Monthly Archives: October 2010

Two Steps Forward

October 10, 2010

By Jeffrey Folks

Lenin famously described his strategy for communist domination as “one step forward, two steps back.” Of course, by that he did not mean to suggest steps of equal length. The step forward was a lot more like two large steps, and the two steps back were more or less symbolic, designed to diffuse opposition.
Clearly, in the past two years the United States has moved two giant steps in the direction of socialism. We have seen the redistribution of hundreds of billions of dollars, the seizure of major industries by the state, the re-emergence of a hard-core welfare state, the virtual nationalization of healthcare, takeover by regulation of the energy and financial sectors, and much more. This resurgence of state control has been accompanied by the new power of labor unions, environmental lobbyists, tort lawyers, and state bureaucracies.  But now, having reached the limit of what the public will stomach, the Leninists who run the Democratic Party see that it is time for two baby-steps back.
Those steps back are taking the form of a new suggestion of inclusiveness and bipartisanship (even of openness to business interests), talk of repeal of some parts of the healthcare bill, talk of making some parts of the Bush tax cuts permanent (after the election, of course), talk of a balanced budget (pay-go once again). As this list suggests, the step back is nearly all talk-talk in the midst of an election campaign designed to preserve Democratic majorities.
The steps back, in other words, are not an actual retreat. They are merely talk. As soon as the election is over, the strategy of moving forward will resume-this time in the lame-duck session of Congress. There, those who have been voted out of office or retired knowing they were headed for defeat  will attempt further  steps forward, and there will be nothing to restrain them. Card check, cap and trade, tax increases on small business owners, confiscatory death taxes-all of it is being readied for a whirlwind session that resembles a medieval dance of death, which, for the more radical members of Congress, is what  it will in fact be. The dying majority of radical Democrats, celebrating one last time, in an orgiastic lovefest of uncontrolled spending.
Nancy Pelosi, in fact, has already announced her intention to pass huge tax increases in the lame-duck session. This is the meaning of her September 28 announcement of her intention to “extend middle-class tax cuts this year.” That sounds great, unless you make over $200,000, plan to make $200,000 sometime in your lifetime, operate a small business or aspire to, expect to inherit more than a million dollars or a home in Manhattan or Los Angeles or a stock portfolio or retirement account that your parents have put together over a half century. If any of these conditions apply, you can expect to pay a lot more in taxes, thanks to the lame-duck session.
Not only that, as long as Obama is in office, it will be impossible to repeal any part of the liberal lovefest. The steps forward of the past two years, plus the steps planned for the lame-duck session, will remain in place for at least another two years., and the longer this legislation remains in place, the harder it will be to repeal.
That, too, is part of the Leninist strategy. Once an industry is nationalized, or an entitlement extended, it is politically difficult to reverse. Once the public has become accustomed to socialized medicine, paid for at someone else’s expense, as they suppose, it is difficult to return to a private payer system, no matter how superior the care under the private system. So it goes with healthcare, energy, financial services-each takeover engenders its own constituency with its own vested interests, lobbyists, media supporters, and voting blocks.  It becomes easier to leave new programs in place than to repeal them.
In this way government power and tyranny will have taken not two but four steps forward by the time the new Congress is sworn in. And we will have to live with the result for at least two more years.  In light of this, the only conservative objective that makes sense is a root and branch assault on the size of government. Once conservatives control Congress and the White House, hopefully in 2012, nothing less than a total makeover will be acceptable.
The first step, but only the first, will be to take four steps back.  But four steps back is just the beginning. What is required is a return to a pre-FDR sized government-a federal budget of no more than 3%  of GDP. That was the size of government that prevailed during America’s first 150. As hard as it is to fathom, the federal government through much of our history operated quite well on one percent of GDP. President Lincoln governed through the greatest crisis of our history with a White House staff of 25.
Much of that reduction in spending would have to come in cuts to entitlement spending. For generations Americans have been led to believe that entitlements are, as the name suggests, sacred rights that cannot be modified. But as Thomas G. Donlan wrote in the October 4 issue of Barron’s, entitlements “are as much under the purview of Congress and the president as any other bridge to nowhere.” The only reason they have not been controlled, and cut, is that politicians lack the will to cut them.
Return to a 3% federal budget would unleash the same explosive growth that America saw during its first century and a half. Simply by cutting the size of government, we would see prosperity on an unimaginable scale, with jobs and a better standard of living for all. That new direction for America would heal the damage of Obama’s four steps forward and a lot  more-the four steps forward of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. The only way to restore the country to health after the damage of the long march toward socialism is to slash the federal budget, eliminate entire departments of government, and return to the nation’s tradition of small government and citizen democracy.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture and politics.
Advertisements

Frankly Speaking…..

October, 7, 2010 — pasted from nicedeb

In early 2008, after I had started looking into Obama’s background, I remember thinking, “Wow, as soon as the general public hears about this, it’s going to be curtains for this guy. There is no way! He’s unelectable!”

A case in point:  February of 2008,  Cliff Kincaid wrote a stunning piece for Accuracy in Media, Obama’s Communist Mentor.

Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

(For information on Obama’s Marxist activities at Occidental College, see this 6 part interview with former classmate [and former Marxist] Dr. John Drew, conducted on the B-Cast. Obama was already a committed Marxist by the time he started college, according to Drew.)

This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.”

That was the first time most of us in the conservative media had heard of him, although he had been on Trevor Loudon’s radar screen since March 2007, when he wrote   Obama’s Marxist Mentor. Some of us thought that it was a significant story that would have legs. Unfortunately many bloggers shied away from it because they didn’t want to be seen as “red-baiters”. The MSM had no interest in it, whatsoever. Including  Drudge:

Drudge Plays Role of Censor

While Obama’s far-left support seems to be worthy of news and comment, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame has just rejected two paid ads submitted by my group America’s Survival, Inc. about the influence that CPUSA member Davis exerted over a young Obama. The ads featured a photo of Davis and a communist hammer and sickle. They asked, “Who is this man?,” and urged viewers to click to “Meet the mysterious Red Mentor” so they could be directed to two reports on the subject. The ads were “too controversial,” Drudge’s representative told me.

A few lonely voices in the blogosphere pounded the story, though. I mentioned him here, included Davis in my Reds Who Support Obama post, and again Another Commie For Obamie.

At this point, some shill, who claimed to be Mark Davis,  the son of Frank Marshall Davis (on his OFA page), started commenting on my posts under the pseudonym, “Kaleokualoha”.

Kaleokualoha Says:

Every person of integrity will probably agree the slander and libel are wrong, especially when the target is a dead poet who cannot defend himself. Yet this is exactly what is happening. By defaming the character of my father, Frank Marshall Davis, and exaggerating his radical influence on Barack Obama in “Obama’s Communist Mentor” and other AIM reports, bloggers seek to portray Barack Obama as unworthy of becoming President of the United States. While there are legitimate concerns regarding every candidate, their disinformation regarding my father is especially heinous.

They vilify a dead poet who loved the United States, and who was more likely to teach random acts of kindness than disloyalty to young Barack Obama. They deliberately misrepresent the values Obama may have internalized through this relationship, in a transparent attempt to smear Obama’s character. Like weeds in a garden of truth, such disinformation must be removed at their roots. Unfortunately, their Internet brigade is very efficient at spreading this disinformation. Fortunately, their credibility can be destroyed in the eyes of people of integrity, through irrefutable proof of their deliberate misrepresentation.

Some of their most egregious misrepresentations are claims that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” and that he was a “Stalinist” because he “stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact” of 1939, and that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” These unprecedented claims were made AFTER the release of “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” suggesting they were either fabricated or discovered since February 2008. They should be challenged at their source: Cliff Kincaid (editor of Accuracy In Media in his “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising” column) and Bill Steigerwald, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in a 7 June 2008 interview (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html)

That’s only about half of one comment. He wrote several long-winded, obfuscating comments on different posts. Here’s part of another one from, AP Whitewashes the Frank Marshall Davis Story:

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? I don’t think so!

The reason I bring this up is because I just finished reading yet another article in NRO, entitled, “Obama’s Communist Mentor by Paul Kenger, a researcher who, since the early 1990s, has “been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding.”

In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

Kenger has just written a 600 page book, called Dupes, which prominently features Frank Marshall Davis:

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

***

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

The disgusting Stalinist propaganda Davis was spouting in these articles were written in 1950.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

***

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

You can read Kengor’s entire piece at NRO.

Okay, so it turns out, Kaleokualoha, that your dad was indeed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a card carrying,  propagandizing Stalinist Commie.

The question is whether you are  a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, (you sure as hell didn’t dupe me)

I’ve determined the latter.

Gallup’s astonishing numbers and the Lake Superior congressional districts | Washington Examiner

Late yesterday, Gallup came out with new numbers on the generic ballot question—which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives? Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%, about as good a score as Republicans have ever had (and about as bad a score as Democrats have ever had) since Gallup started asking the question in 1942.

These two numbers, if translated into popular votes in the 435 congressional districts, suggest huge gains for Republicans and a Republican House majority the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928. For months, people have been asking me if this year looks like ’94. My response is that the poll numbers suggest it looks like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 seats in a House of 435 seats. Or perhaps somewhat better for Republicans and worse for Democrats. The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.

via Gallup’s astonishing numbers and the Lake Superior congressional districts | Washington Examiner.

Extremist Groups Which Endorsed Today’s One Nation Working Together March | The Virtuous Republic

Extremist Groups Which Endorsed Today’s One Nation Working Together March | The Virtuous Republic.

Video: The One Nation Rally In A Nutshell « Nice Deb

Video: The One Nation Rally In A Nutshell

October, 2, 2010 — nicedeb

Emphasis on the nuts:

via Video: The One Nation Rally In A Nutshell « Nice Deb.

You know… attendees tweeted all afternoon, hey, look at us! This is what diversity looks like, this is what America looks like.

You know what? No, that is not what America looks like.

I don’t care what Newsweak says, we are not “all Socialists, now”. As Kyle-Anne Shiver says in, The Other America Marches on Washington:

Yes, folks, there are two Americas: the authentic America of community builders and the other America, made up of socialist group-thinkers, moochers, and no-accounts, many of them living off government grants or welfare checks.

By the way, Republican candidates who are running against Democrats who endorsed this mess should let the voters in their districts know just who their opponents are allied with:

Doug Ross: 15 Photos From #One Nation Rally You’ll Never See In Legacy Media

Legal Insurrection: A Call For Photos From The “One Nation” Rally In Washington

MUST SEE: Da Tech Guy: Two important comparisons between 9/12 and One Nation

I love that man and his video camera.

More great pix from Marooned In Marin, “One Nation” (Of Commies, Unions, & Other Leftist Extremists)…Trashing The Mall

UGH!

Today was the day that an assortment of Left-wing groups, labor unions, Democrats and the NAACCP rallied on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to “counter” the genuine grassroots Tea Party movement.

***

Basically, it was a Grievance Fest of different Leftist organizations for this cause or that cause. It was also an opportunity to bash the “teabaggers” (that homosexual slur was on a lot of signs), as well as promote Communism and socialism. In other words, the most extreme element of the Left, far removed from the American mainstream.