Reply With Quote
Penetration of everyday life by the technocratic/bureaucratic state goes back to the New Deal at least, and maybe to TR progressivism. Wrong turn was nearly 75 years ago.
lmao you board liberals aren't liberals at all, you're authoritarian sycophants masquarading as americans. LMAO your views aligning with the "communist part of america" whatever the that means
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...0%99s-gun-grab
Communists Cheer On Obama’s Gun Grab
Written by William F. Jasper
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”
The article, en led, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”
“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”
The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly "gin up fear" that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. En led, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist China's ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s "Voice of Russia" program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Cons ution.
“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
Penetration of everyday life by the technocratic/bureaucratic state goes back to the New Deal at least, and maybe to TR progressivism. Wrong turn was nearly 75 years ago.
Blaming it on Obama is ignorant. He's just the cherry on top.
"Penetration of everyday life"
like what? what "freedom!!" has been lost?
We know the lack of "penetration" into the financial sector and large corporations has really screwed up America, health, land, water, air.
the possibility of self-government and a robust civil society is what got lost. we were once citizens of a republic, now we're just clients of a vast bureaucratic state.
It took 75 years for us to get there. Blaming BHO for it is abysmally dumb.
That's right. Just ask any lib . It's Bush's fault.
The recent tactic I've seen among conservatives is saying that Bush was a liberal.
I blame Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Harry Truman, more or less.
He was liberal in some ways and conservative in others. It depends on the topic.
how was he a liberal?
Be specific.
Not playing your game today Chump.
Be specific.
That response was typical.
lol being so ashamed of your party's last president you've resorted to calling him a liberal
He was never "my" president. I only voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils. He's typical of what politics is. There wasn't been a good president since Reagan. Have to go back to Kennedy before that.
So was he a liberal or not?
In some ways, yes. In others no.
You think he is either/or on all topics?
I'd say it's obtuse to pretend his political views didn't overwhelmingly lean in a certain direction.
I'm still waiting specifics about how he's a liberal.
Well, you will be waiting a very long time.
He actually was pretty liberal in many ways (most notably the massive expansion of government brought about by the Patriot Act), but neocon shills didn't want to hear THAT at the time, tbh....
The Patriot Act wasn't liberal at all.
Because you don't have any.
It certainly wasn't conservative, seeing as how it drastically widened the size and scope of government intelligence/law-enforcement powers, tbh.... in fact, most of the Patriot Act was basically crafted in 1995 by Joe Biden as part of the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act...
Is this the same "conservative" that tells a woman what she can do with her body, who can get married, what substances are legal, what words can be put on TV, etc.?
Calling anything that widens the size and scope of government, "certainly not conservative" is pretty stupid. Conservative politicians have been lobbying to widen the scope of government for years.
According Clipper nations definition, being pro gay marriage is conservative
Well, if you're going to judge by the neocon definition of "conservative" than yes, Dubya was a big-time conservative.... actual conservatives, however, are a lot different than the neocon shills who blindly supported Dubya back then and now call him a "lib'rul," tbh...
None of this explains how he's a liberal, just how he's not Ron Paul's ancient definition of conservative.
Are you now admitting Bush wasn't a liberal?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
