuals, even with the blessing of a majority, is still state coercion. Controlling the means of production, even if you attempt to achieve your goal with a combination of punitive taxation, fees, regulatory schemes, cronyism, and executive action, is still controlling the means of production. Sooner or later one kind of authoritarianism leads to another.

I'm not arguing that we're there yet. We're certainly not. But I'm asking: where does the Democratic Party end up on this ideological trajectory? At some point people are going to expect your policies to match your rhetoric.

YouGov recently found that while only 52 percent of Americans have a favorable view of capitalism, 26 percent have a favorable view of socialism. Among Millennials, 36 percent have a positive view of socialism. Democrats were just as likely to have a favorable view of capitalism (43 percent) as they do of socialism. Will these people find socialism as positive in practice as they do in theory?

Just because Uber exists or kids own iPhones does not mean they will reject collectivism -- a theory that's popular among conservatives. Young voters haven't seen it. Nor do they understand the incredible success economic freedom has had in alleviating real poverty.

Humanprogress.org

Recently, the World Bank projected that world poverty would fall to a record low of 9.6 percent in 2015. The principal reason for the expected decline is the spread of economic freedom. As The Economist reported recently, between 1990 and 2010, the number of destitute fell from 43 percent to 21 percent. This is a reduction of almost one billion people. China's capitalistic reforms have allowed around 680 million people to escape poverty from the 1981-2010. The extreme poverty rate in China was 84 percent in 1980, and now it's 10 percent. This expansion of prosperity happens in places that feature an array of races, ethnicities, religions, resources, and climates. What they share is more economic freedom.

Debunking the zero-sum myth

But Democrats have been successful in perpetuating the zero-sum myth as the basis for most debate. When capitalism fails -- because of criminality, abuse, or even because it must (such as creative destruction) -- there is an indictment of the entire of system. Then liberals tell us this 'failure' necessitates less freedom or perhaps some anti-market reconfiguration (green economy and so on) of the real thing.

Liberals like to claim that if a person supports any government program it means that person enjoys the benefits of socialism. You're a fan of Social Security? You love socialism! You like public education? Yep, you guessed it. You're a fan of alternative energy -- or whatever euphemism we're using now for state-subsidized energy schemes -- you need socialism to get it done. But of course, all of that is propped up by a productive markets. If you're a fan of the subsidized electric car, thank the capitalist for allowing you to be a hobbyist.

Now, Donald Trump might be a clown, but his brand of showman populism doesn't rest on any coherent ideology. Certainly in most ways it doesn't represent the party. Bernie Sanders, though, who in a smaller field of Democrats can claim to be far more successful in his party, brings with him an ideology that has a long track record. Yet, what major player on the Left has voiced concern that an extremist is running strongly in a dominant American political party -- or, for that matter, that most Democrats are starting to sound just like him?



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #39 

Chris Matthews admits Socialist Bernie Sanders best represents Democrats

Speaking to Late Night host Seth Meyers on Wednesday about the Democrat presidential debate, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews conceded that self-described Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders was the future of the Democrat Party:

"The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #40 

Skipping down the one-way road to Communism

S. Noble says we are skipping along on the path to communism with a short stop at socialism unless we do something to change it but the will isn't there to change it.

Communists hide behind the more acceptable "Progressive" label which includes other sorted extremist ideologies and they have taken over the Democratic Party.

This is the new America. Instead of freedom, we choose security. Instead of self-reliance, we've opened our arms to Big Government. There is a seduction to always doing the right thing because it's easy. It's easy to love the earth, help the world's poor, and be welcoming to everyone with other peoples' money.  We all just travel along this statist road thinking nothing will change our privileged lifestyle.

Americans even love that bare-chested leader of Russia next to our weak-kneed president. The allure is too much.

Communism is sexy!

Image61.jpgBernie Sanders, a devout Communist and an angry old one at that, has hidden behind the more euphemistic "Socialist" label for years but anyone paying attention knows what he is. He wants to control and nationalize everything. He decided to ditch the communist title years ago to get elected. Recently, he said he prefers to be called a progressive and it's undoubtedly to get elected. Just look at his platform -- it's communism.

It saves me a lot of writing time to just post two quotes by Ayn Rand.

The first: "The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time." Barack has built a much larger welfare state than the one we had. We have far more people on welfare and food stamps and we invite foreigners in for the welfare benefits. There are more than 96 million Americans out of work and the jobs available are going from higher level jobs to menial and part-time jobs with more and more leftists demanding they be paid "living wages" for low-level jobs.

The second quote: "There is no difference between Communism and Socialism except in the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, Socialism by the vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

Leftists will fight viciously to protect the false narrative that they are different and Socialism is acceptable. It's how they win over converts. The populist message which rails against the corrupt crony corporatists and politicians cinches it.

In reality, there is little difference. Socialism, as Marx said, is the path to Communism.

We know how these ideologies have destroyed nations and ended up in the slaughter of hundreds of millions and we see what it has done to countries like Venezuela, Argentina, and Cuba. Why would we do it again? Capitalism isn't perfect, but not because of Capitalism, because of the way big government has turned it into a book of regulations and cronyism. It needs fixing but not by something which will take away our freedoms.

Communism is why we have massive illegal immigration and it is the real reason Obama wants hundred of thousands of refugees who have values antithetical to ours.

Barack Obama was very clear about what he was from day one when he said he'd fundamentally transform us and then proceeded to give his agencies the power to legislate. He was clear when he passed guidance memos, sent out issuances, and posted executive orders that had the force of law while he ignored Congress, belittled the powers of the states and the courts. If you have ever looked at the George Soros website, The Center for American Progress, you will find the blueprint for everything Obama has done.

His former aide Anita Dunn said her favorite people to quote from was Mao tse-Tung, a madman who murdered more people than Hitler. Former White House spokesperson Jay Carney has Communist posters hanging all over his kitchen, Rev. Wright is a Marxist, Obama's family are Communists, his mentor was a Communist, he hung around with radicals, he sympathizes with Communists and Fascists and wants to diminish America's power in the world and is. Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and VanJones are immersed in Communist ideology and had Communist families.

What do people think is going on?

Couple the current assault by the president with our weak Congress. Some Republicans are liberals, some are very weak, and most just want to go along to get along and get re-elected. Some Republicans don't seem to understand what's going on. Don't think that because someone gets elected that they are intelligent or that they aren't simply naïve.

Image60.jpg If you want to know what life will be like under Communism, just watch New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. He's a Communist and is gradually destroying New York City. He's put in place a plan to nationalize police, starting with New York City, he's "greening" it to death, and has attempted to regulate anything that exists. He tried to destroy Uber, which I can tell you from personal experience is terrific!

He's now giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants and is welcoming as many in as possible -- those are votes him. His line that it's the right and kind thing to do pales in comparison to the rights of the taxpayers he's fleecing and the services that will be taken from citizens and lawful residents.

Non-citizens will soon vote, solidifying Communist New York City.

His latest is to insist we need a law banning the "commingling of indoor and outdoor air" according to the New York Times.

What that means is storekeeps who leave their doors open for any length of time while the a/c is on, allowing their a/c to hit the street, will be fined $250 for the first offense and up to $1,000 for any real serious door-left-open offense such as utilizing a doorstop.

De Blasio's tweet announcing it was followed up by this: "I know I'm not the only one who has walked past open doors to feel a blast of cold air pouring out. We don't need to be cooling our sidewalks! By requiring businesses to simply close the door, this bill is a win on multiple fronts, and is a small, but important part of our efforts to fight climate change."

The bill signed by de Blasio updates Local Law 38 of 2008, which already requires stores that are 4,000 square feet or larger, or part of a chain of five or more stores in New York City, to keep their doors closed when an air conditioner or central cooling system is running. The new legislation removes the size requirement, making this law applicable to businesses of any size.

Totalitarians who think they can tell us what to do always go further and further in their demands and their use of force. Fines and imprisonment are force.

Leftists are saying we must get over our addiction to a/c but you can be sure the elite won't stop their use of it. That's how this works. Every once in a while you get a legitimate Communist like the late singer Pete Seger who lives in a cabin in the woods but it's rare indeed and, honestly, I don't want to go along with the leftists who call themselves progressives but only talk of bringing us back to the past.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #41 

Democrats and Socialists -- a distinction without a difference

Richard Larsen says sometimes what's not said in response to a direct inquiry is more noteworthy than what is said. When the chairman of the Democrat National Committee was asked recently what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was, she sidestepped the issue and went a totally divergent direction. It would have provided a valuable service if she'd answered the question directly, for there seems to be no substantive distinction.

"What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The DNC chairman started to laugh, so Matthews tried again. "I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think?" Wasserman-Schultz started to sidestep the issue again, so Matthews tried a third time. "Yeah, but what's the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You're the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist." Intentionally avoiding Matthew's question, she responded, "The difference between -- the real question is what's the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican." Her dogmatically superficial and fallacious explication ensued.

A little later, NBC's Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press, asked the same question, which she responded to very similarly, choosing to answer a question not asked. But when the Matthews interview is looked at contextually, she may have already answered the question when she called Bernie Sanders "a good Democrat."

That's a significant statement even at face value; for Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont and a Democrat candidate for president, is a self-avowed socialist. He's officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them 98% of the time, according to Socialistworker.org.

The significance increases further when Sanders' burgeoning popularity in the Democrat presidential polls is analyzed. Having started out in single-digit support just two months ago, Sanders has significantly reduced frontrunner Hillary Clinton's lead. In Sanders' neighboring state of New Hampshire, one of the early voting states, Sanders now leads Clinton by 7%. Considering only 38% of Americans feel Clinton is "trustworthy," it's surprising the former Secretary of State has any lead in any polls, anywhere.

Sanders is attracting larger campaign crowds than any of the other presidential candidates. Last week, he attracted nearly 28,000 in Los Angeles, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and over 15,000 in Seattle.

When looking at his proposals, it's difficult to identify any substantive differences from mainstream Democrat Party doctrine. Sanders is pushing for universal single-payer health care; supports redistribution of wealth; advocates "free" college; fosters an antipathy toward corporations and "big business"; wants military spending cut by 50%; opposes natural resource development for energy; advocates government control and solutions for all economic or cultural challenges; and emphasizes egalitarianism rather than merit and achievement.

These tenets fit comfortably under the socialist umbrella, which, in general terms, is "An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. While capitalism is based on a price system, profit and loss and private property rights, socialism is based on bureaucratic central planning and collective ownership," according to Investopedia.

There are some distinctions that should be made, however. The American variety of socialism (liberalism and progressivism) has a democratic component that doesn't require a revolution, as many of the European and Asian models featured, but rather relies upon a democratic vote to incorporate. This necessitates the means to organize communities and proliferate propaganda, in order to effect electoral change. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals rose in direct response to that need, as a playbook for societal polarization and proliferation of socialist objectives. And perhaps not coincidentally, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the Alinsky model; and President Obama taught it as a community organizer and has implemented it to perfection nationally.

Jason Riley, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week: "Mr. Sanders's socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda."

Founded in individual liberty, America has always been the one nation under heaven where equality of opportunity has taken precedence over equality of outcome. The whole concept of the "American Dream" is based on the individual freedom to become, to achieve, to build, sell, and succeed. This requires individual freedom (which is diminished proportionate to expanded governmental power) and a free market economy (not centralized planning, or government control over the means of production). Consequently, socialism is philosophically, morally, and pragmatically antithetical to American values. Deductively, it is clearly anti-American.

Which brings us back to the chairman of the DNC.

With the apparent inability to make any substantive distinction between the major tenets of socialism and the contemporary Democrat Party, it's perfectly understandable that Wasserman-Shultz would not attempt to note any contradistinction. For as Riley observed in his WSJ piece, "These days, it's largely a distinction without a difference."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #42 

Socialism crumbles in Venezuela -- but Democrats think it's a great idea

John Hinderaker says Socialism must be the number one folly in the history of the human race. People keep trying it, and it keeps collapsing ignominiously. Yet leftists never give up. It is as though a guy stood in his yard throwing a ball into the air over and over, hoping that next time it won't come back down.

In Venezuela, socialism is in its inevitable death spiral. Food shortages are causing Venezuelans to attack grocery stores:

Venezuelan supermarkets are increasingly being targeted by looters as swollen lines and prolonged food shortages spark frustration in the OPEC nation struggling with an economic crisis.

Shoppers routinely spend hours in lines to buy consumer staples ranging from corn flour to laundry soap, turning lines into venues for shoving matches and now more frequent attempts to plunder shops.

The universal end point of socialism.

The economic crisis has hit President Nicolas Maduro's approval ratings…

I should hope so!

On Sunday, a small crowd in the western city of San Cristobal pushed its way into the government-run Bicentenario supermarket to grab products after it had closed, leaving staff scratched and bruised, according to store manager Edward Perez.

"As we were closing, a group of 20 people unexpectedly started shouting insults at the government and the workers," said Perez in a telephone interview.

They're insulting the right people.

Several looters were arrested after the fracas, which Perez blamed on "ultra-right-wing sectors of the opposition" seeking to sow violence.

"Ultra right-wing opposition" = reality.

More frequent than these serious events are minor melees that ensue when delivery trucks arrive at stores carrying prized products such as chicken or milk.

Ponder that for a moment: "prized products such as chicken or milk."

"There's no organization, they treat you like an animal, they don't respect anything," said Carmen Neskowi, 49, who identified her profession as "standing in line," in a queue outside a Caracas supermarket. "It's an insult."

Of course they treat you like an animal. They're a socialist government.

Supporters of the ruling Socialist Party note that the network of subsidized state-run grocery stores created by late president Hugo Chavez and financed by plentiful oil revenue helped reduce poverty and hunger during his 1999-2013 rule.

It takes a decade or two for socialism to ruin a country, especially when you have one of the world's largest supplies of oil. But reality can't be staved off indefinitely:

According to polls, his party is expected to do poorly in legislative elections later this year, its support hit by high inflation, the currency's collapse and food shortages.

This is what happens when you have a government-run economy. Every time:

Local food producers ranging from neighborhood bakeries to an industrial pasta maker have halted or slowed operations for lack of raw materials or machine parts. …

Lines are increasingly filled with smugglers who buy subsidized goods and resell them at a profit on the black market or in neighboring Colombia, generating tension between resellers and those trying to stock their own kitchens.

That's socialism: poverty, tyranny, social decay, devolution. And yet…as Ted Kennedy said, the dream will never die. Unfortunately.

Today, socialist Bernie Sanders is the darling of the Democratic Party. He is closing on Hillary Clinton in the polls, and generating far more excitement on the stump. Sanders is no fringe candidate; a recent poll found that 56% of Democrats would be "enthusiastic or satisfied" if Sanders is their party's nominee, while fewer than 25% see that as a problem.

Can people really be this dumb? Yes, they can. Yes, and how many times must socialism fail, before it forever is banned? I don't know. The answer is blowing in the wind, or something.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #43 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz again won't describe the difference between Democrats and Socialists

Just for the record, here is a list of the 80 avowed Socialists who are sitting members of the U.S. Congress and who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America:

Co-Chairs:
   Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
   Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs:
   Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
   Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
   Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
   Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
   Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
   Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
   Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Senate Members:
   Hon. Roland Burris (IL)
   Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
   Hon. Tom Udall (NM)

House Members:
   Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
   Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
   Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
   Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
   Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
   Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
   Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
   Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
   Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32)
   Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
   Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
   Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
   Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
   Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
   Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
   Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
   Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
   Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
   Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
   Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
   Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
   Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
   Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
   Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
   Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
   Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
   Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
   Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
   Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
   Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
   Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
   Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
   Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
   Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
   Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
   Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
   Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
   Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
   Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
   Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
   Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
   Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
   Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
   Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
   Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08)
   Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
   Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
   Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
   Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
   Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
   Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
   Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
   Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02)
   Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
   Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
   Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
   Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
   Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39)
   Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
   Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
   Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
   Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
   Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
   Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
   Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
   Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
   Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
   Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
   Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Notable Past Member:
   Barack Hussein Obama


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #44 

Hillarious! Debbie Wasserman Schultz is unable to answer one simple question

The obvious goal of the Democrat Party, incrementally advanced at every opportunity, is socialism. To quote one of its most successful proponents Vladimir Lenin, "the goal of socialism is communism."

History has repeatedly shown that this is communism:

Communism.jpg 

How is reducing America to that level of existence anything other than pure evil?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is unable to answer the very simple question, "what's the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist."

We all know the reason why.

There is no difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #45 

Prominent Democrat described as "dupe" of communism

Paul Bremmer says don't just beware of the communists -- beware of communist dupes, political science professor Paul Kengor is warning.

"A dupe is really an innocent," Kengor recently told an audience at the Institute of World Politics. "A dupe doesn't have malicious intent. A dupe unwittingly aids and abets the enemy, and if you think about it, that's an especially dangerous situation, where you have people aiding and abetting, in the case of Soviet Communism, evil. And they don't even realize that they're doing it."

Kengor has built his academic career on exposing the motivations and tactics of the radical left. His latest book, "Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage," examines how the left is using same-sex marriage as a vehicle to destroy marriage and the family. But his 2010 book, "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century," formed the basis of his lecture at the IWP.

To term someone a "dupe" is not simply name-calling, according to Kengor. The word was commonly used during the Cold War when communists referred to those they hoodwinked as "dupes."

The professor explained that communists mostly targeted liberals and progressives as potential dupes, because they were already close to communism on the ideological spectrum.

"The Soviets were masters at this," Kengor said. "They were masters at manipulation, of agitation and propaganda. They really sought out to do this, unlike any other group that I could think of. I mean, men sat around and tried to think of ways to mislead people."

In the United States, Communist Party membership never climbed too far above 100,000 in the 1930s, according to Kengor. So, if the communists wanted any influence, they needed to widen their circle by drawing in non-communists who didn't realize they were being recruited to the cause.

Russian Revolution leader Vladimir Lenin referred to such people as "useful idiots." Whittaker Chambers, the former Soviet spy who later renounced communism, said the goal was to "flatter them to their faces" but privately "treat them with sneering contempt."

As part of the effort to fool Western progressives, the Soviets built fake "Potemkin villages" for the sole purpose of making life under communism appear better than it actually was. Kengor noted Soviet officials were pleasantly mystified by their naïve Western visitors.

"You should read some of [the Soviet officials'] accounts," Kengor urged his audience. "They couldn't believe how easy it was to mislead Western progressives. They were stunned. They were like, 'This is really easy. Maybe we need to throw these people in the gulag. Maybe they're spies.'"

The Soviet regime was not the only one that used Potemkin villages; North Korea's communist dictators have used them, too. In fact, Kengor said Jimmy Carter was fooled by a giant Potemkin village when the former president visited North Korea in 1994.

Kengor excerpted Carter's words:

People are busy. They work 48 hours a week. Rosalynn and I found Pyongyang to be a bustling city. The only difference is that during working hours, there are very few people on the street. They all have jobs or go to school. And after working hours, the North Koreans pack the department stores, which Rosalynn visited. I went in one of them. It's like Wal-Mart in American stores on a Saturday afternoon. They all walk around in there, and they seem in fairly good spirits. Pyongyang at night looks like Times Square. They are really heavily into bright neon lights and pictures and things like that.

Carter also wrote that North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung was "very friendly toward Christianity," even though he ran an atheistic communist regime that persecuted religious believers. But Carter saw what he was meant to see, according to Kengor, and by writing such a glowing account of life in North Korea, he painted the exact picture Kim wanted the West to see.

Carter was not the only high-profile liberal to be duped by communists. Legendary progressive educator John Dewey also inadvertently helped further the Soviet regime's goals, according to Kengor.

"One thing that they don't teach about Dewey is that the Bolsheviks absolutely adored his educational work," the professor revealed. "They began immediately translating his work into Russian as quickly as they could. They said, 'Here in these writings of this would-be founding father of American public education is a blueprint for what we want to do in the Soviet Communist totalitarian system.'"

Dewey was not alarmed that the Bolsheviks loved his work. On the contrary, he was flattered. He admired the Soviets as well. In 1928, he joined a delegation of 25 American educators on a trip to the Soviet Union to observe life in the relatively new nation.

Dewey scoffed at the idea the Russians were only setting up fake villages to impress foreigners. He believed the ones he saw might have been "the best of their kind" because they represented what the new regime was trying to do. In a series of articles he wrote for the New Republic after returning home, Dewey said he was impressed by the restoration of the Russian Orthodox churches, meaning he was unaware of the Bolsheviks' hatred of religion. The educator also praised the "orderly and safe character of life in Russia under Stalin."

"In spite of secret police, inquisitions, arrests, deportations… despite the exiling of party opponents, including divergent elements in the party, life for the masses goes on with regularity, safety, and decorum," Dewey wrote, according to Kengor. "There is no place in all of Europe, in fact, where the external routine of life is more settled and secure."

By his third New Republic article on the subject, Dewey had declared the Bolshevik Revolution a "great success." He was especially impressed by the Soviet education system. In fact, he urged the United States to move closer to the USSR.

"Political recognition of Russia on the part of the United States would bring about the kind of relations that are in the interest of both countries and of the world," Dewey wrote. "I went to Russia with no conviction on that subject."

Said Kengor: "In other words, Professor Dewey did exactly -- exactly -- what Stalin wanted. It worked beautifully."

Legendary birth-control activist Margaret Sanger also journeyed to the Soviet Union, in 1934, to see what the Soviets were doing with birth control. The Bolsheviks had legalized abortion in 1920, and by the time Sanger visited, they had an abortion rate never before seen in the history of the world, according to Kengor.

Even Sanger, who founded the organization that evolved into Planned Parenthood, was appalled by the number of abortions in the USSR. However, a number of Soviet officials assured her that as soon as the country attained its economic and social goals, neither abortions nor contraception would be necessary anymore. Sanger bought the line, and her willingness to believe reveals a lot about progressives, according to Kengor.

"You see the progressive belief in utopia," Kengor said. "Once you fully get the state doing everything and all the wondrous things that the state needs to do -- every progressive and leftist believes that they simply haven't had enough power yet to really do what they want. But when they really can truly really, really, really do what they want, it'll all work out."

As for other forms of birth control, Sanger praised the Soviet Union for granting easy access to them.

"Theoretically, there are no obstacles to birth control in Russia," she said. "It is accepted on the grounds of health and human right. We in America could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control is part of the regular welfare service of the government."

That last part should sound familiar to Americans, Kengor told his audience.

"That's where we are in America now, where birth control is part of the regular welfare service of the government -- the Obama HHS mandate," he said. "And if you disagree with it, you favor a war on women, you hate women. Period."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #46 

Socialism and Communism are consuming the Democrat Party

S. Noble says traditional Americans who want limited government, fiscal responsibility, adherence to our Bill of Rights and the rule of law are under fire from the Democratic Party and the media who actively promote their causes. It is a distraction from the real threat which is the Socialism and Communism consuming the Democratic Party.

Their doom and gloom ideology can only succeed if they win over the nation's psyche which they are doing effectively. We can see it in the fight over the Confederate battle flag on the grounds of the South Carolina state capitol.

Rush Limbaugh believes the fight isn't over the flag or racism, it's over the South's political identity. Rush Limbaugh spoke about that on his show today and, recognizing the current movement towards erasing our history and our traditions, he believes the American flag will be questioned in the near future.

"I have a prediction…Do not doubt me."

"If you take a look at the timeline of progressive events, their speed and rapidity with which the left is conducting this assault on all of these American traditions and institutions, if you don't think the American flag's in their crosshairs down the road, you had better stop and reconsider," Limbaugh continued.

"It isn't gonna be long before the American flag is gonna cause chills, fear, scary thoughts," Limbaugh said.

He is likely correct. Harry Reid announced today that the confederate statues in the Capitol must be looked at for possible removal. There will be no end to the left's demands and any excuse will do. Even though it's being done partly to get votes, there is a much deeper reason.

Why not close the Confederate battlefields, the Alamo, the site of Custer's Last Stand, museums in Lexington and Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson's homes? They all offend someone.

The left wants to erase our history and any sign there was a confederacy but it won't stop until all we see is what they agree with.

Leftists see the United States as an evil place that needs reforming. They see a welfare state that takes care of the collective from birth to death as desirable. Unfortunately, their morals are all relative which makes deceit easy and often preferable. If bullying, taxing, imprisonment and other means of force are needed for these know-it-all control freaks to enact their beneficent nanny state, they will do it without guilt.

Rush addressed the movement of the Democratic Party towards communism on Monday.

The Democratic Party today "isn't the party of JFK," he said, "it's the party of Bernie Sanders." It's "full-on Socialist, Marxist, whatever you want to call it" and the average Democrat "identifying as uber left liberals is skyrocketing."

There's no question the Democrat Party has moved extreme far-left and the lunacy has gone mainstream in the party, he believes.

Global warming is so "much more than a plan to elect Democrats…it's far more oppressive and dangerous." Global warming has every mechanism to eliminate our Constitution, our individual liberty, private property and install global governance, he said.

"I don't deny the Democrat Party is moving towards communism at all," Rush said.

Whether a person likes Rush or not, it's impossible to ignore the obvious.

The Democrat Party wants everything the Communist and Socialist parties in this country want.

The big welfare state, the dependence on government – in fact, complete subservience, the eradication of individual liberty to be replaced by collectivism, and one party rule with no differing opinions – all are their collective goals.

We see our Bill of Rights under constant attack and our belief systems are being eroded. American exceptionalism is abandoned. Professors in the University of California can no longer say America is the land of opportunity and leftists want to destroy our patriotic holidays. Communist Mayor de Blasio in New York City is adding foreign holidays to show we are not American, we are multicultural.

The Pope has given the leftists the moral backing they hoped for because he is no fan of Capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which property is privately owned. Individual rights are so critical that they can only be violated by force.

Socialism states that man has no right to exist for his own sake.

Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Totalitarianism, Collectivism, whatever you choose to call these types of -isms, concentrate power in the state. They require the subjugation of the individual to a group and force everyone to think the same and act the same for the collective good.

While they steal one's identity and personal resources, they claim they are the generous altruistic ones. Theft is good, individualism is bad.

Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

We can see in the debate over the Second Amendment that the principle of natural, inalienable rights is under assault. The left believes our rights come from the government which serves the collective good.

While hoping for a Utopia that solves all problems of crime, racism and other evils, statism actually creates a dystopian world without incentive or hope. We see microcosms of these dystopias in Detroit, Chicago and other liberal cities. It always ends in political absolutism.

Many people see what is coming and it's what they want. They love the populist ideology of a kook like Bernie Sanders. Spreading the wealth, eliminating income inequality, rights for all classes and races sounds great but the results are always the opposite. The Democratic Party denies what they've become but one only has to look at what they do, not what they say, to see the truth.

One thing is for certain, we are racing towards some form of statism and we could run out of time.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #47 

Occupy Wall Street is nothing but mainstreams Communism

Matthew Vadum says though many have declared the Occupy Wall Street movement a failure, it won a major propaganda victory when it forced the Democrats' phony political issue of "income inequality" into the national political debate, according to one of its leaders in a new article.

The article, titled The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street, appears at the Atlantic, the home of radical leftists, market participants in the racial grievance industry, and mushy moderates.

It was written by radical left-winger Michael Levitin, a co-founder of The Occupied Wall Street Journal, an OWS "affinity group." (Its website had not been updated in 1,000 days at time of writing.) The article is a mixture of truth and bald-faced lies that slavishly defends a philosophy of failure and a movement that is based on Marxist lies, as David Horowitz and John Perazzo demonstrated in their pamphlet Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn. Despite the various problems with Levitin's article, he points to an unfortunate side-effect of the short-lived movement: the left has become more bold in its open promotion of communist themes and ideology and is pushing them into mainstream politics like never before.

The fairly recent sharpening of rhetoric in which the mythical "one percent" are depicted as the class enemies of everyone else is new in the American experience. Not everyone accepts the frame, but few challenge it, even among conservatives.

This national brainwashing through the power of repetition has boosted left-wing causes such as organized labor's destructive push for a $15 an hour minimum wage. It has helped greens advance their antisocial causes such as opposition to fracking, opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, and a divestment movement on college campuses that claims to have forced universities and institutional investment funds to unload $50 billion in fossil fuel investments. It has also emboldened left-wingers to push for student loan forgiveness and step up their attacks on the First Amendment by pushing a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Citizens United ruling and overturn the ancient legal principle that corporations are "persons" capable of raising funds and suing and being sued. In other words, the Left is waging a full-scale war on both the Bill of Rights and the legal concept of limited liability, the beating heart of free enterprise.

The protests and rampant criminality on display with Occupy Wall Street distracted from the endless scandals and policy failures of the Obama administration. This helped to get President Obama reelected in 2012 in an election that he should have lost big time. By nominating Mitt Romney whose net worth was said to be at least $250 million, Republican primary voters unwittingly helped to advance the false leftist narrative that the GOP was the party of out-of-touch rich people.

This allowed the media to run all sorts of hit pieces disguised as human interest stories. For example, the media focused on the fact that Romney's wife, Ann, owns several champion dressage horses and competes in tournaments in what most people would consider to be a rich person's sport. Always deemphasized was the fact that she suffers from multiple sclerosis, a terribly debilitating disease that among other things robs its victims of muscle control, and that riding has been so therapeutic for her that it, in her words, "saved my life."

Occupy Wall Street has had a discernible impact, Levitin writes.

Nearly four years after the precipitous rise of Occupy Wall Street, the movement so many thought had disappeared has instead splintered and regrown into a variety of focused causes. Income inequality is the crisis du jour -- a problem that all 2016 presidential candidates must grapple with because they can no longer afford not to. And, in fact, it's just one of a long list of legislative and political successes for which the Occupy movement can take credit.

He is correct when he writes about the words Americans now use when discussing politics. "Until recently, Occupy's chief accomplishment was changing the national conversation by giving Americans a new language -- the 99 percent and the 1 percent -- to frame the dual crises of income inequality and the corrupting influence of money in politics."

As this writer observed three years ago, the Occupy movement that began in lower Manhattan, complete with "rape tents" and rampant crime, has reframed the political debate -- for the worse.

It is now impossible to turn on the radio or television without hearing public affairs and political issues framed in Marxist terms, as matters of so-called economic equality pitting the "1 percent" against the "99 percent."

In an act of self-congratulation, Levitin took credit on behalf of Occupy for Hillary Clinton telling Iowans in April that "the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top." Clinton's rhetoric has gotten even sharper in recent weeks as she sharpens the blade on her class-warfare guillotine.

"[T]he debate over inequality sparked by Occupy has radically remade the Democratic Party," he contends in one of his more dubious assertions. Levitin ignores the fact that the far Left captured that party in 1972 in Miami when it nominated George McGovern to take on President Nixon. "There won't be any riots in Miami because the people who rioted in Chicago [at the 1968 Democratic convention] are on the Platform Committee," then-Democratic delegate Ben Wattenberg wrote of the 1972 convention.

Occupy has merely cleared the way for Democratic lawmakers in Congress to become more in-your-face about their beliefs without causing much of a backlash.

Occupy Wall Street has shifted perceptions. That admitted socialist Bernie Sanders, whose career is devoted to regurgitating tedious Marxist cliches, is even being taken seriously as a Clinton challenger is more proof of how Occupy has changed the nation's political culture. Levitin implies that Occupy somehow moved Sanders to the left, as if such a thing were possible.

Sanders is Occupy Wall Street. Not surprisingly, Sanders was the first U.S. senator in 2011 to declare his support for Occupy Wall Street, praising its activists for focusing a "spotlight" on the need for "real Wall Street reform."

Bernie has long believed in the doctrinaire drivel he has been spouting since he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He displayed a Soviet flag in his mayoral office and in 1985 visited Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government's rise to power. According to AIM's Cliff Kincaid, in the 1980s Sanders "collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'" whose aim was "to stop President Reagan's deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe." He also "openly joined the Soviets' 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan's military build-up."

But now, courtesy of the Occupy movement which has de-stigmatized certain aspects of the Marxist faith, people no longer laugh at Sanders when he waxes ignorant on his worldview.

Republican candidates for the White House, too, have swallowed the Bolshevik bait, Levitin writes gleefully:

Even leading Republican contenders have jumped on the inequality bandwagon: Jeb Bush, through his Right to Rise PAC, asserted that "the income gap is real," while Ted Cruz admitted that "the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our income nationally than any year since 1928," and Marco Rubio proposed reversing inequality by turning the earned-income tax credit into a subsidy for low-wage earners.

Levitin's article is yet more proof that left-wingers struggle with economics and basic math and that facts are never an obstacle when trying to advance the narrative.

Rubio doesn't want to convert the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) into a subsidy for low-wage earners because it already is one. EITC is a welfare program that provides a taxpayer subsidy for low-wage earners. The IRS acknowledges that last year it paid out more than $66 billion in EITC benefits to nearly 28 million eligible individuals and families. Because it is a "refundable tax credit," many recipients got benefits even if they had no tax withheld.

Rubio has offered an as yet vague proposal under which EITC would continue to function as a subsidy for low-wage earners. The Florida senator proposes changing some of the details of the program such as sending benefits monthly instead of once a year at tax-filing time.

Although Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, did say what Levitin attributes to him (on Fox News Channel on Jan. 20 of this year), Cruz wasn't necessarily buying into the idea that income inequality is a problem. He was pointing out that Obama's policies have worsened this so-called problem about which the Left incessantly whines. Unfortunately, he refrained from attacking the premises on which the leftist complaint about "income equality" rests.

Still, the fact that Cruz felt the need to discuss the income inequality boogeyman at all is a testament to the effectiveness of Occupy Wall Street.

How America has changed in the Obama era.

Few could have imagined just a few years ago that Marxist class-consciousness would nowadays be taken seriously even by Republican presidential candidates. The GOPers don't seem to realize that they should not grant this communistic claptrap even a smidgen of legitimacy by helping it enter standard political discourse. It won't appeal to good, patriotic Americans, or to that much sought-after creature, the Independent voter.

This so-called issue should not be addressed by Republicans at all, unless they seek to discredit it as a concept. Economic inequality, as the Left calls this non-problem, is not a glitch; it is an essential feature of capitalism.

It is a virtue, not an evil. The fact of economic inequality is proof that freedom exists; in fact the two ideas are inextricably bound together. A recognition that people are different and that forcing them to behave a certain way is generally a bad idea, are what made this country great and prosperous. Americans should never, ever apologize for these foundational ideas.

At risk of sounding pedantic, it needs to be said that sometimes people have to be reminded of the obvious fact that human beings have different abilities and characteristics. This is as it should be. Some are tall; some are short. Some are physically attractive; some are plain or unattractive. Some are smart; some are simple-minded. Some have marketable skills; others less so.

This is simply the way it is. This is reality and in a sane America this would be where all political discussions begin. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and they designed the Constitution with human nature in mind. Many Americans seem to have forgotten this basic point. They don't understand that only those at war with reality want to perfect humanity or redistribute wealth. From V.I. Lenin to Kim Jong-un, the utopian schemes of those who refuse to accept human beings as they are have generated oceans of blood.

There is no upside for Republicans to pander to the media or the mobs in the streets on economic inequality because those who consider it to be a legitimate issue are so far gone that they won't vote for Republicans anyway.

On the positive side, apart from Obama's reelection, not too many Democrats, the natural beneficiaries of populist, class-warfare politics, have benefitted from what OWS did. Democrats were crushed by Republicans in the congressional elections last year. Voters flipped control of the U.S. Senate to the GOP and strengthened the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans' majority control of state legislatures and governors' mansions only increased as a result of an election that was, depending on the psephological metrics used, the Democratic Party's worst showing of all time.

George Soros, the Chinese Communism-loving anti-American hedge fund manager, certainly got his money's worth. The international pariah dubbed the uncrowned king of Eastern Europe by one critic, helped to overthrow the governments of Serbia and Georgia. He has cut checks to generate unrest in Turkey and Egypt, and strongly supported Barack Obama's candidacy. Supporting Obama makes sense because Soros believes that "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." It is no coincidence that Obama holds the same belief.

Naturally, Soros is an ardent supporter of Occupy Wall Street which he has praised as "an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest." According to Soros, the movement has "put on the agenda issues that the institutional left has failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century."

Levitin agrees, acknowledging that short-term electoral conquest was never the goal of the community organizers, dirty hippies, and rapists of Occupy Wall Street.

The objective was to infect the national political conversation with Marxist tropes and ideology, which is unfortunately a new reality in America.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #48 

Communists use the Democratic Party to advance its agenda

Remember those Thanksgiving dinners when your slightly unhinged uncle would have one too many glasses of wine and start loudly declaring that the Democratic Party was the tool of the communists, until even the dyed-in-the-wool Republicans were walking out of the dining room?

The Conservative tribune says that as it turns out, your uncle wasn't all that far off. At least not according to the chairman of the Communist Party USA, who claims that the Democratic Party is just another tool for the struggle of the proletariat and their Macbook-clad supporters.

In an article titled, "A radical third party? I agree!" CPUSA chairman John Batchell wrote, "At this stage we are about building the broad people's movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda."

Batchell said that, while he would rather work within the CPUSA to achieve change, for whatever reason, the idea of Soviet-style America just hasn't caught on with the American public.

Therefore, since "the Democratic Party is also home to labor, African Americans, Latinos, other communities of color, women, most union members, young people, and a wide range of social and democratic movements," they're the appropriate vehicle to work with

"Meanwhile, the Republicans "consists of extreme right-wing elements including the TEA Party, white supremacists, social conservatives, right-wing evangelicals, climate deniers, anti-reproductive rights groups, etc."

I'm guessing the tone of debate isn't exactly one of Batchell's major, or even minor, concerns.

"Our tactics also occur within the framework of our strategic policy of building a broad coalition to defeat the extreme right, which we see as the main danger to democracy and social progress, embodied within today's Republican Party," Batchell wrote.

"There are voting constituencies that presently support the GOP that have to be won over."

"Such an approach sees the need to actively challenge right-wing and GOP ideas that influence sections of the people, especially working-class whites, for example, through hate talk radio. This includes racism and intolerance which are key issues dividing the working class."

Gosh, I don't know why they don't support you. You don't sound condescending to them at all!

Here's a hint for Batchell: calling people racists just for the party they support probably isn't the best way to win their affection.

It's funny and revealing that a man representing a philosophy that's killed millions of people worldwide views the GOP as the main danger to democracy and social progress.

It's also revealing that his only argument is the prima facie assertion that Republicans are racist, "white supremacist" bigots, in an article expressing his support for the party that birthed the Klan.

And finally, it's perhaps most revealing that nobody in the Democratic Party has stepped forward to disavow either Batchell, his comments, or the CPUSA.

The reason is simple: they'll take any help they can get. Just look at ACORN.

So there you have it. Your uncle was right, after all. He still should have taken it easy on the shiraz, though.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #49 

Communist Party "utilizes" the Democrat Party -- the battle for America is between Communists and Constitutionalists

Trevor Loudon is reporting that the national chair of the Communist Party USA, Chicago man John Bachtell has admitted that his Party "utilizes" the Democrat Party "to advance its agenda."

CPUSAPresident.jpg

Writing on the People's World website Bachtell explains that  much of the Left wants to abandon the Democrat Party (as much of the "right" wants to abandon the GOP) to  form a radical third party.

In an article entitled A radical third party? I agree! Bachtell explains;

Certainly, there's widespread disillusionment with both the Democrat and Republican parties. That's reflected in the latest Pew Research poll: 38 percent of voters describe themselves as independent, 32 percent as Democrats, and 25 percent as Republicans. In 1991, the three were approximately equal.

While acknowledging that both major parties are heavily influenced by Wall Street, Bachtell sees a big difference;

However, it's not enough to make sweeping generalizations about the Democrat and Republican parties. It's true both parties are dominated by Wall Street interests, but it's also necessary to see how each party differs, particularly their social bases and how this affects their policies.

While the Republican Party is led by the most reactionary sections of Wall Street capital including the energy extractive sector and military industrial complex, it also consists of extreme right-wing elements including the TEA Party, white supremacists, social conservatives, right-wing evangelicals, climate deniers, anti-reproductive rights groups, etc.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party is also home to labor, African Americans, Latinos, other communities of color, women, most union members, young people, and a wide range of social and democratic movements. These constituencies exert influence on party leadership and hold positions at all levels.

Therefore it makes sense, according  to Bachtell,  for the Communist Party, to stick with the Democrats until a viable third party is feasible. To Bachtell, progress towards socialism is possible only after the "right" is soundly defeated.

The Communist Party's tactics for political independence rest on several interrelated elements. First, they occur within the constraints of the two-party system. We don't operate in a parliamentary system which allows proportional voting. Instead, winner takes all, and during the general election it usually comes down to voting for one of two candidates most likely to win.

That means candidates are backed by coalitions. Under these circumstances voting based on purity of positions is not a viable tactic. Coalition forces may disagree with a candidate on one or another issue, but find they must support candidates for strategic reasons -- to advance issues and create a more favorable terrain of struggle.

Our tactics also occur within the framework of our strategic policy of building a broad coalition to defeat the extreme right, which we see as the main danger to democracy and social progress, embodied within today's Republican Party. There are voting constituencies that presently support the GOP that have to be won over. Such an approach sees the need to actively challenge right-wing and GOP ideas that influence sections of the people, especially working-class whites, for example, through hate talk radio. This includes racism and intolerance which are key issues dividing the working class.

We see this as one of the stages in the long struggle for advanced democracy and socialism. Without decisively defeating the most reactionary sections of monopoly capital, disintegrating Republican Party support at every level, it's hard to see winning more radical and advanced programs and policies and waging a fight against the monopoly class as a whole.

We envision a prolonged process toward political independence, with many turns, advances and defeats, utilizing many forms, resulting in a radical third party based in labor, working-class neighborhoods, communities of color, and democratic movements. Such a coalition third party must extend its reach beyond urban areas, to suburbs, exurbs, rural areas, and in "red" states and congressional districts.

Until that glorious day arrives the Communist Party will continue to "utilize" the Democrats;

First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible, uniting the widest array of class (including a section of monopoly), social and democratic forces. This necessarily means working with the Democrat Party. This differentiates us from those left groups who underestimate the right danger and overestimate the readiness of key class and social forces to bolt the Democrat Party.

Second, our objective is not to build the Democrat Party. At this stage we are about building the broad people's movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democrat Party to advance its agenda. We are about building the movements around the issues roiling wide sections of people that can help shape election contours and debates.

The Communist Party often upsets less mature Marxists groups because of their refusal to abandon the Democrat Party, despite not always getting every item on their agenda, immediately.

As an experienced Communist, John Bachtell understands that in spite of difficulties and disappointments, the the Communist Party agenda is far better served by infiltrating the Democrats than by marching in the streets yelling revolutionary slogans.

The Communist Party and their  only marginally less  radical Democrat Socialists of America allies can point to real achievements under their "friend" Barack Obama.  Obamacare, illegal immigrant "amnesty", the NEW START Treaty with Russia, negotiations with Iran, military budget cuts, and recognition of communist Cuba, are all Communist Party policies, implemented through the Democrat Party.

Bachtell understands that to prematurely break with with the Democrats, on some Quixotic adventure of forming a new leftist third party, would almost certainly, hand the next few elections to the GOP.  He fears  that a revitalized GOP, led by Ted Cruz, or some similar figure ,  would roll back most, or all of the Communist Party's hard fought gains.

If   US Constitutionalstm conservatives, and TEA Party activists  can show similar political discipline and maturity, they will abandon plans for a suicidal third party agenda -- for now.  Instead they will work through  the GOP, as the Communists have through the Democrats. Learn from the opposition. Utilize the GOP machinery and voting base to build a big Constitutionalist base inside the GOP.  Build your strength, do as the Communists have done, primary any vulnerable GOP candidates who will not support your Constitutionalist agenda.

The Communists did that to Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut. Now virtually no senior Democrats will buck the Communist line.  They know the price.

So the TEA Party and their allies need to take back the GOP for Constitutionalism, and ensure that someone of the caliber of  Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker is the GOP Presidential nominee in 2016.

If that happens,  American can have a second "Reagan Revolution" even better than the first. If  doesn't the Communist Party will have theirs.

If Constitutionalists fail, and Jeb Bush, or some similar milksop becomes  the GOP nominee, they should gather all their forces,   leave the GOP en masse and run against him as a third party. At that point Constitutionalists have nothing left to lose.  They should also make it very clear to the GOP hierarchy and major donors, that a third party will inevitably follow any further "dirty tricks", or other attempts to frustrate will of the people.

Less than a thousand hard core Communist Party activists, and their few thousand Democrat Socialists of America allies effectively dictate Democrat Party policy.

If the much larger Constitutionalist/Tea Party movement can learn from their opponent's tactics and maturity, they can have a real shot at restoring the Republic.

The battle for America is not between the Democrats and the Republicans. It is between the Communists and the Constitutionalists. The Constitutionalists must better understand their opposition, and borrow some of their tactics, if the want a chance of victory.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #50 

Communist Party will work with Democrats (and "moderate Republicans") to give GOP a "licking" in 2014

Trevor Loudon is reporting that Sam Webb, chair of the Communist Party USA wants to give the GOP a “Licking” in 2014 and its going to work even more closely with the Democrats to do it.

In his latest message to the Party faithful Ingredients for a movement that can transform our country Webb outlined Communist Party objectives for the near future.

Speaking of the broad “progressive” alliance with the Communist Party at its center Webb said;

Contrary to what some on the left think, the starting point of transformative politics isn’t political desires and wish list, but a sober and concrete assessment of the balance of class and social forces on the ground, not least of which is the political consciousness of the majority of working-class people and what they are ready to fight for.

How do we accelerate this transition from a movement with transformative potential to a movement with transformative power and capacity?

…a movement with transformative hopes must be up to its ears in the struggle for jobs, a higher minimum wage, immigration reform, gun control, infrastructure renewal, abortion rights, protecting the climate, preserving earned-benefit programs, marriage equality, voting rights, saving public education, reversing the sequester, winning a federal budget favoring people’s needs, cutting the military budget, and many more issues at the federal, state and local level.

It should also be an energetic part of the struggle to give the Republican Party a licking in next year’s congressional elections. Defeating right-wing extremist candidates is the key link in moving the whole chain of struggle forward. It will take an expansive coalition of voters, including independents, centrists and even some moderate Republicans.

To some on the far left, even the Democrats seem too moderate, but the Communist Party understands that victory is impossible without using the Dems  (at least temporarily) to push their agenda.

...the Democratic Party has been a necessary, albeit inconsistent, component (at this stage of struggle) of the broad “small d” democratic coalition blocking the imposition of some of the worst features of the extreme right’s agenda, not to mention its more ambitious effort to gain unchallenged dominance over the federal government, thereby enabling the right to impose an authoritarian and austere form of capitalism on the American people.

Moreover, since 2008 the Obama administration has advanced many positive reform initiatives which the movement would be foolish not to welcome and support – the latest of which is the administration’s efforts to curb carbon emissions.

Finally, the mass base of the Democratic Party includes major sections of the people’s movement and a substantial layer of progressive elected representatives who, while not completely happy with the centrist positions of its top leaders, are still not ready to bid goodbye and join a new political/electoral party.

In these circumstances, it would be foolhardy to refuse in advance to cooperate with the Democratic Party as a whole or sections of it under any conditions. That would be a prescription for marginalization.

This lesson should not be lost on the Tea Party, which should seek to be to the GOP what the Communists are to the the Democrats.

The Communists understand that they should not abandon the Democrats to pursue a more pure Marxist-Leninist agenda. Using the Democrats may be frustrating, but it magnifies communist  influence  exponentially.  One day it may be opportune to found a new broad based leftist party – but not now.

Likewise the Tea Party should not being abandoning the GOP right now, but should be aggressively and overtly taking it over. The Communist Party, a few thousand strong at most,  can effectively dictate terms to the Democrats in many areas of the country. Nationally, Democrat policy is actually now mostly Communist Party policy.

Learn from the enemy my patriotic friends. Don’t marginalize yourself, or your opponents will surely win.

Use the GOP to advance YOUR agenda. Success is not guaranteed if you do, but failure is guaranteed if you do not.

And there’s a lot more of you, than there is of them.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved