Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

VENEZUELA: What Socialists WON’T Learn, But What Americans CAN

“An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” Orlando A. — Battista

Socialists don’t care what communism is supposed to mean. Socialists only care about communism’s promises. The socialist fantasy is wildly different depending on which follower you ask. Those fantasies are not real. Sensible people are not shocked when socialism/communism fails again. What should shock us is that socialists in the United States and elsewhere refuse to see socialism’s failures. It is time we asked why.

Poor people in Venezuela supported communism because it promised them food, money, and land. Of course the all-powerful government promised these things for free. In Venezuela today, the poor are starving and poor children are dying in hospitals without medicine or clean sheets. The poor are rioting for food. Supermarkets have become flashpoints in Venezuela, which is now one of the world’s most violent countries. No sensible person is surprised.

Never underestimate the power of a good fantasy.
However, the elites in the US still say we should swallow another dose of big government. Facts don’t matter when you have a good lie to sell, and the fantastic lie says you get something for nothing. Like most fantasies, communism never delivers what it promised. In fact, we never saw streams of poor people building makeshift rafts to escape to Venezuela, to Cuba, or to North Korea. Communism impoverished almost everyone… except the rich elites.

Venezuela has been in decay for years. Like leftists in the United States today, why were the poor in Venezuela so infatuated with the political system that kills them? They are in the streets today, but the poor were reluctant to let go of communism because the government wiped out all alternatives. Today, the poor are destitute and desperate to feed themselves and their families, but they can’t start a farm of their own. They can’t start a new business. The government runs the farms, the markets, and the gas stations. The vast majority of Venezuelans want a new government, but they are disarmed and powerless. Some Venezuelans are now shooting their countrymen because their communist leaders tell them to. There are always those who are eager to follow orders to kill. They feel superior because they kill.

The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
The rich elites never believed that big government could create wealth. The powerful elites knew that totalitarian regimes soon run out of other people’s money. This doesn’t matter to the rich elites, because they were never after money. Not in Venezuela, and not in the US.

No, they wanted something more. The elites ached for communism because it promised them power. Here is where communism succeeded. The poor merely wanted communism because it promised them money. The elites want communism because they intend to control the state. And us.

As communism crumbles, the elites are reluctant to let go of communism. The elites have already siphoned off enough wealth for a hundred lifetimes. María Gabriela, the daughter of the dead dictator Hugo Chavez, is Venezuela’s richest woman. She stole 4.2 billion dollars through political kickback schemes. The political elites in Venezuela, just like the elites in the US, remain green with envy.

The poor hang on to communism hoping for one last meal from the government store.
The rich hang on to communism hoping for one last theft from the government treasury.

So why does the fantasy of big government persist? Dictatorships can have a long and bloody slide into oblivion. The progress of liberty is not sure and steady. Look at the drawn out bleeding history of North Korea and Cuba. These dictatorships brutally oppress their own people for generations while, at the same time, they cry for aid from the UN.

Don’t look to the news media to show the ugly face of communism. Most reporters in Venezuela gave up the fantasy of a free press long ago. At first, they supported “fairness regulations” to drive out their competition. Now, the media’s very existence depends on appeasing government bureaucrats. The power to regulate is the power to control. The tamed press are the last ones who will show the stinking corpse of communism.

Don’t look to Western academics. They are in love with their socialist fantasy despite the millions of bodies laid at the temple of communism. Their intellectual pride tells them that they could make communism work. Even while it fails before their very eyes. Again. These academics are the “mainstream.” They are no longer interested in the truth.

Don’t look to businessmen. Wealthy businessmen and women left Venezuela long ago. Everyone who could have produced wealth has left. The businesses that could have sustained the economy have been nationalized.

Don’t look to the elites in other countries. Don’t expect Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jimmy Carter to renounce their longstanding support of communism. Those politicians praised the murdering dictator Hugo Chavez. There is too much wealth to loot here in the US for leftist elites to criticize their fantasy in public. Celebrities like Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Naomi Campbell and Danny Glover were chummy with the dictator Hugo Chavez. They live in a fantasy world where they pretend that communism works. Communism remains popular with the New York Times. Together, they would rather pretend the starvation we see in communist countries today never happened.

Communism is a dignified mask stretched over the face of death. See through the mask. Many people will lie to you, so you must see the truth for yourself.

Image: Excerpted from: By Daga95 – http://www.flickr.com/photos/dagastream/13117498833/, Attribution, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31577938

Share if you’re hoping Americans will learn some valuable lessons from Socialism’s

A Parallel Universe Without Progressives 

An astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary at the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than thirteen billion years ago.

Then there is always the possible parallel universe of dark matter. As researchers learn more about dark matter’s complexities, it seems possible that our galaxy lives on top of a shadow galaxy without us even knowing it.

I have often heard it said the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere.  Taking that as a starting point for a flight of fancy, let’s imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.

We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment.  Therefore we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.

We wouldn’t have had the 17th amendment and the senators would still be selected by the State legislators.  This was one of the checks and balances the Founders embedded in the original Constitution to protect the federal nature of the Federal Government.  The House represents the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the States.

We wouldn’t have had The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System, and America’s representative of the international banking cartel.  Without the Fed to mismanage the money supply there would never have been the banking crisis of the early 1930s.  This is crisis that set the stage for the re-boot of America’s free economy as a centrally-planned command and control machine used to transform every sector of American life.

We wouldn’t have had Woodrow Wilson to take us into the War to End all Wars that ended up building up the three largest empires in the world and setting the stage of WWII.

We wouldn’t have had FDR to impose fascist economic forms on America extending what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.

We wouldn’t have had JFK to lose his nerve in 1961.  Thus the Castro brothers and their murderous savagery would have fallen with the successful Bay of Pigs invasion.

We wouldn’t have had LBJ to build a Great Society safety net that has become a hammock entrapping uncounted millions and generations in the snare of dependency.

We wouldn’t have had BHO to fundamentally transform America into a falling empire and a soon to be third world backwater.

And we wouldn’t have HRC campaigning for president as Mrs. Santa Clause promising to give everyone who doesn’t work everything they want while she seeks to take the Second Amendment from the rest of us.

Think about this; look at how our government treats citizens now as taxing units or dependent voting units and we are armed to the teeth.  Imagine how they will treat us once we are disarmed.  Many believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.

Just imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.  It’s easy if you try.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Fidel Castro Issues Another Insult to Obama

300x200_communism
Barack Obama’s disgraceful visit to the island prison known as Cuba, where he took in a baseball game with mass murderer Raul Castro and did the wave while Brussels burned, couldn’t possibly get more embarrassing.

But what if it could?

Fidel Castro rebuked President Obama in a lengthy diatribe Monday just days after his historic visit to Cuba.

The former Cuban revolutionary leader published a letter in state-controlled media titled “Brother Obama,” in which he recalled the U.S.’ past efforts to overthrow his government.

“We do not need the empire to give us anything,” Castro wrote.
Make no mistake- the United States could conquer Cuba and liberate its people with very little effort. It’s one thing that we let this communist backwater prison nation exist 90 miles off our shores. It’s an entirely different thing when an American president who is supposed to serve as the advocate for human liberty around the globe goes there, kisses the ring, and then gets his finger bit off by a tin pot coward like Castro. Obama’s tour has been a weeklong repudiation of the Monroe Doctrine. We can’t wait to see him go.

– See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/castro-issues-final-insult-to-obama#sthash.m0tknIBz.dpuf

THE COMMUNIST FACE OF “IMMIGRANT RIGHTS”

df_1
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) reacted with elation to the Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it will soon hear the case of Texas v. United States, to determine the fate of President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” (DAPA). That executive action, which Obama issued in November 2014 by circumventing Congress and usurping its lawmaking authority, gave millions of illegal immigrants temporary legal status, work permits, eligibility for certain publicly funded benefits, and protection from deportation.

It’s not at all surprising that Gutierrez avidly supports DAPA. Like all dutiful socialists, he has long viewed the heavy hand of centralized government as the indispensable linchpin of civil society. When he launched his political career as a Chicago alderman in the 1980s, Gutierrez was a member of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party. Throughout his 23 years in the House of Representatives, he has been a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. And his political campaigns have drawn significant support from the Democratic Socialists of America.

In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez developed close ties to the New Party in Chicago. The goal of this socialist political entity was to endorse and elect far-left public officials—usually Democrats—as a means of moving the Democratic Party ever further to the left, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist “third party.” The New Party’s most noteworthy member at that time was none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

In 1999 Gutierrez collaborated with fellow Progressive Caucus members to pressure President Bill Clinton to free 16 convicted terrorists belonging to the FALN, a Marxist-Leninist paramilitary organization that had carried out 146 bombings during a 25-year period. Indeed, Gutierrez was the FALN’s chief spokesman and advocate during the campaign to release its incarcerated members.

During his years in Congress, Gutierrez has proudly cultivated a reputation as the Democratic Party’s leading voice on immigration issues, and has been at the forefront of the effort to pass comprehensive reform legislation. In 2001 he became the first elected official to sponsor a version of the DREAM Act—designed to create a pathway-to-citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States as minors. Eight years later, he co-sponsored a bill to pave such a path for virtually all illegal immigrants.

In 2010 Gutierrez threatened to oppose Obamacare because it included provisions that would prohibit illegals from purchasing health insurance through government-run exchanges. He ultimately decided to back the legislation, however, because he was confident that Congress would soon “move forward on a comprehensive immigration reform package.” “I have only one loyalty,” Gutierrez emphasized later that year, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”

On August 1, 2014—in the midst of a sudden, massive influx across America’s southern border by more than 50,000 unaccompanied, illegal-immigrant minors hailing from Central America—Gutierrez asserted that conservatives who advocated closing the border to these newcomers were essentially obsessed with finding ways to “get meaner [and] nastier with immigrants.” In a press conference that same day, Gutierrez accused Republicans of: having reached the “least common denominator of hatefulness”; behaving “as though they despise and hate all of our [Hispanic immigrant] children”; permitting “the loudest, meanest, most vile voices” to dominate their party; and viewing Hispanic immigrants as “a vile, repugnant community.”

While speaking to the City Club of Chicago in early March 2015, Gutierrez boasted that the Windy City’s authorities were routinely defying federal immigration law, and that illegal immigrant students graduating from Chicago high schools were now able to attend their first two years of college “for free.”

Ain’t it nice to find a pack of servile minions … er, um … taxpayers … to foot the bill for all your “free” stuff?

In July 2015, Gutierrez spoke publicly about a recent incident where an illegal alien from Mexico had murdered a young San Francisco woman named Kate Steinle. Though the perpetrator already had seven felony convictions and five deportations (to Mexico) on his record, he nevertheless had been able to evade immigration authorities by settling in San Francisco—the city in which he chose to live precisely because of its “sanctuary” policies. Angered by conservatives and Republicans who cited Steinle’s murder as evidence of the need for stricter enforcement of immigration laws, Gutierrez said: “Every time a little thing like this happens, they use the most extreme example to say it [sanctuary policies] must be eliminated.”

Last November, Gutierrez went to the floor of the House to denounce Republicans who were calling for America to deny admittance to anyone from war-torn, terrorism-ravaged Syria—in light of the possibility that Islamic State terrorists might try to enter the U.S. by posing as refugees. Gutierrez described the Republican position as “despicable and cowardly and precisely the kind of reaction ISIS wanted.” “The free people of the world,” he groaned, “are turning their backs on people seeking safety and freedom. When we sent Jews back to Germany and when we sent Japanese to internment camps, we regretted it and we’ll regret this as well…. It is not the time to lose sight of ourselves and say America is too weak, America cannot handle 20,000 or 200,000 refugees fleeing for their lives.”

Luis Gutierrez has it all figured out: In his view, America is a fundamentally racist nation that treats nonwhite immigrants with contempt and disrespect, and any effort to enforce existing immigration law is, by definition, a reflection of that racism.

In other words, Luis Gutierrez is a very sick, delusional demagogue whose agenda is, quite literally, to destroy the American society that he utterly despises—and then remake it in accordance with his own racialist and socialist obsessions. Or to put it more succinctly, Luis Gutierrez is a proud Communist.

Feminism, Communism and the Destruction of the Nuclear Family

cultural-marxism-destruction

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

The above statement is listed in the 45 goals of the communist party to take over the United States. As mentioned before, these goals were entered into the congressional record in 1963, after it was revealed that there was extensive communist infiltration into our government. Today, many sources are claiming that this list is a hoax; however, the results of such goals are self-evident in our society, and one area where this is particularly true; is the nuclear family. Our families have literally been destroyed and for many reasons. Today, it is virtually impossible for the average family to raise their children without both parents working, providing the family has two parents. Divorce runs rampant in our society as nearly forty one percent of first marriages are likely to end.[2] It should also be noted that marriage itself is in a decline, less people are getting married due to several factors such as poor economic prospects and a society that is less involved in religious institutions[3]. Religion has always been one of the strongest advocates for marriage, so, the more successful the attempts to discredit religion, the more successful the attempts to break up families will be. According to Pew Research Center[4], 26 percent of today’s younger people, ages 18-32 are likely to tie the knot, compared to sixty five percent in the 1960’s, forty eight percent in the baby boomer generation, and thirty six percent among the so called generation x crowd.

These numbers reflect not only changes in marriage rates, but an overall shift in American values. The nuclear family once held the bedrock of society together as it was understood that this was the most basic unit of self-governance, which was the fundamental principle essential for liberty in the United States. With strong marriages headed by mothers and fathers, family units were solely responsible for the upbringing and education of children. This was based on the idea that men and women had equal but separate roles to play in raising and nurturing families, and this represented the true meaning of freedom to our founding fathers.[5] In fact, the concept driving marriage was based on a collective, as opposed to an, “individualistic” approach to forming society.

Coverture represents the idea that married couples form a community of interest that the married couple freely joins and that protects all members of the family better than alternatives can. It reflects equality because it is freely chosen by men and women; it protects consent because the parties think the community of love and interest protects their lives, liberty, and property. Such laws show that marriage as a union is to be exclusive and, except in extreme cases, permanent.[6]

Today, the idea of equality has drastically changed and this is having drastic effects on the family structure as well as the well being of children. The studies proving that children need both a mother and a father are numerous[7] as are the studies showing the disadvantages that growing up in single parent homes have on children. For instance, children in two parent homes are more likely to live longer healthier lives, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, are less likely to live in poverty, are less likely to get into trouble with the law, less likely to do drugs, less likely to be sexually active and are more likely to get married and raise healthy families.[8] Keeping this knowledge in mind, it is not hard to draw correlations between the declining marriage rates to the state of society today, with the high crime rates, poor academic performance in many schools and over all disrespect for society that seems to run rampant among many younger people.

The American left seems to have an entire different vision of America’s traditional family structure. To them, the family is an oppressive institution of patriarchal dominance. One where the women are oppressed and forced in a world where she is reduced to nothing more than a house keeper doing the work that is needed to be done by everyone else. She is prohibited from pursuing her own dreams as she spends the day washing clothes, vacuuming, cooking for her husband and tending to the children’s needs. The idea that this is an arrangement freely agreed upon, and that the work being done is pursued in the best interest of children is nonexistent to the left as they go about the work of discrediting the family as an institution. Where did these ideas come from? How did a nation that once espoused the traditions of the nuclear family, a nation that understood its importance in securing the blessings of liberty, become one of declining marriages and less respectful of the values that traditional family life once taught? Obviously there is communist influence here, but more notably, it is the work of Betty Friedan and her creation of the feminist movement.

Author of the book, “The Feminist Mystique,”[9] Friedan lays the ground work for what would become the modern feminist movement where women demand total equality with men and the idea that men and women play separate but equal roles in raising children is all but dead. In fact, the idea of motherhood itself has become a form of oppression to modern feminists as the idea of taking responsibility not only for personal actions, but for the life of another has become the underlying theme in today’s abortion rights movement. The Feminist perspective has not only destroyed the traditional family, it has contributed to over downfall of society as feminists generally blame men for all of the world’s problems while seeking to dethrone them from all legitimate seats of power. In fact, many may argue that there is an overall effort to feminize men because it is believed that the hormone testosterone is responsible for much of what the feminists would claim is wrong with the world. The very first paragraph in chapter one of Friedan’s book says it all.

Freidan writes-
The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night- she was afraid to ask of herself the silent question—”Is this all?” [10]
In that paragraph alone Friedan attempts to portray the life of an American housewife as an oppressed victim forced into a life of servitude. She goes on to give the impression that all housewives in America feel the same as they desire to go out and become politicians, scientists, businesswomen and live lives free from the bondage of motherhood, and serving the men that dominate them. Remember, to our founding fathers marriage represented the entering of an agreed upon contract where it was understood that men and women both brought to the table qualities and attributes that were essential to the raising of children and creating successful, responsible communities. This represented God’s design as it is difficult to argue that men and women are indeed created differently. Women are obviously designed to give birth and many would argue that they bring to the table a more delicate, loving touch to raising children then men do. On the other hand, men seem to have the quality of bringing discipline and teaching the hard learned lessons in life. This is why the nuclear family has been traditionally viewed in American society as the bed rock of self governance; men and women entering into a mutually agreed upon contract carrying out the work that was once believed to be Gods original intent for man. When men and women marry, bringing together their separate but equal abilities, they become one unit in the eyes of God, they become one flesh. The Feminist movement has destroyed this concept.

Today, modern feminists carry out the work of Friedan by insisting that society still revolves around the male and his never ending list of privileges. In nearly all aspects of our culture you can find a group of feminists rallying around a cause, blaming the man for some, misperceived inequality, or some form of injustice committed against women simply because of their genitalia. One of the tactics of the communist left is to continually insist that the “right wing” is waging a war on women, trying to keep them down, barefoot and pregnant, and that it is our traditional view of the agreed upon contract of marriage that is oppressing them. The truth however, is the exact opposite. So called right wing conservatives appreciate women for the qualities they bring to the table, qualities in many cases, especially when it comes to caring for children, men often lack. Men cherish women and think they are deserving of special treatment. It is the never ending, impossible quest of total equality that is the real oppressor of women and equal rights. Women are not designed like men, plain and simple. By ignoring this one fact, that there are simply different attributes that men and women were designed with, the left is forcing women as a collective group, into a role that the majority of them may very well fall short on. Society would be much better off if men were allowed to be men and women were allowed to be women. The true equality of the sexes would shine through as everyone is operating in the so called “gender roles” they were assigned.

To properly understand the feminist view, and the idea that gender is a social construct as opposed to a deliberate design created by God, it must be understood that feminists are operating from a Marxist, or Communist point of view. They simply do not believe in God, or rather; they may view God as the Patriarchal being that represents the oppression they claim to be fighting against. After all, feminism seems to be going about the work of totally remaking society in their image. They argue that gender is a social construct, separate from the fact that men and women are biologically different, and that this social construct was created to justify the subjugation of women. Freya Brown writes in her essay, “On the Social Construction of Sex,”[11] that the idea of sex being a biological difference is patriarchal in nature and in order to break from this oppressive mindset a Marxist approach is needed.

At the end of the day, the sex/gender dichotomy is part of patriarchal ideology, and it is an idea that we need to break with in favor of a theory which is revolutionary and Marxist in character. The purpose of the present article is to provide an initial counter to the idea that sex assignment is “just biology.” A properly Marxist theory of sex will be more thoroughly explored in part two. Freya Brown-“On the Social Construction of Sex”

In today’s world the idea of gender being a social construct is being pushed to its ultimate limits. In the end, this is the problem when it comes to gender based equality and not the solution. The results of this backwards ideology are creating a world where sickness in the name of equality is the rule. For example, in many parts of the country the idea of having separate bathrooms for men and women is starting to be viewed from this “gender is a social construct” theory. For example, San Francisco elementary schools are forcing boys and girls to use the same bathroom because at that age, claims the school district, children choose to be transgender, or rather, tomboys.[12] As of 2013, the entire state of California adopted laws that allow children to use bathrooms and locker rooms not based on their biological sex, but rather the sex they choose to identify with.[13] Furthermore, the law allows both boys and girls to join sports teams not based on sex, but the sex they decide to feel like. How does this idea promote true freedom and not represent oppression? A young girl that decides she ought to be able to play football on the boys team is not only setting herself up for disappointment if they are unable to perform to the standard, she is also creating the conditions where boys will be unable to live up to their fullest potential because a drop in standards will be required in order for the girl who claims to feel like a boy to be able to play on an equal footing. This is oppression of the highest order if you think about it. The same is true if a boy decides to feel like a girl and uses the girl’s restroom. Just because this is now the law it does not mean that girls will automatically feel comfortable with boys invading their space and being present while they shower, change clothes and use the bathroom. This represents nothing but a sick, twisted remaking of society in the image of people who hold an anti-God view of the world. This is the same mentality affecting our military as well. As the debate heats up on whether women should be able to join combat units, no one is stopping to consider the real affects this may have on society. While it is certainly true that there are women out there who may very well be capable of performing to the same standards of men, the majority of women cannot, and to allow all women to serve in combat roles for the sake of achieving “total equality” threatens to lessen standards of performance while putting lives in danger. For instance, an article published by the website Western Journalism by female marine Jude Eden[14] highlights some of the problems of believing that women are just as capable of men serving in the combat zone. She highlights facts such as women losing half of their strength before a menstrual cycle, making them virtually incapable of enduring the rigors of combat that men are capable of dealing with. She also highlights a fact that the left, believing in Darwinism as they do, should understand very well. Once you put men and women together there is going to be sex. She mentioned the fact that once the U.S. Navy allowed women to serve on ships, problems of pregnancy, relationships, and unwanted sexual advances became prevalent, detracting from the mission of defending the nation. These are but a few examples; however, it should be noted that because men generally view women as needing protecting, it is highly likely that men would put their own lives in danger, abandoning the mission to protect women.
To believe that equality is something that needs to be forced by government as opposed to something that is already an inherent quality given by God only serves to further oppress women, not liberate them. Whether the left likes it or not, men and women are created different, with different purposes. Nothing will change the fact that biologically women are created to give birth, that is the purpose of the design. The left, through their anti-God, Marxist view will never be able to change that, and by attempting to do so they are serving to destroy the family structure as women are being made to feel that there is something more fulfilling than raising responsible, compassionate children ready to contribute to society. It is highly likely, looking at the work of Freidan and her political leanings that this is all being done on purpose with the deliberate intent of destroying the family. This isn’t to say that women shouldn’t be able to pursue careers; however, instead of teaching women how oppressed they are perhaps they should look at the effects children suffer when both men and women decide that careers are more important.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/feminism-communism-and-the-destruction-of-the-nuclear-family/#XwLbuAtsT1aq78IK.99

Can You Believe This? – Dems propose federal diaper subsidies

730x420-5fa0e1e10c594f8286f40c53756725ed

by Pete Kyasperowicz
Twenty House Democrats have proposed legislation that would create a federal subsidy to help low-income families buy diapers.

Sponsors of the bill say that one out of every three families “struggle to provide diapers for their children.”

Under current law, the federal food stamp program, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, can’t be used to buy diapers. Sponsors of the bill also say the federal welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, isn’t enough to cover diapers and other expenses.

“Families should not have to decide between diapers, food, or rent,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the lead sponsor of the bill. “With millions of families struggling to provide diapers for their children, it’s time we recognize that families are being forced to make tough decisions that affect their child’s health.”
The bill would create a “demonstration project” to let states provide diapers or diaper subsidies to low-income families. To make that change, it would amend the Social Security Act.

One of the bill’s cosponsors, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., introduced a similar bill in 2011 that would have allowed federal block grants to states to be used to fund diaper purchases for “eligible children.” That bill would have amended the Head Start Act, a law aimed at boosting school readiness among low-income children.

let’s not discriminate – Diapers for Everyone.

FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family – Yes it Smells

dcb49aebc87894eb6ac9c3a9856afa4c
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.

Tracing the Marxist Roots of the Assault on the Family

by Jerry Newcomb
Screen-Shot-2015-06-17-at-9.39.15-PM-400x340
Aristotle once said, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

Is there a link to Karl Marx and his own abysmal failure as a family man and the all-out assault on the traditional family today?

Yes, says New York Times bestselling author, Dr. Paul Kengor, in his brand new book called Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.

If you saw Dinesh D’Souza’s first movie on Obama, then you have seen a cameo of Paul Kengor. He was discussing his book The Communist, which documents that President Obama as a young man was mentored by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA.

Frank Marshall Davis was the “Frank” Obama mentions 22 times in his own memoir, Dreams of My Father. He started mentoring young Barack when the future president was nine years old. Davis also happened to be Communist Party USA member #47544.

None of this means that everyone currently supporting same-sex marriage or other alternatives to the traditional family, including the president, are communists. Of course not. But there is an historic link, and it ought to be known.

I spoke recently with Paul Kengor on my radio show, and he said that he wrote the book because he was looking for a book like it and couldn’t find one. So he decided to write it.

Kengor said on my radio show:

I read People’s World, the successor to the Daily Worker, every day. To see them suddenly so gung ho, celebrating LGBT pride month, constantly writing articles in support of gay marriage…to see even Castro’s Cuba, where they used to throw gays in prison, to see them holding gay pride marches, signing onto gay marriage—I realized all of this makes sense when you see the left’s 200 year effort to abolish the family, to redefine marriage, and to take down the natural, traditional, biblical marriage.
The father of Communism, Karl Marx (1818-1883), dared to teach the world how to conduct their financial affairs, but he couldn’t run his own household and keep food on the table. He had a disastrous family life—both in his family of origin and then in his marriage. He lived in squalor as a leech off of his writing partner, Frederick Engels, who had inherited money.

Kengor notes that “Four of Marx’s six children died before he did, and at least two of the daughters committed suicide, one of them reportedly in a suicide pact with her husband—a son-in-law that Marx ridiculed.”

Kengor says this of the father of Communism’s marriage:

…in 1862 Marx wrote a letter to Engels noting that every day his wife expressed a wish to die; such was her misery. In another letter to Engels during one of Marx’s many financial crises, Marx asserted to his partner, ‘Blessed is he who has no family.’
Kengor told me, “Engels never got married. He refused to marry these poor women, his mistresses, who were begging him to marry them.”

One of the tenets of the classic book Marx wrote with Engels in 1848, The Communist Manifesto, states: “Abolition of the Family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”

Kengor notes how the results were devastating to the traditional family in the heyday of the Soviet Union, where Marxism was fully tried and found wanting. Divorce was rampant. Abortion was so common that for every live birth, there were about three abortions. Yet for decades, the USSR represented the future to many progressives from the West.

Many liberals in America bought into the Marxist notion that the traditional family was oppressive by nature. Kate Millett, a Columbia grad, and the author of the popular Sexual Politics, held a meeting with fellow liberals where they declared their goal to “destroy the family” in order to “destroy the American Patriarch.”

How would they do this? The answer was “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!”

Millett made the cover of Time (8/31/70) as “the Mao Tse-Tung of Women’s Liberation.” Kengor quotes Millett’s sister, years later, on the impact of this Marxist feminist pioneer: “I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered…”

Takedown helps connect some crucial dots in this long struggle against God’s design for the family.

Kengor notes that even if the Supreme Court “re-defines” marriage for all Americans, signing on to gay marriage for the whole country, they will still be defying (to paraphrase Jefferson) the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/06/17/1500-wed-3pm-et-tracing-the-marxist-roots-of-the-assault-on-the-family/

Occupy Wall Street Mainstreams Communism

by Matthew Vadium

occupy
occupyThough many have declared the Occupy Wall Street movement a failure, it won a major propaganda victory when it forced the 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.

Communist Bill de Blasio and the food fascists

deblasio042015-800x500
If Mayor Bill de Blasio gets his way, dining out in New York is about to get a whole lot more informative. The heir to Michael Bloomberg’s New York nanny crown is considering an ordinance that would require certain restaurants to identify with a special logo any menu items that contain 2,300 mg (about a teaspoon) of sodium. Sorry, kids. It’s just that you’re too stupid to order for yourselves. Let Bill handle it.

Last time I was in the city, I visited Chinatown to tuck into the kind of meal that exists only in China and lower Manhattan restaurants with ducks hanging in the windows. The food was as delicious as I expected, no doubt thanks to culinary artistry and enough sodium to shrivel up de Blasio like a garden slug.

Here’s the thing: I knew it going in. Even the dullest victim of teachers’ unions and Common Core has to know that dining where there are bottles of soy sauce on every table is probably not ideal for people with high blood pressure. And if they’re not, I’m quite sure de Blasio’s frowny-face stickers won’t dissuade them. I would be willing to go so far as to say that even if de Blasio personally showed up in jodhpurs and jackboots to deliver some mind-numbing lecture about the evils of dim sum, the food will get a lot more attention than the mayor.

I’m a big boy. I’m well aware that my diet is far from the template for nutritious living. When I go out for a meal, I’m making a conscious choice to allow someone else to provide me with delicious, high-sodium food. From my belly’s perspective, it’s all good. From de Blasio’s perspective, it’s a plate full of steaming hot death; and it’s his job to protect me from it.

It also sells. In fact, restaurants that cater specifically to the low-sodium set are few and far between, whether in the Big Apple or the Big Easy. That’s hardly a criticism. Restaurants that offer food people are actually willing to pay for do well in America. And clearly, Americans prefer their food long on ingredients like sodium, or high-fructose corn syrup, or whatever else might bring out de Blasio’s inner super nanny.

I suppose we could credit guys like de Blasio for caring about us, except that guys like de Blasio don’t actually care about us. Just like any self-important socialist, de Blasio isn’t motivated by altruism; he’s motivated by power. Whenever government gets involved in any sort of “control,” people end up getting controlled, a situation that perpetuates the government and control at the expense of the people. Call it “portion control,” or “gun control,” it’s the “control” part that matters.

Nanny-staters like de Blasio operate in essentially the same manner as a mafia crime family. Consider: Tobacco is at least as bad for you as a bacon cheeseburger. The government allows the sale, purchase and use of tobacco, even though it spends an enormous amount of its time and your money trying to convince you to kick the coffin nails. In order to extend control over the tobacco industry, government has hiked taxes on tobacco into the stratosphere. But it didn’t outlaw it because the tobacco industry produces billions of dollars a year — some of which ends up in the pockets of lobbyists and lawyers and, therefore, in legislators’ campaign funds. The smoke Nazis didn’t want to stub out tobacco; they wanted a piece of the action. The Five Families would be proud. And government can do things even Lucky Luciano could only dream of. When the mob wants its cut, it sends a big guy with no neck and he “convinces” you. When the government wants a cut, it sends big guys with guns and badges.

Of course, de Blasio’s food fascism won’t work. His ideological allies tried the same thing with booze, even amending the Constitution to warn us about the demon rum. And that worked out super well, if you don’t count all the killing. The so-called “war on drugs” has cost billions of dollars, and victory is hardly on the horizon. And, of course, so-called “gun control” has been a rousing success — especially from the perspective of the criminals who have turned so-called “gun-free” zones into shooting galleries.

One could argue that the New York State war on cigarettes led to the death of Eric Garner. Insane taxes on legal products cause black-market Camel-smugglers. Black-market Camel-smugglers lead to choke holds. It’s not necessarily the only theory, but it fits the facts better than so-called “global warming” — another example of government shifting from “pushy” to “threatening” over something it’s absolutely sure we’re too stupid to understand.

Given enough leeway, liberals like de Blasio would eventually extend government regulation into every aspect of private life — the ultimate dream of all leftists. Everything to which they object would be either controlled or banned outright. The government would control what you eat, drink, watch, say and even think. De Blasio’s America sounds a lot like East Germany, circa 1979; and we all remember what a party that was.

–Ben Crystal