Covering For Commies: The Threat Of Creeping Socialism
One thing that has struck me about all the controversy surrounding Cindy Sheehan of late is the way the mainstream media and liberals tend to ignore certain aspects of her personality. Like the way she has spoken out not only against the war in Iraq - which is admittedly controversial - but also against the war in Afghanistan, which I think most Americans would agree was the prudent course of action immediately following 9/11. They've also ignored her propensity for implying that our government is the puppet of a Jewish conspiracy run from Tel Aviv and the many times she's put our President ahead of people like Abu Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden as the "greatest terrorist" in the world.
Of course, none of this is particularly surprising. The left, and most media types, have a manifest dislike of our current President and an emotional symbol like a mother grieving for a son lost in war is a useful tool in furthering their agenda against him. If the grieving mother in question has a few character wrinkles that need to be ironed to make her more palatable to the public it is but a small price to pay for the benefit they receive in Bush-bashing rhetoric.
But one thing I've found especially troubling in recent coverage of Sheehan and many of her far-left, anti-war brethren in general (as though the stupidity that goes into equating a democratically elected leader whose policies you disagree with to a terrorist weren't troubling enough) is the way their outright devotion to things like socialism and communism is routinely covered up. Nearly every major anti-war rally in recent times has been either outright sponsored by a socialist group (like the Communist Worker's Party, etc.) or is at least participated in by groups of the same ilk. People on the ground at these events can testify to the overwhelming amount of communist propaganda and symbolism on display, and we're all familiar with the fetish many of America's college students and professors have for Che Guevara. Even Sheehan herself was seen smooching the socialist protege of communist dictator Fidel Castro.
In the face of all this, the question I have to ask is: Why doesn't any of this matter? When the media reports on rowdy protests in the street why don't they include the fact that the very rally they're covering is sponsored by people who support Communism? And not just some idealistic strain of Communism but often the very same ideals espoused by men like China's Chairman Mao, Cuba's Fidel Castro and even (in extreme cases) Joseph Stalin himself, the only man in the world's history who can lay claim to being a more brutal and cruel dictator than Hitler himself? In a world where socialist movements have resulted in the torture and murder of hundreds of millions of people (not to mention the enslavement of additional millions) why is the fact that many of the loudest critics of the country's current leaders are unabashed socialists not considered news? Why is the irony that goes with Communists standing on their first amendment rights to criticize our current political leaders never pointed out? After all - with history as our guide - if these people ever got their way those very freedom of speech rights would likely be snatched away from people like me who would want to dissent against their way of doing things.
What is perhaps even more troubling than these vocal, unrepentant socialists (who would never make much headway with mainstream Americans were their true agendas to be made public) are the undercover socialists (read: modern liberals and, to be perfectly honest, a number of so-called modern "conservatives") who are already in the mainstream of American politics. These socialists aren't promising revolution, but rather are luring Americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism this country was founded upon. More and more they are moving us toward reliance on big government power and bureaucracy.
These are the people who want the government to pay for our health care. Who think it is the government's responsibility to provide citizens with jobs and dictate to private enterprise what those jobs should pay. Who think that only the "rich" should be responsible for paying taxes. Who, in every policy they support, move to make our government bigger, more burdensome on taxpayers and more invasive into our private lives. These people, to my mind, even more dangerous than the revolutionary socialists in that, unlike the revolutionaries, they sound reasonable. And that lures a lot of people in.
We are all familiar with the cliche that states we are doomed to repeat the history we do not learn from. Looking back on the last couple of centuries of world history I see instances of war and revolution fought all over the globe to wrest power from governments - monarchist, imperial and otherwise - and place it with the people where it belongs. Yet in modern times, just a few hundred years removed from all that bloodshed in the name of liberty, it seems as though the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction. Rather than looking to empower individual citizens with as much liberty as possible it seems as though many of our leaders are looking to give more and more power back to the government through burdensome regulation, high taxes and pervasive entitlements.
As a nation we need to reject this move toward big government collectivism. We must embrace our individual rights and fight hard against growing government. Things like "free" national health care programs sound nice and may even look nice on paper, but every time we let the government into our lives we sell a little more of our freedom down the river. We sell enough of it down the river and we're going to find ourselves in a political situation that isn't much to our liking.
Of course, none of this is particularly surprising. The left, and most media types, have a manifest dislike of our current President and an emotional symbol like a mother grieving for a son lost in war is a useful tool in furthering their agenda against him. If the grieving mother in question has a few character wrinkles that need to be ironed to make her more palatable to the public it is but a small price to pay for the benefit they receive in Bush-bashing rhetoric.
But one thing I've found especially troubling in recent coverage of Sheehan and many of her far-left, anti-war brethren in general (as though the stupidity that goes into equating a democratically elected leader whose policies you disagree with to a terrorist weren't troubling enough) is the way their outright devotion to things like socialism and communism is routinely covered up. Nearly every major anti-war rally in recent times has been either outright sponsored by a socialist group (like the Communist Worker's Party, etc.) or is at least participated in by groups of the same ilk. People on the ground at these events can testify to the overwhelming amount of communist propaganda and symbolism on display, and we're all familiar with the fetish many of America's college students and professors have for Che Guevara. Even Sheehan herself was seen smooching the socialist protege of communist dictator Fidel Castro.
In the face of all this, the question I have to ask is: Why doesn't any of this matter? When the media reports on rowdy protests in the street why don't they include the fact that the very rally they're covering is sponsored by people who support Communism? And not just some idealistic strain of Communism but often the very same ideals espoused by men like China's Chairman Mao, Cuba's Fidel Castro and even (in extreme cases) Joseph Stalin himself, the only man in the world's history who can lay claim to being a more brutal and cruel dictator than Hitler himself? In a world where socialist movements have resulted in the torture and murder of hundreds of millions of people (not to mention the enslavement of additional millions) why is the fact that many of the loudest critics of the country's current leaders are unabashed socialists not considered news? Why is the irony that goes with Communists standing on their first amendment rights to criticize our current political leaders never pointed out? After all - with history as our guide - if these people ever got their way those very freedom of speech rights would likely be snatched away from people like me who would want to dissent against their way of doing things.
What is perhaps even more troubling than these vocal, unrepentant socialists (who would never make much headway with mainstream Americans were their true agendas to be made public) are the undercover socialists (read: modern liberals and, to be perfectly honest, a number of so-called modern "conservatives") who are already in the mainstream of American politics. These socialists aren't promising revolution, but rather are luring Americans away from the ideals of independence and individualism this country was founded upon. More and more they are moving us toward reliance on big government power and bureaucracy.
These are the people who want the government to pay for our health care. Who think it is the government's responsibility to provide citizens with jobs and dictate to private enterprise what those jobs should pay. Who think that only the "rich" should be responsible for paying taxes. Who, in every policy they support, move to make our government bigger, more burdensome on taxpayers and more invasive into our private lives. These people, to my mind, even more dangerous than the revolutionary socialists in that, unlike the revolutionaries, they sound reasonable. And that lures a lot of people in.
We are all familiar with the cliche that states we are doomed to repeat the history we do not learn from. Looking back on the last couple of centuries of world history I see instances of war and revolution fought all over the globe to wrest power from governments - monarchist, imperial and otherwise - and place it with the people where it belongs. Yet in modern times, just a few hundred years removed from all that bloodshed in the name of liberty, it seems as though the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction. Rather than looking to empower individual citizens with as much liberty as possible it seems as though many of our leaders are looking to give more and more power back to the government through burdensome regulation, high taxes and pervasive entitlements.
As a nation we need to reject this move toward big government collectivism. We must embrace our individual rights and fight hard against growing government. Things like "free" national health care programs sound nice and may even look nice on paper, but every time we let the government into our lives we sell a little more of our freedom down the river. We sell enough of it down the river and we're going to find ourselves in a political situation that isn't much to our liking.
likwidshoe
Lestat
Hannitized
Carrick
Anarchist Vegetarian
