DNC Looks to Past to Conceal its Future

Frank DeMartini

The Change the Democratic Party pitched at their convention.

Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend – and then tax some more.  This is my version of what was preached at the Democratic National Convention last week.  In fact, after watching three days of their party and three days of the GOP party in Tampa, I am now 100% convinced that the Republican Party hasn’t swung to the right very much at all.  In fact, it seems the Democratic Party has swung so far to the left that, of course, the GOP seems to have swung to the right.

The main theme of the DNC in my opinion, is that we must look to the Democratic Party of the past in order to understand the Democratic Party of the future.  Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy – all of which were lauded at the convention are all the past.  Bill Clinton’s speech, although masterfully given, was an ode to his presidency, not Obama’s.  By the end of that speech, I was almost sick of hearing an Obama second term would be as successful as the Clinton presidency.  He didn’t really talk about Obama’s plan for the future.  He just said, here’s what I did and it worked, trust Obama to do the same.

Let’s keep in mind that when Mr. Clinton had six years of a Republican controlled Congress, he learned how to reach over the aisle.  He learned to govern from the center.  He learned this was the way to get things done.  So far, Obama has done none of this.  He has not moved to the center and after this convention, it almost sounded like he was driving further to the left.  In fact, further to the left than any party has ever been in this country except maybe the Communist Party of the 20-30s.

Which brings me to the main point of this article, the breath and scope of today’s Democratic Party.  As all of you know, the GOP stands for the strength of the individual.  A famous quote of Ronald Reagan was something along the lines of “Government isn’t the answer to our problems, it is the problem.”  Now, we all know he wasn’t talking about all government.  Even the most hardened libertarian understands there is some need for government, i.e. national defense, uniform currency, etc.  Reagan was talking about the growth of government and bureaucracy to the extent that it begins to interfere with our individual freedoms – that it begins to make business and job growth impossible.

Well my friends, this Democratic Convention left the individual in the dust.  There was no talk at all about the individual.  This Democratic Party is now all about the collective.  It was all about the good of the many.  It was all about Big Government and what the government can do for you.  It is no longer about what you can do for your government.  Even John F. Kennedy, who is no love of mine, would be rolling over in his grave right now if he saw what his party has become.  They cannot even be considered European Social Democrats.  They have gone further than that.

All President Obama and the party did for the last three days was talk about more spending programs, more entitlements, more money, more stimulus and protecting the middle class from tax cuts, even though Obamacare will be one of the largest middle class tax cuts in history.  I seriously do not believe there is one thing that wasn’t promised in the last three days.  And amid all of those promises, was there any plan offered as to how it would be accomplished.  Other than Clinton’s ramblings about how Obama’s next four years would be as good as his years:  nope.

They spoke about a state controlled collectivism and that is it.  It went on for three days.  The main stream media didn’t pick this up.  Fox news didn’t report it.  No one did.  It was about the state.  It was about central planning.  It was about cradle to grave government entitlements.  It wasn’t socialism.  It was communism.  Pure and simple, first year political science Communism.

So, when you are preaching communism, what else do you do?  Talk about your past.  Emphasize the glory days.  Sucker people into believing there is no real change coming, but tell them that any change that does occur will be good.  And, that is what the Democratic Party did at their convention.

For that reason alone, I suggest you vote for Romney.

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to DNC Looks to Past to Conceal its Future

  1. Anonymous on September 9, 2012 at 7:36 am

    We differ a little around the concept edges but arrived simpatico on the basic argument.

    It is fair to muse, think, ponder and ruminate about whether anyone on the radical edges of the Democratic Party, which some may argue is a more significant portion today than ever today , especially given the “Booing” of God in the 2012 Democratic National Convention, would not embrace the dogma of communism/collectivism over individuality.

    It folds well into excuses, victimization and entitlements. Many Americans are staunch fiscal conservatives, Clint Eastwood et al, but moderate social liberals, still standing firm on religious “fundamentals”. Compromise is essential except on fundamentals. This comes from Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Hinduism, which also grants absolute and complete freedom of belief and worship. This is the essence of what makes Cardinal Timothy Michael Dolan so relevant and a thorn in the side of the 2012 Democratic Convention.

    Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

    Collectivism is an economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. It is the philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. The dehumanization of everything human is paramount. One begins to see the “you didn’t build that” and “Corporations are not people” in the weeds of political discourse.

    Karl Heinrich Marx, during his life was heavily critical of a socio-economic form of society, “capitalism”. He called it the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”, believing it to be run by the wealthy classes purely for their own benefit, and predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, it would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system, socialism.

    Does this sound anything like “those who don’t pay their fair share? Demonize the rich.” In an ethically moral society “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.”

    In Marxist theory, socialism, a lower-stage of communism, eventually supersedes capitalism and is based on direct production for use coordinated through conscious centralized collective economic planning. In socialism the working-class effectively controls the cooperative enterprises.

    Horizontal “collectivism” stresses collective decision-making and is thus usually based on decentralization. In a political economy, horizontal-collectivism is often associated with the economic theories of socialism, which call for some form of co-operative or “collective” ownership of the means of production and collective decision-making, thus suppressing individualism. This is the basis for the socialistic arguments surrounding President Barack Obama. The sanctity of man, individualism, must be suppressed for this theory to prevail.

    It is instructional to recall the Democratic position diminishing the sanctity (sic) of life and “The laws of nature require the obliteration of the “unfit” and life is “valuable” only when it is of use to the community (collective) or race.” So said Madison Grant, who supported Republicans, writing in a book endorsed as “fearless” by Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, a progressive Republican.

    Yes, there were and are Republican outliers. All parties evolve, as with the Democratic evolution from the KKK to the John Fitzgerald “Jack” Kennedy “New Frontier”, he spoke in 1963 of “… the paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and revenues too low; and the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now”, which ambitiously promised “paid for” federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, economic aid to rural regions, and government intervention to halt the recession, transitioning to Obama’s collectivism, ultimately, if not stopped, possibly the road through socialism to communism. The paradox always is to fund through non oppressive revenue, the pay as you go dogma, not burdensome unsustainable borrowing.

    Madison Grant also wrote “The Passing of the Great Race”, an influential book of scientific racism, which when translated into German in 1925, caused Adolf Hitler to write to Grant, “The book is my bible”. Why? Just think eugenics and the Aryan race.

    This was the era of George Bernard Shaw, another Nobel Laureate, who “…” Shaw also called for the development of a “deadly” but “humane” gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.”

    Madison Grant was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, the use of pseudoscientific, not truly scientific, techniques and hypotheses to sanction the belief in racism.

    Racism here is the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics, the fruits of religion(?), that are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be “ranked” as innately “superior” or “inferior” to others racial inferiority, or racial superiority and this plays an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.Notables here include Margaret Sanger.

    No issue here, just a broader scope begged for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Avi Lerner Rips President for Piracy

Chairman of Millennium Films, Avi Lerner says that POTUS is afraid of Google and other internet companies that profit from motion picture piracy.

Epilog C An Immoral Jihad

“Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or...