Received In Email: Populism as a Negative

>> Thursday, November 3, 2011

I receive in email every few days or so articles from the Patriot Post. This one, I believe, is a must read, and so I've posted it here in full, including the pictures. You can find the original here, and subscribe yourself. The original article has numerous links which I did not add here. Check out the original if you're interested.

One particular comment at the site is posted below this article, and it speaks to what a lot of us on the right are thinking... "why bother?"




Populist Socialism on the Rise
The "99 Percent" are really the "35 Percent" but their cadres are growing

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
--John Adams, 1787

The populist message of the Occupy Movement, the agelessly adolescent class warriors who make up Barack Hussein Obama's Red October Uprising, now has the support of some 35 percent of Americans, mostly urbanites.

The Occupiers have now infested cities from coast to coast, including Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Their mantra is simple (by necessity): "We are the 99 Percent, and we're all victims of the 1 Percent." By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch, and they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsides, and pay no income tax. Thus, this 20 percent has no vested interest in the cost of government and is predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. The underlying assumption is that it's easier to confiscate wealth than create it.

This "entitled" 20 percent combines with the 10 percent of American labor who are collectivists and another 5 percent who are perpetual malcontents to thus form Barack Hussein Obama's entrenched socialist constituency of Useful Idiots.

The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, what the 35 Percenters really want, "redistributive justice" as Obama calls it, would require the redistribution of income from the other 65 percent of Americans families who live on earned income, so that everyone could be equally impoverished.

Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent (comprised of more celebs and pro athletes than Wall Street bankers), or even the top 25 percent of the so-called rich: Most of their assets are on paper, and the rest of that "wealth" is in the form of small businesses and real property that support the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who actually work for a living -- and take pride in their occupations.

Thus, liquidation would result in the collapse of the entire economy, leaving everyone under the same statist tyranny as Obama's 35 Percenters -- equally miserable, equally dependent upon the government, and that much closer to Obama's mandate to implement Democratic Socialism.

Fact is, socialist economies always fail. In the inimitable words of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments ... always run out of other people's money. They then start to nationalize everything."

Of course, socialists never let reality intrude upon their classist fantasies of universal equality and happiness. Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

If you have any doubt about the socialist motives of the Occupy Movement, consider this proclamation from my daily American Communist Party communiqué (yes, I subscribe to certain leftist publications, so, yes, I know my enemy): "We Are the 99%! The AFL-CIO has taken another step to embrace the Occupy Movement by creating their own We Are the 99% website. Also, CPUSA Chair Sam Webb has an article on the movement at the People's World: 'Occupy: embrace the new, build the movement.'"

Next, I suggest you review the official list of Occupy supporters, including Marxists, Nationalists, Fascists and even Islamists. What a sorry lot for a supporting cast.

Given all this, it's not surprising that the Occupiers' highest-profile support emanates from Obama himself, who says, "People are frustrated and the [Occupy] protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. ... I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. ... The American people understand that not everybody's been following the rules. These days, a lot of folks doing the right thing are not rewarded. A lot of folks who are not doing the right thing are rewarded."

As to the Occupy Movement's momentum, Obama says their agenda "will express itself until 2012 and beyond until people feel they are getting back to old-fashioned American values. That's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond."

By "old-fashioned" we suspect he's merely re-warming some propaganda from one of the most notable of 20th-century socialists, that inheritance welfare liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was FDR, after all, who channeled Karl Marx when he proclaimed, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

Roosevelt issued a collectivist "bill of rights" in which he said that the government should ensure "the right to a useful and remunerative job ... the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ... the right of every family to a decent home ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ... the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age ... the right to a good education."

For his part, Obama has been clear in his collectivist rhetoric: "[T]he wealthiest Americans have made out like bandits. ... It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Our nation is at a critical juncture, and the adversaries of Liberty are well funded. However, a great national debate about the proper role of government is underway. The Patriot Post, since its inception, has been plowing the fields and sowing the seed for this Great Awakening. Our goal is to ensure that the movement remains, first and foremost, about the restoration of constitutional integrity, and to support its momentum.

----

In Comments, from SubVet....

Who is John Galt?
Hopefully, there are many of us in the "Contributing Class" who are making preparations to simply walk away from this expanding nonsense.
The idea of a simple life up in the mountains somewhere is becoming more appealing as each day goes by. Why should I bother to work so hard to earn fiat currency that the government takes most of to redistribute to those that choose to do nothing?
Besides, the coming collapse is inevitable at this point and why not start learning how to exist comfortably in what, as the many dystopian novels of the near-future are depicting, is nearly certain to be realized?

Why not indeed?

Because despite what the Left wants us to believe, you can't have your cake and eat it too.




19 comments:

ELAshley November 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM  

Per my comments in the previous post, I reiterate that no such rights, as FDR claims, exist to man. No one has a right to the sweat equity of another; especially when said 'other' refuses to work himself. These are not rights our government is constitutionally authorized to provide, and every other government who has tried to do so has failed miserably. The only thing I can derive from the Left's attempts to do so here, in terms of the quality of their expertise, logic and understanding, is that they don't read, let alone grasp, history-- namely, the mistakes other nations and peoples have made-- enter the ghost of George Santayana, everyone?

Socialism is a bust in Europe, and yet the American Left wants to flog that very same dead horse here. Communism failed... everywhere. And yet there are those in this country who wish to see all those failed promises and resultant miseries imported here.

No amount of logic will sway the brain dead. Were this an episode of The Walking Dead, we'd have to destroy what's left of their brains to save ourselves. This, however, is not a weekly hour of horror fantasy... it's every day life in 21st century America.

Jim November 3, 2011 at 9:05 PM  

By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch,

No basis in fact.

they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsides, and pay no income tax.

No basis in fact. Many of the people at OWS are working people.

The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after.

This is false. Nobody (but possibly the very, very fringe) is advocating that wealth should be entirely redistributed. This is a myth and a Republican talking point. The 99% don't want the 1%'s wealth. They want the same rules.

That's it: They want the same rules.

"redistributive justice"

Feel free to actually cite the source of this supposed quote from Obama and include the context. Here's a hint: The context is fairness, equality of opportunity. Not equality of income or equality of wealth. Those are myths and more Republican talking points.

Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent

Of course. And nobody has suggested that be done. That's Bill O'Reilly talk.

If you have any doubt about the socialist motives of the Occupy Movement

A nice but dishonest technique. It is dishonest to suggest that the broader movement's motives are socialist because some socialist may sympathize with the broader movement.

Dishonest.

I suggest you review the official list of Occupy supporters

yeah, and you should see the list of Tea Party supporters.

Because despite what the Left wants us to believe, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nice close but utterly irrelevant. It's not what the Left wants anyone to believe.

ELAshley November 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM  

Jim, your comments have devolved recently into puerile "I know you are, but what am I"'s. Why even waste your time? Why bother if you have nothing truly substantive to offer?

But allow me, just this once, to fire back in kind.


"No basis in fact."

And yet you offer none of your own. Tell us, Jim, just how bright it is to allow your 'movement' in New York to become such a defecatingly blatant 'rage against the machine' movement, AND the largest enclave of sexually transmitted disease in the city, perhaps even the state. How bright is it to protest Wall Street when they're not the ones who set up the rules... Washington did. Ergo, they are not the brightest bulbs in the pack. Their little "lets shine a light on the ugly truth of American disparity" party is misdirected.

"Many of the people at OWS are working people."

Perhaps they were when they began their protests, but I highly doubt that's true by now. What employer would save a job for someone who cared more about themselves and their ideological endeavors than their employer's commitment to them? I wouldn't give any of these people their jobs back when they came home, because the person they were protesting against, whether they realized it or not, was me.

"The 99% don't want the 1%'s wealth. They want the same rules."

This is ignorantly false. They DO want the 1%'s wealth. And they DO have the same rules, mon frere! They just lack the initiative and drive to take whatever wherewithal they possess and make something happen in their own lives.

"It is dishonest to suggest that the broader movement's motives are socialist because some socialist may sympathize with the broader movement."

Except that it's not. Have you even listened to any of the interviews with these folk? Obviously not. Anarchist literature is floating free in and among your romantic protests. And radicals-- especially and predominantly on the west coast --have infiltrated and taken over the protests. It's not dishonest to call a spade a 'spade'.

"and you should see the list of Tea Party supporters."

Here's the difference between Tea Party supporters and Occupy supporters. Tea Party supporters aren't interested in tearing down business in America, they're interested in rooting out corruption in Washington. Your crowd is more interested in tearing down capitalism (because in their minds it is evil; which is ridiculous), rather than the real threat and evil residing in and emanating from Washington DC.

"...utterly irrelevant. It's not what the Left wants anyone to believe."

LOL. You are a fool, aren't you? Haven't you been paying attention the last three years?

No. You haven't.

That's EXACTLY what the Left wants us to believe! The Left want us to believe we can continue to spend like drunken sailors ANT NOT default on our obligations, and CONTINUE to live the high life!

Mark November 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM  

"When, ever, did a Tea Party rally turn violent?"

Actually, Eric, there was that one in St. Louis where Union thugs beat up that black guy selling Obama paraphernalia.

ELAshley November 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM  

True...

Liberalism tends to beget violence.

Jim November 4, 2011 at 8:50 PM  

I note the "ACORN" article was based on "sources" who were not named, nor was any reason given to provide them anonymity.

Jim November 4, 2011 at 9:35 PM  

your comments have devolved recently into puerile "I know you are, but what am I"'s.

Sorry to contradict you, but that's a lame and untrue statement. Please feel free to actually cite an example that could be characterized as you have.

And yet you offer none of your own.

Wait. So you make an asshat assertion without source or attribution and I'm supposed offer proof it's false?

And I note you are using the Jesse Watters "reporting" as your source of information. All of the OWS people are crapping on cop cars, raping children, having unprotected sex. I heard they were performing abortions at Occupy Oakland.

person they were protesting against, whether they realized it or not, was me

Oh so YOU are one of the Wall Street cheaters who wrecked the world economy and then got bailed out by the taxpayers?

they DO have the same rules

I don't believe any of the OWS people were bailed out by the taxpayers. tovarich.

They DO want the 1%'s wealth.

No, "they" don't.

Have you even listened to any of the interviews with these folk?

"Interviews"? You mean the Jesse Watters cherry-picked at random "interviews". Yeah, I've seen them. They're hilarious.

It's not dishonest to call a spade a 'spade'.

But it is dishonest to characterize the entire movement by the most radical among them. Or the ones Jesse Watters picked to air.

Tea Party supporters aren't interested in tearing down business in America,

No, they are interested in tearing down the government because it is evil and not of God.

That's EXACTLY what the Left wants us to believe!

Please provide a citation by someone on "the Left" to support this statement.

ELAshley November 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM  

Asshat? Look in the mirror. And who the hell is Jessie Waters?

Jim November 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM  

Jesse Watters is a Fox "News" "contributor" who does ambush journalism and also goes to OWS and interviews people then brings the most fringe ones to shows like Bill O'Reilly to imply that they represent the movement.

Look in the mirror.

I don't make asshat assertions like By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch, But I invite you to find one.

Marshall Art November 5, 2011 at 2:57 PM  

Jim,

The accusation against Jesse Watter qualifies as an asshat assertion. What proof do you have that he isn't bringing examples of the smartest OWS people?

BenT - the Unbeliever,  November 5, 2011 at 3:32 PM  

Wikipedia may not be 100% accurate but it's great for getting the basic facts of a subject.

The protesters include persons of a variety of political orientations, including liberals, political independents, anarchists, socialists, libertarians, and environmentalists. At the protest's start, the majority of the demonstrators were young, mostly because the social networks through which the demonstrators spread their message are primarily used by younger people. [Link]

According to a survey of Zucotti Park protesters by the Baruch College School of Public Affairs published on October 19, of 1,619 web respondents, 1/3 were older than 35, half were employed full-time, 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000. 27.3% of the respondents called themselves Democrats, 2.4% called themselves Republicans, while the rest, 70%, called themselves independents. [Link]

On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda. Most are employed; 15% are unemployed. Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided. 65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary. [Link]

When asked, "What frustrates you the most about the political process in the United States?," 30% said, "Influence of corporate/moneyed/special interests." Only 6% said "Income inequality" and 3% said, "Our democratic/capitalist system." When asked, "What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve?," 35% said "Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP" and 11% said, "Break the two-party duopoly." Only 4% said "Radical redistribution of wealth." [Link]

Jim November 5, 2011 at 11:16 PM  

Perfect, Ben. Very informative. Thanks.

ELAshley November 7, 2011 at 7:57 AM  

Informative? Really? Jim, you really are a tool.

Jim November 7, 2011 at 10:12 PM  

Nice asshat remark, Ella. Ben provided four paragraphs of polling results from two separate polling firms WITH links to the source.

I find it informative, and not just because it refutes pretty much everything you've written on the subject.

Marshall Art November 8, 2011 at 1:01 AM  

It was quite informative, Eric. Ben showed that your opinion of the protesters' intelligence is indeed very low. A hat tip to Ben for proving the point.

"Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda"

These are not bright people.

"Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided."

Not very bright at all.

"65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary."

I'd say incredibly stupid, in fact.

ELAshley November 8, 2011 at 8:14 AM  

"65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement."

Those 65-percenters are, to the man (or woman, as the case may be) completely ignorant of governments constitutional role. This is why America is so fucked up as it is! Because government was allowed to do things they are not constitutionally allowed to do... like educate our children.

Thanks to the federal government, those 65% are morons.

ELAshley November 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM  

As are the intellectual defectives who support them.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP