Saw the Comrade with Elie Wiesel at the Holocaust Museum this morning. The Comrade gave a speech. Just a few notes on that.
Firat, he talks about hatred and persecution -- apparently referring to the Jews during the Holocaust. It doesn't seem to strike the Comrade that he uses the same tactics as Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, as he [the Comrade] attacks the rich, or apparently anyone who makes a living and doesn't support marxism.
If you're at all familiar with Nazi propaganda, you kow that the Nazis blamed the runaway inflation and general economic failure on the Jews, who the Nazis claimed owned all the weath and were manipulating prices, trade, etc. The Comrade blames George Bush and Wall Street, and wants to punish anyone who makes a decent living for their success.
The Comrade also has announced that if he can't get any legislation through congress, he will continue to work around it, compelling his minions in the executive branch to enact his stupid and destructive policies without congressional review and approval. Hey, ya know what? Hitler had the SS -- Storm Troopers -- to take care of all that.
You can't shove stuff down peoples' throats, Comrade, and expect them to sit and take it. Your only other option to working with congress is to recruit your own little cadre of Storm Troopers. And apparently he did already try this, with Acorn. Remnants of Acorn live on under different names, and apparently still with federal funding. But the Comrade also has Trumpka and the unions -- UAW, SEIU, etc. etc. These thugs have proven that they aren't above violence.
Most recently, and rahter pathetically, the Comrade has trid to "organize" the useless, non-productive, and the homeless into some kind of political action arm -- the Occupy Wall Street types, the OWies.
Laughable, though, because the OWies are people who apparently can't or won't act to support even themselves. They've only served as litter and detritus on the public thoroughfares.
At the Holocaust Museum, the Comrade also spoke about his tireless efforts to do something about Iran and the fanatic muslim threat to Israel.
Well, the Comrade did what he could to support the "Arab Spring," a movement co-opted by the fantatic Muslim Brotherhood, and he handed the "Atomic Iran" issue over to the U.N. Yup, working tirelessly.
The amazing thing is that the Comrade is so blind and self-serving that he doesn't recognize that he's following the path of just about every other authoritarian dictator in human history.
Either he simply doesn't know any history, doesn't understand it, or is so power-hungry he just ignores it.
The Founding Fathers devised the US Constitution to stop people like the Comrade. So if the Comrade feels constrained by and in conflict with it -- that's a very useful hint that he's way over-reaching on his power trip.
Remember in November, and...
Save the Republic.
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
Monday, April 23, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Taking the capital out of capitalism
It's called "capitalism" for a reason. It operates on glorious excess -- profit.
See, that's when you have a little more than you need and you use that to expand your productivity.
"Capital" is the excess.
Like.... suppose you grow potatoes. You grow, say, 10 acres of potatoes. You keep the potatoes from five acres to feed yourself and family. You sell four acres worth to cover your operating expenses, pay your workers, etc. You keep one acre to use to seed the field next year.
That one acre is your profit. You avoid consuming it and protect it even if it means cutting back a little bit now.
Because that one acre is what you need to plant next year.
That's your future. That ensures that you have a future.
The Comrade first went after the banks -- but destroying the banks was a process already well underway. And Dudd-Fudd legislation didn't help. Those regulations were crafted by Thomas Dodd and Barney Frank, the two apparently most economically illiterate people to ever walk the halls of congress, and have only made it more impossible for banks to lend.
And it makes me laugh when people (mostly democrats and marxists) claim that it was "de-regulation" that caused the housing bubble, bank collapse, etc. The financial industry wasn't "de-regulated" at all. Regulations changed -- they were not eliminated -- and the changes apparently were destructive -- and no doubt done all for our own "good."
At any rate, so the Comrade first nationalized the banks and put them under an even bigger pile of suffocating regulations. And banks tradtionally been a primary source of capital for businesses and producers of all kinds in the US free enterprise system.
So they're been neutalized pretty much.
The disater in housing sucked any capital out of middle class individual would-be or wanna-be investors, or simply people who had a dream.
So what's left? Who has any seed corn -- or capital -- left to jumpstart this economy?
Well, some corporations and Wall Street investors.
How do you wrench the capital from their clammy hands?
TAX THE RICH.
And thus ensure that the USA, flat on its back, will never rise again. The class warfare aspect of "tax the rich" is just an added bonus -- gives the more ignorant and psychotically resentful among the population a reason to vote for socialism.
And the Comrade is plainly and insultingly full of shit with his feeble efforts to attach the names of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan to any of his marxist nihilist schemes. It's just insulting.
Save the Republic.
See, that's when you have a little more than you need and you use that to expand your productivity.
"Capital" is the excess.
Like.... suppose you grow potatoes. You grow, say, 10 acres of potatoes. You keep the potatoes from five acres to feed yourself and family. You sell four acres worth to cover your operating expenses, pay your workers, etc. You keep one acre to use to seed the field next year.
That one acre is your profit. You avoid consuming it and protect it even if it means cutting back a little bit now.
Because that one acre is what you need to plant next year.
That's your future. That ensures that you have a future.
The Comrade first went after the banks -- but destroying the banks was a process already well underway. And Dudd-Fudd legislation didn't help. Those regulations were crafted by Thomas Dodd and Barney Frank, the two apparently most economically illiterate people to ever walk the halls of congress, and have only made it more impossible for banks to lend.
And it makes me laugh when people (mostly democrats and marxists) claim that it was "de-regulation" that caused the housing bubble, bank collapse, etc. The financial industry wasn't "de-regulated" at all. Regulations changed -- they were not eliminated -- and the changes apparently were destructive -- and no doubt done all for our own "good."
At any rate, so the Comrade first nationalized the banks and put them under an even bigger pile of suffocating regulations. And banks tradtionally been a primary source of capital for businesses and producers of all kinds in the US free enterprise system.
So they're been neutalized pretty much.
The disater in housing sucked any capital out of middle class individual would-be or wanna-be investors, or simply people who had a dream.
So what's left? Who has any seed corn -- or capital -- left to jumpstart this economy?
Well, some corporations and Wall Street investors.
How do you wrench the capital from their clammy hands?
TAX THE RICH.
And thus ensure that the USA, flat on its back, will never rise again. The class warfare aspect of "tax the rich" is just an added bonus -- gives the more ignorant and psychotically resentful among the population a reason to vote for socialism.
And the Comrade is plainly and insultingly full of shit with his feeble efforts to attach the names of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan to any of his marxist nihilist schemes. It's just insulting.
Save the Republic.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Social Darwinism vs. historical determinism
See, the Comrade thinks if he tosses around some multisyllabic words he picked up at Harvard, that no one will know what he's talking about. He often disguises his marxist agenda by couching it in vocabularly words that have a positive sound -- or describes it in ways that make it sound initimidating and inevitable. Marx himself did the same thing.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
- Self-inficted wounds that allow you to collect disability?
- A lot of brown-nosing of "the powers that be," who, by the way, control every aspect of the economy?
- Failure/refusal to do anything for your own self, proving that you are the most incompetent and therefore have the greatest "need?"
- Getting a job with a union or for the feds?
- Winning the loltery
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
White House assaults the Supreme Court
Let me tell you, the Comrade puts Hitler to shame in terms of sheer audacity, as well as powerlust.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)