Poll Results: Tea party

A Feb.4, 2010 poll by CNN says,

33% of the U.S. supports the Tea Party.

A Feb. 4, 2010  poll by Gallop say,

36% in the U.S.  have a positive view of socialism.

Now, which one of these- Tea Party or Socialism gets access to mainstream media.?

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, Totalitarianism, and The Destruction of Hope and Joy

("The Cooling of America" and "The Big Freeze" covers are from the 1970's. Scientists have been trying to convince us the world is coming to an end since I was a childhood. Why do you think that is?)



The AGW movement, and the Green Movement out of which it came, are Trojan Horses which are being used to introduce Socialist ideas into Western political systems.

Just for the record, the reason I don't believe Global Warming is going to kill us is because, at 46 years of age, I have been Chicken Littled by scientists far too many times.

During the course of my lifetime, I have been told

1) we were overpopulating the earth (it turns out all of our problems with food have to do with distribution, not shortages)

2) we would eat each other like rats in cages (I have yet to see evidence of mass cannibalism caused by overcrowding)

3) we were polluting ourselves to death (the USA is cleaner than when I was a kid, but the third world is more polluted, proving the solution to pollution is not less productivity but more Capitalism)

4) we were destroying all the forests and would run out of oxygen (the US is more forested now than in the 1800's)

5) we were going to choke the earth with plastics (I have yet to see the Earth huffing and puffing for its last breath)

6) we were going to run out of oil (I had several professors in college in the early 80's who promised me we would run out of oil by the early 1990's - we actually have MORE KNOWN RESERVES NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - AND IT IS ALL BUT A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL, BUT IS INSTEAD A NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE)

And now, these malevolent, insane scientists are telling us we are destroying the Earth with CO2, which they say causes Global Warming.

Why would anyone believe them, after all they've been wrong about?

AND, THE MOST AMAZING THING IS I HAVE NEVER HEARD AN APOLOGY FROM ANY SCIENTIST FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT.

Why do you think that is?

And note this, have you ever heard any apologies from the Left for having been wrong about Stalin, the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's strategy for destroying the Soviet Union, the idea that Reagan would start a nuclear war, etc.?

No, there are no apologies from the Scientists who have been wrong.

And, there are no apologies from the Leftists who were wrong about Communism and its death toll, nor about how to destroy the USSR.

And, why do you think these two groups refuse to apologize when they have terrorized us with their never-ending bullshit?

Because, the Leftists and the Scientists share the same goal, and that is they want to do away with consumption, capitalism, and ultimately, human beings in large numbers.

They hate life. And, they want to drag all of us down with them.

How it is that scientists make all these mistakes, terrorize us with predictions about the end of the world, and then refuse to apologize when they are proven wrong.

Additionally, we need to consider why it is that the answers scientists come up with to solve all these problems have always involved totalitarian government intervention.

For instance, Obama's Czar John Holdren prescribed forced abortions and mass sterilization to deal with the overpopulation "problem" (which has turned out to be a complete myth).

John Holdren has never taken his words back, nor has he apologized.

And, consider this, when people are constantly taught the world is coming to an end, how are they to plan for the future? How are they supposed to have hope?

And, if people believe our population is too high, why should they have children? Is not life less joyful, less full of love and hope, if we have less children?

And, if people believe consumerism inevitably leads to more Global Warming then, once again, why should people have children? After all, every child added to the world is yet another consumer, who will inevitably make the Earth even warmer.

If we are to take these scientists seriously, we must consider

1) what the psychological effect is on human beings who are told the world is ending (damages our ability to live with hope and joy)

and

2) what our society would look like if we actually decided to use the prescriptions of these insane totalitarian scientists ...

Imagine if we took their prescriptions for public policy. Most of you under the age of 35 probably would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.

If we do not consider these questions, then we are being complacent, and intellectually dishonest. Not just about science, but about the reality of the prescriptions, and about the reality of the mass psychological damage to human beings.

Do not be complacent about these questions, becaue they are fundamental questions which go right to the heart of the love, joy, and hope. They are questions which force us to consider whether we can even afford to enjoy life.

And that is at least as important as Global Warming.

Are we all socialists now?

Business Week
News Analysis May 22, 2009, 3:20PM

Socialism? Hardly, Say Socialists
Under Obama, socialism chatter has permeated the media in 2009. But beyond
sound bites, what is socialism?

By Moira Herbst

The first months of the Obama Administration have given rise to abundant
talk about a U.S. drift into socialism. "We Are All Socialists Now," a
Newsweek cover declared in February. On May 20 the Republican National
Committee approved a resolution calling on Democrats to "stop pushing our
country toward socialism." The resolution was predicated on the idea that,
under Obama, Democrats are following the path of Western European
countries in advocating expansive social safety nets and deeper government
involvement in the economy.

Some conservative commentators have even likened Obama's economic stimulus
and regulatory initiatives to a Soviet-style takeover of the country. In
February, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of waging war
on capitalism. "That's his objective. He wants to destroy capitalism,"
Limbaugh told a caller. "He wants to establish a very powerful socialist
government, authoritarian. He wants control of the economy."

But real Socialists would vigorously disagree. They say if the Obama
Administration were establishing a true socialist state, we'd have at
least a $15-an-hour minimum wage (instead of the current $6.55 federal
minimum) and 30-hour workweeks. Every American would be guaranteed
employment and health-care coverage. Oh, and homeless people would be
occupying vacant office buildings in cities and vacant McMansions in the
suburbs.

In fact, many Americans appear to be confused about what socialism
actually is. In a poll of 1,000 adults conducted Apr. 6-7, Rasmussen
Reports found that 53% of Americans said they prefer capitalism to
socialism, while 20% said they prefer socialism. More than one-quarter,
27%, said they're not sure which system is better. Another poll conducted
this month by ConservativeHQ.com found that 70% of self-identified
conservatives consider Obama's political philosophy "Socialist" or
"Marxist," with 11% calling it "Communist."

Socialists say the policies Obama has pursued are hallmarks of "democratic
capitalist" states, not socialist ones. "None of the societies of Western
Europe are socialist, but the political influence of their strong Labor,
Social Democratic, and Socialist parties make their form of capitalism
much more humane than our own," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of
the New York-based Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest
U.S. Socialist party.

Obama: Saving Capitalism from Itself?

As with every political ideology, there's no discrete, tidy explanation of
what socialism means. "There have been diverse socialist movements that
have pursued different programs," says Frances Fox Piven, a professor of
political science at City University of New York (CUNY) and an honorary
chair of the DSA. "What they have shared is an effort to overcome the
historical problem with democracies that separate political governance
from the economy, often with a rigid wall. Socialists have tried to breach
that wall in the interest of democracy, or expanding the idea that the
people shall rule."

Karl Marx called socialism the "revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat," the working class seizing power and replacing a political,
economic, and social system controlled by the bourgeoisie, or the
propertied class. Such a reordering denotes "an association where the
development of each is the basis of the free development of all," Marx
wrote in 1848 in The Communist Manifesto.

Socialists say that far from creating a state in which workers rule, the
Obama team is instead scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism. Sherry
Wolf, an activist with the Chicago-based U.S. branch of the International
Socialist Organization (ISO), scoffs at the idea that the U.S. is at the
dawn of a socialist era. "What Marxists mean by socialism is different
from what Rush Limbaugh means," she says. "We believe the class that
produces the wealth should own and control that wealth. That's a far cry
from what's happening now. The state is propping up banks, mortgage, and
insurance companies, while the lives of working people are torn apart by
foreclosures, evictions, and unemployment. It's an effort to save global
capitalism from its own excesses."

Wolf's group sees itself as "revolutionary," meaning it advocates not
incremental changes but rather a "total transformation of society and
political economy." By definition then, actions by a U.S. President like
Obama—tighter regulations, tax law revisions, and additional emergency
unemployment assistance—are not paving a path toward socialism. "Whoever
runs U.S. Inc. is in no position to advocate for the interests of the
class of people who produce the wealth," Wolf says. "There is really no
way for the President to deliver socialism to the people; it has to be
fought [for] and won by the workers themselves."

"A Hedge Fund Democrat"

Another group, called the Socialist Party USA, based in New York, refuses
to endorse any Democrat or Republican politician. The party, founded in
1973 when the Socialist Party of America split, wants a wholesale
reorientation of the economy so that the focus is on production "for need,
not profit." Billy Wharton, editor of the Socialist magazine for the
1,500-member party, wrote in a March Washington Post column that his group
considers Obama "a hedge-fund Democrat—one of a generation of neo-liberal
politicians firmly committed to free-market policies." "You see [Obama]
operating as a hedge fund Democrat on health care now," Wharton says. "He
blocked advocates of a single-payer system from presenting their case to
the Senate Finance Committee."

Not all Socialists denounce mainstream parties wholesale. Unlike the ISO
and the Socialist Party USA, the DSA, with about 7,000 members, is willing
to work within existing social and political structures toward incremental
change. The DSA is critical of Democrats, calling them the "second most
capitalistic party." Says Llewellyn, the DSA's national director: "We have
a long-term view of protecting people from the devastating power that
capitalism is capable of inflicting. We think the role of government and
civil society is to curtail and eventually eliminate the power of
capitalism to inflict that destruction." At the same time, Llewellyn says,
"we recognize that capitalism is capable of producing tremendous growth,"
which the DSA doesn't oppose.

But even to the more inclusive DSA, Obama is no socialist. "The discussion
of socialism that has appeared in the media is surreal," says Llewellyn.
"Nobody in their right mind would think Obama is a socialist if they knew
anything about the meaning of the word. Obama is acting as Roosevelt did,
trying to save capitalism from itself."

If the U.S. is not operating under a socialist regime, what would it look
like if it were? The DSA's Llewellyn says that for one, health care would
be universal and guaranteed, unlike the less comprehensive, market-based
plans the Obama Administration is floating. The Socialist Party USA takes
its platform a step further, calling for a full employment policy with a
$15 minimum wage, 30-hour workweeks, and six weeks' annual paid vacation
for all workers. The ISO would immediately end foreclosures and allow
homeless people to occupy vacant homes and buildings.

Recovering from Lax Regulation

On Mar. 6 a New York Times reporter asked Obama whether his domestic
policies indicated the President is a socialist. Obama laughed, replying
"the answer would be no." In a later telephone call to the paper, Obama
said enormous taxpayer sums had been injected into the financial system
before his election. "The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary
measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference,
but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant
risk-taking has precipitated a crisis," Obama told the newspaper.

Even if the description of "socialist" isn't accurate for the current
state of U.S. affairs, look for the term to reemerge in coming months as
the battle over health-care reform quickens. Earlier this month, for
example, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Democrats are
on a "march toward socialized medicine." Meanwhile, Socialists consider
Obama a stalwart capitalist. Says Wolf at the ISO: "We haven't seen
Comrade Obama at a meeting."

Herbst is a reporter for BusinessWeek in New York.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090522_329825.htm

Socialism: lets use the terms correctly

Socialism Without a Soul
Posted on Mar 10, 2009

By Robert Scheer

Newt Gingrich is right: “It is European socialism transplanted to Washington.” How else to describe an economy in which the government controls the entire financial center and is now supplying life support for the auto industry? That’s on top of the existing socialist economy run by the military-industrial complex, which, thanks to George W. Bush, now absorbs upward of 60 percent of the non-entitlement federal budget.

Although we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal health care, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe’s. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don’t understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.

The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama’s watch is an extension of Bush’s banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don’t want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?

Didn’t Obama inherit the current financial meltdown less than two months ago from the Republicans, who for eight years under Bush assured us that the markets were not in any need of tighter regulation? Wasn’t it GOP congressional members led by folks like Gingrich who pushed though the deregulation legislation that enabled the growth of “too big to fail” financial institutions that now have to be saved by the taxpayers?

Nor has Obama demanded anything more in the way of accountability from those Wall Street swindlers than had the Bush administration. Under both presidents a total of $170 billion was given to insurance giant AIG, and, as The Wall Street Journal reported, at least $50 billion of that money was passed on to top foreign and domestic banks without any public accounting. Indeed, the second in command at the Fed told a Senate committee last week that he wouldn’t reveal the names of the banks that grabbed our money.

Nor has there been any serious demand put on the banks to use the hundreds of billions in federal funds they received to increase liquidity. Indeed, the banks are raising interest rates and cutting limits on credit cards at a time when the government is hoping consumers will use those cards to pump some life into the retail market. As bank industry analyst Meredith Whitney wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article, consumer credit card lines “were reduced by nearly $500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone.” She estimates that credit card limits for consumers will be halved over the next year, mostly on consumers who have not done anything wrong. This will take “credit away from people who have the ability to pay their bills,” she notes.

So what we have here is socialism without even the pretense of a soul. Certainly that has been the case with the abject refusal of the banks that received government bailouts to be more aggressive in preventing home foreclosures. And the Obama administration has made it clear that it has no intention of taking over the operation of any of the mega-companies that are in trouble, even when, as in the case of AIG, the government already owns 80 percent of the shares. The reason? Because that would be viewed as nationalization.

So what exactly would Obama’s critics do differently? Nothing on the bailout side. Instead, they have settled for carping criticism of the stimulus package, playing games by nitpicking lesser-cost programs while ignoring the big items that most governors, be they Republican or Democrat, eagerly want. The great fear of the GOP seems to be that some of the stimulus program might actually prove helpful to struggling Americans, but the Republicans can’t just come out of the closet and say so.

What they have picked up on instead is that Obama’s tax cuts provide some redistribution of income to favor the rapidly disappearing middle class at the expense of the super-wealthy, who have profited wildly from Bush tax cuts. Which brings us back to Gingrich’s complaint that Obama is importing European socialism. If that means a system of governance in which a robust middle class is rewarded for work with a strong social safety net supported by higher taxes on the most affluent, well, let’s get it on.

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.

Bill Moyers on Socialism: http://www-tc.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/249essay.m4v