Do You Support Communism? Vote Democrat.

by

This doesn’t sound surprising, but it really is. The Communist Party USA is endorsing democrats across the country as the means to their ends.

I want you to stop and think about this.

What is communism? Communism is the idea that you can create a peaceful, equal society by equalizing the wealth through government action. That is, cops show up at your door, guns drawn, and take your wealth from you to give it to the poor. Through this involuntary process, apparently we can all be rich like the wealthy fat cats on Wall Street.

The income tax in the United States is a tax that the communist party strongly supports. Why? Because it uses government force to seize wealth from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

In practice, communism works nothing like what it claims to be. Sure, the government force is there. But what inevitably happens is that the force of government is used to help the friends of the government, and punish its enemies. That is the state of affairs today. After 80 years of socialism and communism in the US, what we have is simple fraud and corruption. If you are on Obama’s side, he will move mountains to help you out. If you are not his friend, he labels you an enemy and tries to find ways to put you out of business.

We see this most vividly when Obama illegally seized the assets of GM and distributed it to the unions rather than the debtors, which by law and contract, had to be repaid first. The lawsuit is still pending action, but we all know which direction it must go, and it will not be pretty. We also see it as Obama gives 25 companies permission to break the laws he himself helped write in Obamacare. What about the rest of the millions of businesses in the US? Why can’t they break the law too?

The Chinese know communism by the mass starvation caused by Chairman Mao’s bold ambition called “The Great Leap Forward“. Countless millions lost their lives as government disrupted the economy and caused them to starve to death.

The Ukrainians remember communism in the “Holodomor“, which left millions of Ukrainians dead after the most bountiful harvest that country experienced because of government action. Russians know communism by the gulags that dotted the land, places where people were left to rot for the simple crime of disagreeing with the Communist Party. The scary thing is that if you ask a Russian who lived through communism what life was like, they will tell you it is not much different than what life is like today. You have to ask the government for permission to use your toilet or brush your teeth, let alone buy your food and grow crops or do anything remotely productive.

In Cambodia, we have the “The Killing Fields“. Here, the Cambodian government slaughtered countless people in an effort to institute communism. What they were left with was abject poverty as their middle and upper classes were eliminated and moldering heaps of flesh.

In North Korea, we have the concept of “Juche”, which, although apparently noble, is used to enslave the people to the state. In North Korea, children are tortured, families are left to starve, and people are regularly tortured for the crime of being related to someone who might not disagree with the government. We do not know the full extent of the horror of North Korea, but we hear reports of desperate cannibalism and depravity that is unknown outside of that country. The entire country suffers evil that no one can fully comprehend.

In Burma (called Myanmar by its communist government), we see soldiers dispatched to slaughter unarmed, non-violent monks because they said it may be time we need new leadership. This is the face of communism in that country: a soldier who shoots you for the crime of standing in the street.

I don’t have to list all the evils that communism brought to the world. That list would be too long for any book to contain. Needless to say, the modern communist is left to say, “I don’t agree with that kind of communism.” Or, “Well, those people were doing something, but it wasn’t communism.” Somehow, the fact that all of these horrors were unleashed in the name of Marx and other communist visionaries escapes them.

As it is said, a communist is someone who reads Marx. A conservative is someone who understands Marx. We conservatives understand what communism is all about and how it works, because we know things about basic human rights that escape the nincompoops who fill our colleges.

If you like the idea of communism, then by all means, vote for Adam Smith, Patty Murray, and all the other democrats on the ballot. The Communist Party USA endorses them and their mission. They will rejoice if the house and senate remain in democrat hands, because it is a victory for communism!

If, instead, you believe the Declaration of Independence, which boldly declares that rights come from God and people cannot be made equal through government action, but instead, government must only preserve the already-existing rights bestowed on every individual by nature and Nature’s God, then you have to vote against the CPUSA, and support anyone who doesn’t have a (D) next to their name. If you want to stop communism in the USA, then you will enforce the tenets of the Declaration and our Constitutions by electing people who actually promise to uphold the Constitution. Today, only the republicans promise any such thing.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Do You Support Communism? Vote Democrat.”

  1. demo kid Says:

    Comparing an income tax to the Killing Fields of Cambodia shows that not only do you not understand Marx, you’re actually quite crazy. I can now say with confidence that you and your political ilk want to lie about your political opponents and murder them if necessary to accomplish your theocratic goals.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      It’s people like you that wake up after the communist takeover to realize that the secret police are watching you. It’s people like you that supported the communist takeover only to find out your family is the first sent to the gulags, or the Killing Fields. You are what is called a “Useful Idiot”, not my words, but words attributed to Lenin. Why did Hitler murder so many of his supporters when he won power? Because they were stupid and supported Hitler.

      Yes, today we are talking about whether I have a right to manufacture, buy, sell, and install light bulbs or whether people have the right to earn income and keep it. But why are we having this discussion? These rights are inherent in our very being. We can no more limit people from manufacturing light bulbs than we can silence them.

      Rights are rights, and when you have a government that tramples on one right, what stops them from trampling on another?

      Did Hitler take power by promising to exterminate the Jews and lead Germany into an unlimited world war? Did the Cambodians install their communist government hoping that they could end up in the Killing Fields? Or did they surrender some of their rights for hopes of a better life, only to realize that a government that exists not to protect some rights won’t protect other rights as well?

      Communists never run on the platform that they intend to impose. People would never support a government that would starve an entire country or disrupt the economy so badly that millions would die from starvation. People would never support a government that would institute slaughter as a political device, or lock their people into cages and treat them worse than animals.

      They will, however, willingly trade some of their rights away for false promises and false hopes. And they will, as always, be surprised when the pact they made was really a Faustian bargain, and their country ends up host to the Killing Fields, or the Holodomor, or the Great Leap Forward, or Juche.

      It is the American ideal and ethos and national religion that has allowed America to survive despite the desperate attempts to take it over. The fact that we still carry assault rifles and have stockpiles of ammunition is what keeps people who would do to the US what has been done to other countries in check. The fact that we are free to denounce our leaders and question government openly is why government cannot continue long down the road of communism. Remove these checks, and you will see the USA is no different from Cambodia and North Korea. Conservatives understand this.

      Either you support individual liberty and individual, natural rights that are unalienable, and the role of government as only protecting those rights, or you support the some other ideology, ideologies that led to all the atrocities of the 20th century.

      You cannot unleash government to trample on some rights and somehow expect it to be contained so that it doesn’t trample on others.

  2. demo kid Says:

    But hey… let’s ask a refugee from the Killing Fields whether having your entire family murdered is EXACTLY like regulations about lightbulb manufacturing, shall we?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Let’s.

      Tell me, Mr. Refugee, how do you feel about government that doesn’t protect people’s natural rights? Yeah, I feel the same way. Which country would you rather live in, one where all your economic decisions are determined by the government… Oh, I see, you fled a country like that. Well, what do you think about light bulbs and toilets in the US? A striking resemblance, you say? Yes, I don’t like Obama’s rhetoric, either, but to compare his words with the words of your leaders during communism… wow! Are you exaggerating?

      You would do well to talk with political refugees. They are not keeping quiet about what they see happening.

      My good Armenian friend escaped Armenia while they were cracking down on anti-communists. He came to Boston as a refugee and soon discovered a sad truth. In Communist Russia, they talk a lot about communism, but the government is so weak, it is just talk. In Communist USA, we talk a lot about freedom, but the freedoms we have left are rapidly diminishing. He felt what communism was really like in Boston, not Armenia. He despises what the democrats are doing to our country and warns us constantly that down this path there is only political crack-downs and mass-murder.

      At least here in the US we can talk about it.

      • demo kid Says:

        Yes! Apparently, what happened in Sweden cannot happen here, because you’re willing to murder your political opponents if you do not like what they say.

        If you compare lightbulbs to mass murder, (you and your friend) are absolutely insane. Your hyperbole is just plain insulting to people who have actually been killed for their beliefs. Trust me… from talking to people that actually have been imprisoned in Iran, Ethiopia, Palestine, and other places, you’re pretty damned sick and perverted to link human suffering to your own libertarian fantasies in that way.

        The rest of this argument is pointless. Talking about Cambodia and Nazi Germany and natural rights when discussing… low-flow toilets? This has gone beyond a flair for the dramatic and become completely detached from reality. I’m just waiting until you take it upon yourself to start executing liberal progressives.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        you’re willing to murder your political opponents if you do not like what they say.

        Excuse me?

        If you compare lightbulbs to mass murder, (you and your friend) are absolutely insane.

        Ad hominem? Please, I brought up a very valid point: A government that tramples on some rights will eventually trample on all of them. Your refutation is that I am crazy? That is not logical.

        Look, I can’t fix your problem that you can’t reason even with the slightest amount of sanity. When confronted with any kind of argument, you fall back to ad hominem attacks and exaggerations. If you wonder why no one can have a reasonable discussion with you, maybe the problem lies with yourself, and not the rest of the world.

      • demo kid Says:

        you’re willing to murder your political opponents if you do not like what they say.

        Excuse me?

        You heard me. You’ve stated in the past that the “militia” (i.e., people that you agree with)
        marching on the government is a valid form of protest. Therefore, you believe that using weapons is a valid form of political discourse, and given that you’re objecting to your political opponents, you seem to have little problem murdering them in cold blood for your own ends, along with police officers, military, etc. that would attempt to stop you.

        Please, I brought up a very valid point: A government that tramples on some rights will eventually trample on all of them.

        How precisely is this a valid point? You have NOT outlined any possible way that regulations about lightbulbs will result in mass murder, period. You haven’t even stated how a government that “tramples on some rights” will move into a repressive dictatorship. You are using emotionally charged elements of history to try to prove your point, when they are unrelated to what you are talking about. Using wildly hyperbolic statements to try to prove the absurd, and then claim that I’m the one failing to argue with any bit of sanity is laughable at best, sad at worst.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        You’ve stated in the past that the “militia” (i.e., people that you agree with) marching on the government is a valid form of protest

        Yes, but only when their liberties are threatened. Have you read the Declaration of Independence, in particular the following clause (which is the entire point of the document.) I’ve highlighted the parts that you should pay close attention to.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

        It’s obvious that I don’t believe we should kill people for simply disagreeing with them, but for using government to deprive people of their rights to life, liberty, and property. Stop believing lies you’ve convinced yourself is true.

        How precisely is this a valid point?

        OK, let’s walk through this one-by-one.

        1. People have natural, unalienable rights bestowed on them by their Creator.

        2. Governments exist to protect those rights.

        3. When governments begin to deprive people of some rights, they are no longer contained within the overarching condition that they protect rights.

        4. Thus, the government will begin depriving people of other rights, which eventually leads to depriving them of their right to life.

        Now, you’re trying to argue that if we allow government to trample on some of our rights, say, the right to liberty and property, that they won’t then turn around and start killing people.

        Let’s say I stand up and say to government, “I don’t care what unjust laws you have written, whatever I have created with my own hands is mine and not yours, and I shall freely associate with and travel to wherever I feel like it without papers or permission.” What does the government then do to stop me? Their only option is to kill me. And indeed, that has been the case.

        Let’s look at history. Did these communist leaders start out with the promise to slaughter millions and millions of innocent people, or did they start out with a promise to deprive people of some of their rights? What about Norway? What if a Norwegian stood up and shouted down their government, decrying the fact that they spend endless hours working for nothing and that they don’t have the liberty to do basic things such as contract with doctors and save for their own retirement? What would happen to this man? He’d end up in prison. Or rather, he’d likely flee the country and live somewhere else, because he knows that he has no rights as long as he doesn’t have all of them.

        Now, logically speaking, notice how my arguments do not hinge on whether or not you are a lunatic or under the influence of particular drugs. They are based on things that are either universally true or not, and universally follow from one thing to another or not. Your task is to identify where my universal statements of fact are not in fact universal statements of fact. You may also identify how they are not connected to form the logical conclusion I have declared they show.

        Just keep in mind that when you resort to ad hominem, it is a sign you have lost the argument, logically speaking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: