RSS

Category Archives: Class Warfare

The Deceit Of The New Deal – What We MUST Learn From The Past

Several years ago a friend recommended that I read Witness, Whittaker Chambers’ account of his life as a member of the Communist Party, his subsequent break with the Communist Party, and his part as a key witness in the Alger Hiss Trial in 1949 and 1950. First published in 1952, just two years after the Hiss Trial, the book is a fascinating 799 pages and provides a glimpse into American history that has been entirely rewritten by the liberal progressive agenda.

This book should be required study in every high school in America for the perspective that it offers on the New Deal, widely acclaimed as the most benevolent presidential accomplishment in American history.

Mr. Chambers details a meeting at the home of Assistant Secretary of State, Adolf Berle in 1939 where he informed Berle of the Communist activities taking place within the U.S. Government. Berle took the information to President Franklin Roosevelt immediately, and was “told … to ‘go jump in the lake’”

Chambers, W. Witness. Chapter 10, part X, page 470 Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

The failure of the meeting with Berle caused Chambers to take a hard look at the New Deal. The following excerpt verified what I have long believed about the New Deal and those who supported it then and support it now – including Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is a passage that I have read through many times, especially as I see American citizens who seem to be intent on embracing an all encompassing government with the power to control every aspect of their lives in exchange for a the moral equivalent of a few trinkets.

I urge you to read the following passage and if you have not already done so, obtain a copy of Witness for yourself and others. Our challenge today is not a new one, merely new players on the same stage; it is up to us to recognize the opposition and their revolutionary intent. Whether it be the Marxists, Socialists, Communists, or radical Islamists including the Muslim Brotherhood, we must stand ready to speak up for what is right and ensure that these outliers can never establish a permanent foothold in the United States of America.

Now, Mr. Chambers:

It is surprising how little I knew about the New Deal, although it had been all around me during my years in Washington. But all the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends. I myself thought of the New Deal as a reform movement that, in social and labor legislation, was belatedly bringing the United States abreast of Britain or Scandinavia.

I had noticed it obvious features – its coalition of divergent interests, some of them diametrically opposed to the others, its divided counsels, its makeshift strategy, its permanently shifting executive personnel whose sole consistency seemed to be that the more it changed, the more it remained the most incongruously headed hybrid since the hydra. Now with a curiosity newborn of Berle, I saw how misleading those surface manifestations were, and tactically how advantageous, for they concealed the inner drift of this great movement. That drift was prevailingly toward socialism, though the mass of those who, in part directed, in part were carried along by it, sincerely supposed that they were liberals.

I saw that the New Deal was only superficially a reform movement. I had to acknowledge the truth of what it’s more forthright protagonists, sometimes unwarily, sometimes defiantly, averred: the New Deal was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform from within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and above all, the power relationships within the nation. It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution. It was only of incidental interest that the revolution was not complete, that it was made not by tanks and machine guns, but by acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, or that many of the revolutionists did not know what they were or denied it. But revolution is always an affair of force, whatever forms the force disguises itself in. Whether the revolutionists prefer to call themselves Fabians, who seek power by the inevitability of gradualism, or Bolsheviks, who seek power by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle is for power.

Now I thought I understood much better something that in the past had vaguely nibbled at my mind, but never nibbled to a conclusion – namely, how it happened that so many concealed Communists were clustered in Government, and how it was possible for them to operate so freely with so little fear of detection. For as between revolutionists who only half know what they are doing and revolutionists who know exactly what they are doing the latter are in a superb maneuvering position. At the basic point of the revolution – the shift of power from business to government – the two kinds of revolutionists were at one; and they shared many other views and hopes. Thus men who sincerely abhorred the word Communism, in the pursuit of common ends found that they were unable to distinguish Communists from themselves, except that it was just the Communists who were likely to be the most forthright and most dedicated to the common cause. This political color blindness was all the more dogged because it was completely honest. For men who could not see that what they firmly believed was liberalism added up to socialism could scarcely  be expected to see what added up to Communism. Any charge of Communism enraged them precisely because they could not grasp the difference between themselves and those against whom it was made. Conscious of their own political innocence, they suspected that it was merely mischievous, and was aimed, from motives of political malice, at themselves. But as the struggle was really for revolutionary power, which in our age is always a struggle for control of the masses, that was the point at which they always betrayed their real character, for they reacted not like liberals, but with the fierceness of revolutionists whenever that power was at issue.

I believed that the Communists were much more firmly embedded in Government than I had supposed, and that any attempt to disclose or dislodge them was enormously complicated by the political situation in which they were parasitic. Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. If only for the sake of their public health record, the liberals, to protect their power, must seek as long as possible to conceal from themselves and everybody else the fact that the Government had been Communist-penetrated. Unlike the liberals, the Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: “Witch hunt!” for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense. I felt too, that a persistent effort by any man to expose the Communists in Government was much less likely to lead to their exposure than to reprisals against him. That fact must be borne constantly in mind in understanding what I did and did not do in the next nine years, and indeed throughout the Hiss Case, which was to prove on a vast scale how well-founded my fears had been.

One of my close friends, himself an ardent New Dealer, who knew my story in full detail, summed up the situation tersely. “I see,” he said one day, “why it might not pay the Communists to kill you at this point. But I don’t see how the Administration dares to leave you alive.”

Chambers, W. Witness. Chapter 10, part XI, pages 471-473 Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

For All

Really, things have gotten so ridiculous that it’s a little hard to keep blogging.  After the eternity that has been Obama’s first term, continually explaining why 2 + 2 = 4 becomes a tiresome chore indeed, especially when one suspects that she is only preaching to the choir and making little headway otherwise.  I know, I know, speaking out is still important . . . but the little things get me down.

Like when I ran into a friend from three duty stations ago, and the upcoming presidential election came up.  I was treated to a casual remark that, while the current President’s record is unsatisfactory, she was afraid that an elected Romney wouldn’t let people have the freedom to marry who they want, and also he would require all women to wear skirts. (!?!eleventy!?!)

National security is more important than homosexual “rights,” I said, bringing up the hot mic incident, during which Obama demonstrated that he is willing to say one thing to the electorate, but another thing entirely to Russian leadership.  She had never heard about it.

Sigh.  Since I ran into this person at the commissary, at least I was able to soothe my nerves by buying some extra nonperishables.

Now, don’t you worry or nothin.  I haven’t given up hope.  I’m just running low on steam.  There’s not much for me to add to the conversation right now . . . at least, not anything that you and I haven’t said a hundred times apiece.

Only thing new to me is a little tidbit from Older Son’s curriculum.  I’ll share it, and see if it’s new to you as well.  You see, I’ve heard comparisons aplenty of the Democrat hold on black voters to the slavery of old.  C.L. Bryant made a whole movie on this very idea.  Click here to see if Runaway Slave is playing at a theater near you.

What I’ve never heard before is a positive comparison of slavery with the protective nanny-state progressives are always striving to achieve.  Apparently, though, pre-civil war Southerners made this very argument.  All defensive about their “peculiar institution,” many Southern apologists sought to explain why slavery was not a necessary evil, but actually for the best.  One of those apologists was George Fitzhugh.

Fitzhugh asserted in Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters that Southern slaves were luckier than free Northern workers.  The Landmark History of the American People by Daniel Boorstin explains Fitzhugh’s argument:

“They were slaves with masters.  They had the best kind of social security.  Whatever happened, it was not their worry.  They did not have to pay any bills.  They had no problem of unemployment.  Slavery, as Fitzhugh described it, was a kind of socialism, where all property was put in the hands of the people (the white people) best qualified to use it, for the benefit of everybody, whites and Negroes.  Three cheers for slavery!”

Hmm.  Property put in the hands best qualified to use it for the benefit of everybody?  For the benefit of all?  Oh, yeah, I get it#ForAll.

Cross posted at NoOneOfAnyImport.

 

Tags: , ,

Justice John Roberts, the King Maker

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts just handed Obama a crown, scepter, and an ermine trimmed velvet cloak.

It isn’t the SCOTUS job to protect the American people from bad political choices? Perhaps not, but it IS SCOTUS job to protect and uphold the Constitution.

If you are not registered to vote, get registered. I don’t care if you like Romney or not; I don’t care if he wasn’t your first choice; he must win. Why you ask? Because he is NOT Obama.  We need every single person to vote because even Obama voters who hate ObamaDoesn’tCare and are disappointed in Obama overall have said they will STILL vote for him in 2012.  That stymied me until I realized that these people have lived most of their lives being indoctrinated by the Progressives and/or living off the government teet. They’d rather throw their fellow Americans into the compost pile of history than to do the right thing and admit that they are personally responsible for the total upheaval of this country.

They must not be allowed to steal our country from us. My flag will hang upside down until Obama is defeated. Make no mistake; we are in distress.

If you haven’t read Ameritopia by Mark Levin, get it, read it, understand it.  It’s important.

 

Midnight, Linda

Dissection of the Obama campaign has begun in full earnest.  I mostly skip this analytical stuff.  The ones that paint a gloomy GOP picture are worrisome, and the ones that paint a rosy GOP picture tempt you to count chickens before they are hatched, and that’s worrisome, too.

As far as I can tell, the Dems have lurched from one comedic disaster to the next:  War on Women, War on Rich No-Good Ann Romney, War On People Who Tie Dog Kennels To Car Roofs, War on Involuntary Haircuts, War on the Bain Of Our Existence . . . are there any others?

Unfortunately, my opinion is not a good gauge of the public-at-large.  I can never figure out what people are thinking.  And I’ve been real curious about the public-at-large lately, because of emails like this one, with the name “Sarah Jessica Parker” in the “from” box:

“Linda — It’s my honor to invite you to take part in an event I’m hosting at my home with the President and First Lady on June 14th. If you can make a donation of any amount today, you’ll be automatically entered to win two tickets to New York to join us. Just before Election Day in 2008, I went to an Obama campaign office in New York and called some undecided voters. I believed then, as I do now, that if we all chipped in and did our part, we would not only make history, but create meaningful change that so many Americans needed. For me, this election is even more important than 2008. As a woman, a mother, and an entrepreneur, I need to believe our country can be a place where everyone has a fair shot at success. This November’s election will determine whether we get to keep moving forward, or if we’re forced to go back to policies that ask people like my middle-class family in Ohio to carry the burden — while people like me, who don’t need tax breaks, get extra help. . . . I hope you’ll help me welcome President Obama and the First Lady to New York. It should be fabulous. Donate $3 or whatever you can to be automatically entered to win: https://donate.barackobama.com/Night-in-New-York Hope to see you there, Sarah Jessica”

I am terribly curious:  how successful is an email like this?  Does it actually work?  It must, because with just two email subscriptions–Organizing for America, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee–I sure get a lot of emails.  Heck, two more popped up since I started this post–one from Rep. Pelosi and once from VP Biden.

Joe Biden’s subject box is eyebrow-raising:  “Midnight, Linda.”

“This is Barack’s last campaign. If you’re planning to chip in before November, we’d both appreciate if you do so today. Make a donation before the deadline at midnight your time.”

Nancy Pelosi’s missive is less creepy, at least:

“The news reports over the last few days have been all about Republicans’ money being from Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.  Now, all eyes are on our response. We’re just 1,121 donors away from a record-breaking 100,000 supporters in the month of May standing behind President Obama for a Democratic Majority.  Will you contribute $3 or more before tonight’s midnight FEC deadline to help us reach a new all-time record?  Your donation will be triple-matched . . . “

The Obama campaign is smart, right?  They wouldn’t send so many emails out if it didn’t work, right?

Right?  Lots of speculation abounds on the competency of the Obama campaign.

I poked around for opinions on these emails specifically, but I didn’t find much.  Some fluff piece over at NPR.

In order to more fairly assess these emails, I have just signed up for updates from the Romney campaign and from the National Republican Congressional Committee.  If he starts filling up my inbox with similar spam, I’ll post about it.  No emails yet, but there is this:  Grab A Bite With Mitt contest.

Who started all this contest stuff?  Who decided that turning the presidential election into some sort of lottery ball machine is a good idea?

I understand that a large number of single, small-time donors gives bragging rights:  I’ve got the will of the people behind my campaign.  Back in 2008, the Obama’s loose campaign contribution methods made him look more “small-donor funded” than he really was:

“Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama’s funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less, only 26% of his money . . . came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less.  Obama’s 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.”

So maybe that’s what these emails are all about:  the groundwork for creating the appearance of having real grassroots support, rather than, you know, actually trying to increase grassroots support.

Who, after all, is going to get all fired up for the Obama campaign, thanks to his inbox filling up weekly with gems like this:

“Linda — One thing to know about me is that I don’t really sugarcoat things. Luckily, this offer doesn’t need it. Make a donation of $3 or whatever you can to help President Obama and Democrats facing tough races across the country this year, and be automatically entered for the chance to spend a night on the town with the President and President Clinton in New York City. Don’t worry about travel, airfare, or accommodations for you and whoever you choose to bring with you — we’ve got it covered. The event’s less than two weeks from now. We’re drawing the winner at midnight tonight. https://my.democrats.org/Two-Presidents-and-You And if you win, I promise — you’ll love it. Thanks, and good luck, Debbie Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz”

Ooh, she promises!

Here’s another good one.  I’ve always wanted to host a foreign exchange student, and these folks are sure foreign to me:

“Linda — This summer, hundreds of field organizers and volunteers will join our organization here in Virginia to register voters and talk to our friends and neighbors . . . .  Some of these organizers will be new to the Commonwealth, and a lot of them will come on short notice.  They’ll uproot their lives because they know the stakes in this election, and they know how important it is for us to win Virginia this November.  I know that you do, too, so I’m asking for your help — although not in the usual way.

If you have an extra bedroom or a foldout couch, would you be willing to host a supporter for the summer? . . .

I know this is a big favor to ask, but as someone who has stayed with supporters before, I can tell you that it means a lot to the folks you host, and it will make a real difference as we build our grassroots organization here in Virginia.

If you can, you should sign up today to host an organizer or volunteer. We’ll be in touch soon with the details:  http://va.barackobama.com/Host-an-Organizer-in-Virginia

Thank you, and stay tuned. Ashley Ashley Baia Virginia Field Director Organizing for America”

Do you think they’ll get any takers?  If the campaign were going well, why would they need to ship “grassroots” supporters in from out of state?

So maybe that’s what these emails are all about:  the Obama campaign is getting a bit desperate about fundraising.

Recently, Ran sagely advised that this whole saga with Kimberlin is a sign of the left’s implosion:

“What we’re observing are the ripples at the surface of desperate struggles deep in the cesspool. The “Progressive” wing of the Left are chupped as Hell that the radicals – Obama, Van Jones & Co. cranked the frog pot too fast, too far and blew the lid off.  No patience, no guile these amateurs.  The frogs are hopping mad.”

Perhaps the torrent of goofy, ineffective spam in my inbox is just more ripples, evidence of the struggles deep within the Democratic Party.  What do you think?

I’ll conclude with a must-click.  My post research uncovered one gem of an article:  “Subject Lines of Obama Campaign Emails That Sound Like a Stalker Wrote Them.”

“Midnight, Linda,” could be added to that list.

Crossposted at No One Of Any Import.

 

Tags:

Who Says There is No Growth Under Obama?

The number of people on Federal Disability has DOUBLED during his 3 inglorious years.  5.4 Million people have been added to the roles since his presidency, putting the total at 10.8 million.

Yes, that 10.8 million people with a vested interest in growing the size of government.  I suspect many of these people are not so disabled that they won’t be able to hobble to the polls in November to vote to keep themselves a meal ticket.

And don’t get me wrong.  My snark is not directed against those who truly are disabled and are truly deserving.  But I know that some people get disability due to substance dependency, of all things.  So, we should really give them the money to continue their lifestyles.

More people riding

 

Mark Levin outlines the conservative vision for Romney 2012

Growing more and more frustrated with Mitt Romney’s inability to articulate the conservative message while campaigning, the Great One delivers an example of what Romney should be saying as only Levin can.

 

 

My Mental War

Hi!  I’m new here, so I should introduce myself.  My name is Linda, and I’m your standard, run-of-the-mill, right-wing wife of a military man who likes the way I stay home and raise his kids and stuff.  Shoot, I don’t even exist, as far as The Left is concerned.  Acknowledging my existence would . . . disrupt their narrative.

Ooh, I can tell already that I’m gonna fit right in.  Thanks for your hospitality, Mr. Saddleburr.

And now, without further ado:

My Mental War

Recently, Missy and I debated whether Obama spoke out of ignorance or calculation when he said that overturning his healthcare law would be “unprecedented.”

Today I find myself mentally debating this question again, this time about Hilary Rosen’s “never worked a day in her life” schtick.

Was it a gaffe, in which she let the mask slip?  Or was it calculated to distract us from The Real Issue?

I wrestle with this mental debate a lot, and I can never truly make up my mind.  Neither answer satisfies my rather unfortunate urge to understand these people because either way, the truth is unsettling.

Take Ms. Rosen’s case, for example.  Either she is disdainful of women who (if they are “rich enough” to have the “luxury” of the choice) decide not to work, or she is willing to say anything with a straight face if it will benefit her political party.

Which is it?  And did you notice how clever that little limitation is?  The disdain is reserved only for the rich stay-at-home moms, ‘natch.  Disparaging the opinions of all stay-at-home moms would be beyond the pale, even for the most leftist of the left.

Of course, this limitation only works if it’s true.  First, it must be true that rich persons cannot understand the difficulties of the poor.  In other words, there is no such thing as empathy in Ms. Rosen’s world.

Second, it must be true that staying home is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.  And oh, looky, right on cue, the President enters stage left with his ridiculous claim that they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home.  (Never-you-mind about the First Lady’s opinion.  That was way back in 2007 when she said that staying home makes her ill.)

Do you know what?

I’m tired of wondering whether these people are actually thick enough to believe the ridiculous things they say.

Is it purely partisan political hackery?  Or do they really believe that only the rich can live comfortably on one income?  If so, then the Obamas and the Rosens may as well live on the moon, they are so far out of touch.  Come on over to my house, guys.  Meet me and all my stay-at-home mom buddies.  We exist.  None of us are even the teensiest bit rich.

Oh, no.  See what I’m doing?  Mentally debating the “ignorance v. calculation” question.  Again!  I may need professional help.

It’s just . . . I’m confused.  I can’t even keep up with the various lines of reasoning.  Does the left believe there is a real Republican War on Women?  (In which women are dying!  Dying! Because evil conservatives are killing them during childbirth!)

Or not?  Because we have Ms. Rosen saying the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention.

Wait.  Is it really . . . Obama’s War on Women?

Okay.  I guess I’m done.  I thought I’d have something more meaningful to say about The Left and The Right and The Staying Home and The Mommy Wars, which is normally like crack to my little brain.

Yet, here I am too far into a post to just delete it, and with nothing more meaningful to add than this:  it doesn’t matter what we say anymore.  We’d probably be better off not responding at all.

Ann Kane at The American Thinker says it best:

“Wouldn’t it be cool if he next time the Left entices us with some manufactured crisis, we just ignore it and continue on with exposing what’s really going on?”

 

Tags: , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: