Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Swallowing the Marxist Pill

Open wide and say "Ahhhh!" You'll need to stretch your throat over the next week or so. Just in case, you might want to practice swallowing that huge political pill called "change" that Barack Obama says we all need. It won't seem too bad at first but, when the sugar coating is gone, it's gonna be a HUGE pill to swallow. Most likely, it'll get stuck halfway down and be quite uncomfortable for a while. I'm pretty sure it's going to hurt. A lot.

The pity of it all will be that we, Americans all, will choke on it knowing that we either (a) brought it on our fellow Americans with our ill-informed vote, or (b) quietly informed ourselves thinking that others must be doing the same, or (c) just stood by and watched it all unfold while burying our savings and our firearms somewhere in the hope that we will be able to ride it out. You, me, our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends -- we will have brought it on ourselves.

Whether you vote for Obama or you vote for McCain, you will be voting for a politician who thinks it is a good idea for the Federal government to buy into the banking industry under the guise of a bill loaded with earmarks and restricted by no accountability whatsoever. Neither politician is currently being held even partially responsible for what is happening to the America we once knew.

When the Marxist pill is presented, don't waste your time asking who filled your prescription because it won't matter. We'll all be going to the same government-run pharmacy where every prescription, regardless of what the government-employed doctor scrawled on it, will be filled using the only government-endorsed medication. At the risk of invoking Huxley, let's just call it "Soma." Pretty soon, we're all going to look forward to standing in line for our Soma. Soma makes everything better and turns that pesky brain off. Hey, it must be good because it comes from the government who has our best interests in mind. The government knows when we've earned enough money, when we've had enough children, when we've had enough education, when we've lived long enough.

Sounds a little over the top, I know, but if you've been paying attention, you've seen it happening. No president, no senator, no politician comes to mind that has ever had the backbone or the stamina to successfully eliminate one single failed government-run program. Once it's created, it's alive forever. Not one politician comes to mind who has ever successfully stood up to bill mandating more government involvement and won. Now imagine a super-majority of Leftists who believe that bigger government is not only necessary, it's patriotic...

Here's the problem, folks: In our Constitutional representative republic, government should own nothing and produce nothing but legislation. When government enters the private sector (even partially as it did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and begins buying ownership shares of publicly-traded companies which it then regulates, it's not a stretch to see the conflict of interest, is it? It won't be long before everything this country produces and the profit it makes is produced with our labor, our tax dollars, our consumer dollars in the so-called private sector and funneled immediately to DC. The industry that is being regulated is run by the regulators... like having the fox guard the henhouse, if you ask me. The few who control it, profit from it.

And, hey, don't kid yourself. It is not "fair" or "equal" or "communal" at all -- there must be people who decide what is "fair," what is "equal," and how much of anything anyone should be allowed to have regardless of how hard they work or to what they aspire. Those who are in charge of redistributing your wealth will be doing so out of the power you've given them to determine your destiny. They are in positions of power and will use those positions to collect their own wealth because, after all, they earned it.

Yes, they earned it. That's what I said. It's hard work convincing Americans that you ought to be in charge of their successes, their hopes, their dreams, their money. If, in the process, you actually convince independent-minded Americans to allow you to decide everything for them using Marxist guidelines, then you have indeed earned your position of power.

Marxism, Socialism, Communism, whatever label you choose for Barack Obama's political ideology, of his idea that wealth should be redistributed instead of created, it is the very antithesis of what the founders had in mind when they crafted our Constitution. (There are many, many, many links in the blog post that I linked you for Obama's political ideology. Click them, read them, educate yourself. The Provocateur has done a fabulous job of connecting the dots -- Hats off to him/her!) This ideology is a complete 180-degree turn from the empowering ideas expressed so clearly in that document. There are sources all over the internet, in the press, and alluded to in his own words that will uncover the actual ideology of Obama.

The shame of this is that each presidential candidate has contributed to this chain of events over the past few years. Not just Obama and not just McCain. Every politician on Capitol Hill who has ever chaired an oversight committee while taking campaign donations from the industry he/she watches, every politician who has ever voted for an earmark-loaded bill, every politician who has ever voted for any form of new entitlement, every politician who has ever voted for any new government program, EVERY ONE OF THEM is to blame for paving the road we are traveling toward Marxism. Sounds like every politician on the Hill, doesn't it?

I believe it started slowly with the first Bush administration, continued right on through Clinton's watch, and has increased speed on the W track. New entitlements, new taxes, no spending cuts, no fiscal responsibility, no leadership -- what is an optimist supposed to do? This latest development in the bailout of the banking industry and the talk about bailing out the auto industry has left me speechless and almost without hope for the future of our great nation.

Democrats have always been Marxists in populist clothing but when Republicans can no longer be trusted to limit government, to reduce tax burdens, to empower Americans with opportunities that come from freedom, for whom can a Conservative vote?

So when Dr. Obama comes to my bedside with my Soma in a nice little paper cup, I believe I'll ask for a second opinion from Dr. McCain. When Dr. McCain tells me that I must take my Soma or the sky will fall, I'm afraid I'm going to have to checkout of that hospital. With any luck, maybe Dr. Palin will be available in a few years. I'm sure she knows that a healthy diet and exercise can keep the size of my government in check -- then no pill will be required.


Anonymous said...

Dawn, Hmm.... I think YOU have swallowed the Rovian Pill - from Dr. Karl Rove.

Also, Ronald Reagan started one of the most "Marxist", "Socialist" programs this country has ever seen. It is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually GIVE you money. That's a redistributed program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor.

Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.

AND.... one more thing you need to consider before you label liberals as Marxist or Socialists for the mere sake of taxation ... You know, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was very much an advocate of what's called progressive taxation. And that is the rich pay more than the poor in terms of taxes.

Finally, who do YOU think should pay for AMERICA'S infrastructure, public education and military? The poor? The middle class? Should infrastructure, education & military solely rely on charible donations? How strong do you think this country would be if WE THE PEOPLE had to rely on donations paying for our military, infrastructure and education.

Perhaps, Roosevelt & Reagan KNEW that the bulk of the people are far too greedy and infrastructure, education & military are far too important to have to rely on the goodness of people to donate.

Anonymous said...


Look, I believe the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle class.

** You like our Military? Military is 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. They have more homes to defend, more businesses to defend, more property value to defend ... in the event of an invasion. Why shouldn't they pay more than a guy who has way less to defend?

** Social Security - makes up another 20% of the budget -- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

** Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful to the rich. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

** Education, better public schools benefit companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador.)

** The Bailout obviously benefits investors and large depositors. Rich people SHOULD have their taxes raised so THEY and THEY ALONE pay for the 700 Billion dollar bailout -- which, by the way, this particular mess WAS CREATED BY THE RICH GREEDY FOLKS.

** Health Insurance. If the people are sick and can't afford to stay well then the economy suffers because we will have an increased mortality rate. Plus, Who would clean the homes of these rich people if we are all dead?

YOU know Obama is proposing a tax CUT for Middle class and tax INCREASE (by 2% - 3%) for the ultra rich. So, I suppose McCain/Palin are misleading people when the use this blanket statement "Obama will raise your taxes." Because, Dawn, it is NOT my taxes that will be raised, I am in the tax CUT income range.

Anonymous said...

It's not surprising that the gang that has always laughed at the idea of effective government has enshrined a regime in which incompetence is the rule. The bums have tip-toed out the back door and are now in front shouting "Throw the bums out!"

To paraphrase Obama - it's not a question of bigger government or smaller government. It's a question of competent government.

Constantly casting government in the role of villain takes away any hope. It's bleak, indeed, to see no conceivable instance in which the state might be reformed or function morally. Very bleak.

I wish there was no need for a government at all. But we haven't evolved to that point. Until then, I'll take one that believes government can do some good and actually attempts to do it.

Label it what you will, but Obama has offered a feeling of hope. Millions have recognized it and are willing to give it a chance. The other way hasn't worked and is bent on self-destruction by it's own creed. It's time to break the cycle.

Obama doesn't want to become president only to repeat the failures of Karl Marx. What would that accomplish? It's time to think outside-of-the-box.

We've watched, listened and read this man for a few years now. I believe Obama has the intelligence and strength to lead this country. No matter what the ads or the radio guys say, we DO know him.

I appreciate this blog, Dawn. There are some good thinkers here. Thanks for giving me a safe place to spout-off:-)

Dawn said...

*sigh* I'll never understand why commenters don't at least attempt a name of some sort. Thanks for the commentaries, "Anonymi." I suppose I will refer to you as "Anon1," "Anon2," and "Anon3" with respect to the order of your comments.

The one thing that immediately jumped out at me as I read your comments Anon1 & 2 is that your response to my piece on Marxism was about taxation. I really didn't have that in mind while pounding the text out on my keyboard.

In fact, my greatest concern was the amount of taxpayer money that is spent by the Federal government with almost no accountability, especially this new tactic of bailing out failing industries. It's just damned frightening to me. Our markets have not been truly free and now a large chunk of the "private sector" of our economy is no longer actually "private."

If you want to talk taxation, fine. I agree with the need to maintain infrastructure, a strong national defense, and limited social programs that are very targeted and measurable. We agree on that much, Anon2. However, I couldn't helping hearing "class envy" scream out from every point you made. That's quite sad.

Envy helps no one and hurts only the person or group of people who envy others. Envy is really not far from prejudice or hate, if you stop to think about it. If one does his best, he may do well but not as well as another who got a few lucky breaks in addition to hard work. It's possible the other fellow was just smarter and luckier.

All we can really hope is that those who find themselves in good fortune, choose to share their good fortunes by building prosperous businesses and providing jobs for the rest of us. Or maybe some of that good fortune will make its way to charities that help the less fortunate. Appreciate the beauty, the reality of that and you're about half way to understanding a Conservative ideology, Anon2.

Our outlook simply differs on humanity and "class" division. It's inherent in human nature that we can never be completely equal. This is where the other pieces of human nature help balance the inequities -- charity, compassion, ambition, and morality. They balance the envy, selfishness, hatred, and immorality that flourish when you oppress the human spirit. As usual, just my take on things.

Anon3, I appreciate that your first sentence was meant to imply Republicans; however, the whole lot on Capitol Hill, regardless of party, would fit that description at any given point in history, I'm afraid. That's the reason I can no longer swear any allegiance to one party's platform or one party.

I can no longer truly admire one politician over the others because no matter whose political, personal, and/or legislative behavior one dissects, there will be some behavior that doesn't quite match the ideals outlined in the party platform.

The only basis I have now for comparison is my well-considered choice of political ideology. That would be Goldwater Conservatism. It is most akin, in my mind to the work of Ayn Rand whose book "Atlas Shrugged" is a great glimpse into the future of this country if we're not careful.

Folks, I appreciate that you're used to throwing around complaints about Karl Rove, rich/greedy people, etc. All Republicans are not rich and some of us will get tax cuts that we will welcome regardless of who's elected next week. However, it's just not so cut and dried anymore. It's time for us all to throw off the party talking points and start thinking for ourselves. Eyes open, ears tuned, and brains humming.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, This is Anon2. You misunderstood my entire post. No where did I sound as if I have "Class Envy." Quite the contrary. If you read my points again you will see that I think the rich should pay more in taxes because it is the rich who benefit more from the things I listed. Period. No class envy, no class warfare. It only makes sense that if I benefit more from roads, military, education, social security, infrastructure than poor people do then I SHOULD pay more in taxes. And by the way, Dawn, no matter who wins next week, my taxes will go up. Even if Obama wins my taxes will go up because I make MORE than 250K as a family and I am okay with paying more because I ultimately benefit more from those things.

Anonymous said...


Before you give Gov. Palin credit for her future-unknown policies not requiring a "pill" perhaps you should check out her stance on "spreading the wealth." (psst... you do know that Alaska IS described as America's socialist state because of its "collective ownership of resources -- an arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the state’s oil royalties. " don't you.)

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

Palin said, “Alaska was conceding too much, and chipping away at our sovereignty. And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

** note the words, "chipping away at our sovereignty"

Palin also said, "And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE IN THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs."

link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?currentPage=all

The reason Palin's statement "chipping away at our sovereignty" is relevant ... Sovereignty means: the right to self-government without interference from outside

Dawn. Have you ever heard of the Alaska Independence Party? Well, its a radical party in Alaska that loathes the United States so much there members want to secede from the United States. That's right the AIP want to secede from the USA and be a sovereign self governing independent nation.

Did you know that Todd Palin was a member of that group for 7 long years ... and ... in 2008 Sarah Palin gave the opening welcome speech to their 2008 Convention. Kind of ... odd don't you think?

"Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News ... that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared."

Pretty odd Todd is a member of a group that wants to secede from USA and Gov. Palin talks of Alaska's sovereignty.