A MARXIST WET DREAM OR A DEMOCRAT WET DREAM?

The following bit of fantasizing comes from Sam Webb, who is/was the "chair" (I hope someone sits on him) of the Communist Party of the USA. But it could just as well be Democrat propaganda. Neither has any idea of how their projected paradise might be brought about. Conservatives and anybody else in touch with reality know that it cannot. The Left had half the world to experiment on for most of the 20th century and made things infinitely worse there rather than better. In the excerpt, Comrade Webb is talking about what America would be like "after the revolution"

"I would expect that the economy would be a mixed one, combining different forms of socialist and cooperative property as well as space, within clear limits, for private enterprise. While democratic planning would begin to play a role in organizing economic life, market mechanisms would probably operate over sectors of the socialized economy for much longer than I thought years ago....

I have confined myself to the day after the revolution, but extending the time frame a bit further into the future brings additional images and possibilities. Homelessness and joblessness would be eradicated. Toxic dumps would be cleaned up and replaced with gardens and playgrounds.

Our skies would be blue and pollution free. Our neighborhoods would become places of rest, leisure, culture, and green space. The whole panoply of oppressions that scare our people and nation would be on the wane. Human sexuality and sexual orientation would be enjoyed and celebrated. The audiences at Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall would look as diverse as the people of our city.

The prisons systems would be emptied and the borders demilitarized and opened. Women would be regularly receiving Nobel prizes in the sciences. The Pentagon would be padlocked and the swords of war would be turned into plowshares and we would study war no more. And, finally, the full development of each would be the condition for the full development of all."

And here is the current Democrat dream, only marginally less realistic and self-defeating:

If the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is probably the closest thing Bay Area liberal Democrats have to a government in waiting, were to take over in Washington, these would become national policy:

Access to affordable, high-quality health care would be universal. Social Security benefits would be protected, along with private pensions. The minimum wage would be raised, and workers' rights to form unions would be protected. Expiring sections of the Patriot Act wouldn't be renewed, and Congress would fight media consolidation. U.S. troops would be brought home from Iraq "as soon as possible,'' and the government would work to "restore international respect for American power and influence.''

All these points are part of the "Progressive Promise,'' an effort by the 59-member caucus of liberal House Democrats and one independent to reinvigorate the 15-year-old organization and make it more of a player in a capital city where conservative Republicans are solidly in charge

***********************************

ELSEWHERE

More strangeness from Arkansas: The retiring Republican governor of Arkansas (where Clinton hails from) Mike Huckabee, recently made a "joke" that has aroused a lot of anger. He seemed to think it amusing that "Southern white guys" like himself may soon be a minority in the State -- a State which has had a large influx of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Since large numbers of Americans are not at all amused by illegal immigration, the attitude to law enforcement revealed by the "joke" is pretty surprising in a senior Republican. There is an article here which has a sinister explanation of Huckabee's thinking. From an Australian viewpoint, the toleration of illegal immigration by America's political elites of both the Right and Left seems pretty contemptible. The Australian government has cracked down very heavily on illegal immigration.

Children of illegals NOT citizens by right: "We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America".

The Left never do care about reality: "The most fascinating thing about President Bush's speech on Iraq last week was the reaction of many on the left, whose weird mind-set was best captured by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Bush's speech, she said, tried to "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq." In effect, Pelosi was accusing Bush of failing to join in her favorite delusion, which is pretty funny when you think about it. It was a reminder that for Bush haters, the no-connection-with-9/11 canard has hardened into something like a religious belief. But to repeat the cliche, on Sept. 11 our world changed. We were at war - not a war in the conventional sense, against an identifiable regime with control over territory. But as in any war, we suddenly knew we had reason for heightened fear of what we did not know. Those of Pelosi's ilk, by contrast, cling to the world of Sept. 10. They have refused to accept that we had to change our posture toward potential threats - such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq. A corollary to the left's no-link-to-Sept. 11 delusion is the belief that Hussein's regime had no relationship with al-Qaida. Certainly, there's little or no evidence that Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attack. But the relationship between al-Qaida and Hussein's regime was fairly well-developed, as the Sept. 11 commission report made abundantly clear".

Can this be true? "Surveys completed in recent months by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that nearly a fifth of teens who have access to the Web have their own blogs. And 38 percent of teens say they read other people's blogs. By comparison, about a tenth of adults have their own blogs and a quarter say they read other people's online journals." [If it is true that is one hell of a lot of blogs. No wonder Technorati is overloaded into uselessness most of the time]

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here. And on Social Security see Dick McDonald

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************