Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Obama’s a Commie?

Obama’s a Commie?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This post is inspired by an article someone shared on Facebook linking President Obama to Marxist Communism. The only problem is it is being bred and nurtured by the opposite side of Communism: the extreme Fascist conservative. That seems to be where we are these days, politically. If we are liberal, we are Anti-God Communists. It seems the people lip beating these issues don’t understand the rights of the land in which they live.

Out of one side of their mouths they whine that they want less government involvement, but they diminish our rights. They are blazing hellfire through our Constitution. They swing judgmental swords of condemnation at those who don’t dance to their Bible-thumping drums. They say President Obama is trying to abolish family values and religion with a Communist Manifesto agenda. Of course, the comments on this page were full of multiple bible quotes of what is really right in the eyes of Yahweh, from the mouth of man. Family values? The degradation and segregation of family values initiated by the president of the United States is not what Obama insinuated. President Obama stood with the rights of the homosexual American. I’m stuck on the blatant ignorance of the anti-gay sentiment linked to family values and communism.

I am the product of Italian Catholic grandparents who immigrated to America in search of the American Dream and the freedoms it stood for. They were hard-working people. They had family values deeply rooted in their belief in Jesus Christ and in the family unit. They were proud to become American. They worked hard, voted yes to every millage raise, and gave back to the community. They were very loyal people. Their belief in God was the center of their world.

My grandparents had two sons. Both children were raised in America. One son, my father, discarded the traditional family values, except the ones he could use to his advantage. The other, my uncle, clung to those traditional values, both in family and in God.

My father had a lot of hate. He was a bigot. He was against anything that didn’t fit into his self-righteous box. He passed judgment, not based on facts, but on what he merely thought. My uncle had a lot of love. He didn’t pass judgment. He was accepting of all people.

Dad was a tool and die maker. Uncle Joe was a high school teacher. Dad didn’t have a degree. Uncle Joe had a Master’s degree and the first published thesis, at the time, at Eastern Michigan University.

Dad married his childhood sweetheart and had three children. He also divorced, remarried, and adopted his wife’s three children, because she demanded it (or so he said.) In doing so, he also caved in to her wishes when she told him he had to make a choice between his blood three children and her. He did choose her (according to what she said.)

Uncle Joe never would abandon anyone he loved. He was always there to lend advice, a hug, or an ear. He wasn’t judgmental. He would never allow himself to be in a position to sell out his family. He was loyal. He didn’t have a wife. He didn’t have kids. Uncle Joe was a homosexual.

Through the years, I watched Uncle Joe suffer. I watched my father pass judgment on my uncle, time after time. I listened to my father bash my uncle and he expected the rest of us to follow his lead. I wasn’t born to be a follower. I knew right from wrong. I, too, had learned family values and the meaning of family. I learned it in a different vein than my father. I learned the meaning of family values by watching, listening, and feeling, the values Dad lacked.

Uncle Joe couldn’t come out of the closet. The shame was impossible for him. In his mind, he let down his God, his family, and my father. All he wanted was love and acceptance. His homosexuality was hidden from my grandparents, though I’m sure they thought something was different about him. They would have prayed about it. They would have prayed for forgiveness, as they did for my father.

Uncle Joe fell to mental illness. His diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia. Still, I was very close to him. I couldn’t turn on him because of homosexuality or mental illness. He was Uncle Joe. He didn’t always look the greatest. He didn’t always act the norm, but I couldn’t stop loving him. I couldn’t degrade him. I couldn’t pass judgment or blame him. It wasn’t my job. My job was to love him. He was still one of the most loving and influential people in my life. He had great words of wisdom.
Yes, I was ridiculed and degraded for staying close to him and not adapting to my father’s way of thinking. I was told I was just as crazy as he was. I was put down as if his acts were mine. That was a cross I would bear again today. I was proud to stay by the side of a failing person. I was proud of who Uncle Joe helped create me to be. There was no way I could abandon him in ill health. There was no way I would abandon any human being because of homosexuality.

Near the end of his life Uncle Joe went to live with my father. He was losing bodily functions. I knew he couldn’t handle staying in my house with all the noise of six children, but I offered and I would have taken him in without malice. He really believed that at the end of his life he would finally find the love in my father’s heart. The most horrendous quote that I’ve heard to date came from that period in my life:

“You know what that crazy Son of a B**** said to me today? He asked me to sit in the bedroom and talk to him like Ma used to do. I told him ‘I’m not my f***ing mother.’ Then he asked me if I would just sit and hold his hand like you used to do. I told him: ‘I’m not my f***ing mother and I’m not my f***ing daughter. If you want company you find a way to get your ass in that wheelchair and you come into the living room and sit with everyone else. If not you can sit in here alone then.”

I was mortified. I couldn’t and wouldn’t talk to a stranger on the street in that manner. I didn’t understand how my own father, my flesh and blood, could talk to his dying brother like that. I couldn’t believe he would brag about it, as if he made a valid statement. In disbelief, all I could squeak out of my unbelieving mind was: “Dad, I really worry about your soul.”

e
Uncle Joe was monitored while at my father’s house. H wasn’t allowed phone calls that weren’t listened to via extension. He wasn’t allowed to make calls. My father and his wife had to control every move. When Uncle Joe wanted something religious in his room, my dear sweet step mother commented: “We don’t keep any of that s*** in our house.”

Everything my uncle owned was supposed to go to my father’s children, his blood children, and my father’s grandchildren, his blood grandchildren, but when cousins brought my father the list of wishes, Dad crumpled them up and said: “Too bad. It’s mine.”

I can’t help but wonder how different my uncle’s life would have been if he had been given freedom as a homosexual American. I can’t help but wonder if he would have had deeper family relationships if he was simply respected as a person. Family values? Where are the family values in the heterosexual acts of my father? What are family values when they are based on condemnation and prejudice? What is value when one can’t simply be who they are, because of the judgment and fear of those who can’t understand? Family value, in truth, would be acceptance. A family can’t have value unless every player in the game has their own personal value, above and beyond the choices of everyone else. If every member of a family doesn’t possess value and isn’t respected, the family value falls short. Family value built on lies and hidden hearts is solely built on pretense.

The value of societal pressure seems much higher than the value of family itself. Those who pass judgment on those who are different are prejudiced. They are also cowards. They are afraid to accept what they don’t understand out of fear of accepting what others may deem unacceptable. Heaven forbid, don’t follow the path of love and loyalty. Keep hatred alive. Bash anyone, up to the president of the United States, if he doesn’t fit into your close minded process. Call it Communistic, call it aborting family values, but what it really means is giving the homosexual American the freedom that was always theirs. President Obama wasn’t securing the Communist Manifesto; he was taking a stand on behalf of a repressed group in America. He was shouting out for freedom.

Of course, the proof texters, those with the Santa Claus spirituality, will Bible-thump at hyper speed, but they are wrong. Between my heterosexual father and my kind and gentle Uncle Joe, who do you think earned their way through your golden gates? I think I have a pretty good idea.

Powered by

About Pam Messingham

  • Baronius

    That’s a hellish story. But I note, once again, your comfort with comparing your opponents to Nazis.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    It is the extreme of either side. The radical extreme right is fascism…the radical extreme left is socialism. It is not MY comfort, it is the insight to what is happening in America. Cut all social programs while we pad all the subsidies to the rich and to corporate. It is not about Nazi’s…it is more about Capitalism…which is far more about fascism. It isn’t just a prejudice, the proof is in the pudding. The particular artical I read accused the president of following the Communist Manifesto…Carl Marx. The burn the gay theory is not bred in the minds of communism, but moreso in the minds of absolute control and domination. Who would believe ones place on this earth is superior to another? It isn’t about God. It isn’t about Communism, either. Take it for what it’s worth. ~Pam

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    People hate because it’s easy: you don’t have to think about it. Biologically this is a survival mechanism: it’s a lot simpler to kill members of the marauding band from the other side of the hill if you don’t think of them as human like yourself.

    Some people find this natural urge hard to suppress. As xenophobia, racism, sexism, religious sectarianism etc become “politically incorrect” or unfashionable, they direct their energy at groups they are still “allowed” to hate.

    Most of the time people modify their views when confronted with the object of their hate/fear on a human footing. My sister-in-law, for example, used to be homophobic but opened her mind when she worked with and befriended an openly gay man. (Since she works in the fashion industry, chances are she would have had to revise her views eventually anyway!)

    It’s sad that this didn’t apply with your Dad, Pam. Maybe this was because your uncle was closeted, so his brother didn’t have to “officially” face up to him being gay.

    Then again, some people are just arseholes.

  • Igor

    Wonderful article, Pam!

    Acceptance and tolerance are the real family values.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Dr. Dred…my father knew. He found love letters in my uncle’s desk drawer and used them to manipulate his little brother by threats to take them to the school board. In the fifties that would have destroyed him. My father used to tell us that my uncle would try to make my little brother “one of them” I used to laugh and say: “Dad, he’s homosexual, not a pedophile.” My dad didn’t see it that way. I think my dad just fits into the latter. I loved my father, don’t misunderstand, but he was a lot different than I am. Needless to say, my non conformity kept me disowned a majority of my life.

    Igor. Thank you. I agree.

  • Igor

    @1-Baronius feels the sting of accurate characterisation. If you don’t want to be called a nazi don’t talk like one.

  • Baronius

    Pam – Even passing familiarity with the history of national socialism and international socialism would lead you to realize how wrong you are. Fascism was never about reducing the size of government, and it was never about capitalism. Fascism is about big government.

    The label “right” can be applied to a half-dozen completely contradictory things, and to claim that they can morph into one another is simply an error. A Thatcherite Brit would have nothing in common with an Italian fascist or a Spanish monarchist.

    Totalitarians love to round up gays, be it in Communist Cuba, Nazi Germany, or Islamist Iran.

    Igor – Tell me what I’ve said that’s like a Nazi or take it back (or live with the fact that you’re a liar).

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Mussolini said: Fascism should be called capitalism because it is a merger between government and corporations….Fascist…I will not back down from that. Period. It’s not something I think…it is the truth…it is where the extremes lead on both sides…

  • Baronius

    I hate conversations about the definitions of “conservative” and “liberal”. But clearly you can’t simultaneously use a right/left paradigm and claim that both sides meet at their extremes. You need to define some axes. Otherwise you’re just defining yourself as good and others as bad.

    There’s no agreed-upon definition of fascism. I think that nationalistic totalitarianism is as good a definition as any. Whatever objections you may have with the American right, you can’t call it economically totalitarian. As for Mussolini, in practice he was no supporter of capitalism.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    I didn’t say that either side worked only in their extreme state. I said that is the extreme of both sides. Saying they don’t meet their extremes? Well, that’s debatable on some issues. I think that corporatism is getting very out of hand and scary right now. I don’t think health care makes us socialist or communist…I think that is just the banter of the right….
    I do think we are heading into a very bad governmental state…I think absolute control is in our back yard.

  • Igor

    @7-Baronius: George Bush and Ronald Reagan increased government size and debt more than anyone else in the past 30 years.

    “Fascism was never about reducing the size of government, … Fascism is about big government.”

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Igor…and corporatism.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Totalitarians love to round up gays, be it in Communist Cuba, Nazi Germany, or Islamist Iran.

    Or in right-wing North Carolina.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Glenn, look at all the preachers that are coming out and saying the “Homosexual American’s” (my new term) should be put to death. I don’t get why “they” don’t get it?

  • Igor

    Hate. Born of fear.

  • Baronius

    Igor, your comment #6 was vile. Your comment #11 demonstrates that #6 was also pointless. BC comment policy specifically says that pointlessly vile comments are not allowed. I don’t expect it to get pulled though, and I wouldn’t want it to be, because it reveals a lot about you. Shame on you.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Baronius it makes sense to me. He is saying what Glenn is saying in 13…that’s all…just without the words…sometimes people can’t look at things so literal…they need to come out of the box and look at things with an open mind.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    @ #13:

    “Forgive them, Father, for they are a bunch of slobbering Neanderthals who not only know not what they do but are actually proud of this.”

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    Pam, your tale is one into which you obviously put a lot of thought, emotion and effort. That it revolved around close family members at odds makes it more poignant. The Right has co-opted the phrase “family values” as if it is solely their property. Yet, as you illustrate, what is all too often truly valued is not the family per se, but conformity. Social conservatives live life walking down a very narrow path. Anything that veers off of that path is looked upon as loathsome and sinful. They are, in my mind, very sorry human beings.

    Baronius is very sensitive about the use of certain words and phrases. Are conservatives fascists? Well, as Baronius observes, the definition of fascists and fascism is not altogether clear. To me, it’s in the eye of the beholder.

    While the usurping of power in this country and even much of the world by large corporations is disturbing and very dangerous, what is happening now mainly in Republican politics is also disturbing and dangerous. To me, therein lay the fascism.

    The Republican party has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. The Bushies invited them into the fold back in 2000 and again in 2004 to help get W over the top and into the WH. Afterwards, the fundies were largely ignored by the neo cons and moderates in the party. Even the more libertarian factions within the GOP gave little credence to the godsters as having any kind of meaningful power base.

    Well, hallelujah! They have arrived. The tea baggers who were swept into office at all levels of government back in 2010 pulled a fairly clever bait and switch – campaigning mainly on jobs and the economy, but then once in office left most of that behind to fulfill their main agenda – the so called “social” issues of abortion, contraception, gays in the military, same sex marriage and the defense of marriage act. Concomitantly, they have worked hard to destroy unions – both public and private – and to disenfranchize as many likely Democratic voters as possible. Pretty much under our very noses, Michigan has become our first truly fascist state. Democracy is well on its way out in the Great Lakes State.

    Meanwhile, we see more and more of the tea bagger/fundies standing before their state legislatures and/or their congregations spewing hatred and stupidity against the President, against Democrats, against gays and other monorities, and against women. Should Romney win in November, it is also likely that the Republican stranglehold on government from the local to federal level will increase. They will systematically destroy virtually every achievement of the Obama presidency along with most if not all social progress made over the past 60+ years.

    As I noted, these people walk down a very narrow path. They are paranoid. They hate and fear everything outside that path. I’d say that your father, Pam would be found in this group. This may amount to their last stand, but in the interim, they may enjoy a great deal of success which will hurt a lot of people. Unless and until progressives look up and realize what is happening, the narrow minded hate mongers will enjoy victory after victory that may take decades, even a century or more to undo.

    Baritone

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baritone –

    And your diatribe is one reason why I’m so glad for my American passport and the opportunity it gives me to go elsewhere on a moment’s notice. America just might become the world of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, and if I see us going that way, I and my family are out of here. I believe we should stand up for America, that we should defend her and be proud of being America…but if America becomes something other than the land of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then America’s not America anymore, and I feel not the least bit guilty for voting with my feet if that’s what I need to do to protect my family.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Baritone, I live in Michigan. I am the first to call the Ogre of a Governor a Dictator. I do it all the time in my blog that is linked to two of the local news papers. Michigan is their proving ground. The place that shows the total ignorance…like in Allen Park…long story…but they actually want a financial manager. I don’t get it. I totally agree with what you said about my father…and he went from a union worker, Ford Motor Company … to a tea bagger…Tea Baggers are way too messed up to even begin to talk about their story. I was seriously wondering where I could move, like Glenn, because I don’t want to watch the fall of America, either. Thanks.

  • Baronius

    What’s supposed to be fascist about him? The plan to take over local governments is aggressive, but there’s nothing fascist about it. There’s got to be a difference between “you’re a fascist” and “I don’t agree with you”.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    What is fascist about Rick Snyder? How about taking money from education and elderly and giving it to big business? How about his form of emergency financial managers. Totally hurting everything people have stood for in this country since the constitution was written. The guy is horrendous. Yes, a fascist.

  • Baronius

    He didn’t take money from education and elderly and give it to big business. And if he did, that’s not fascist. He didn’t hurt everything people have stood for in this country since the Constitution was written. And if he did, that’s not fascist.

  • Baronius

    Let me flesh that out a little, if I can. I’m guessing that your first comment was referring to budget cuts. If so, then what Snyder did was take less money from big business and give less to education and the elderly. He did reduce the spending on education last year, and is increasing it this year. What part of that is fascist? The increase, or the decrease? By what definition of fascism?

    States have had to take over bankrupt local governments throughout our history. Was New York fascist when it took over Nassau County recently? By what definition?

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    First of all, you are flat out wrong. He took money from education and from the elderly by taxing the pensions of the elderly and cutting education. I was there when this bill was signed…don’t even try to make it what it isn’t. He took $1.8 billion from the elderly and education and gave 1.8 billion is tax cuts to the rich. There was no replacing that in our budger. He is also getting ready to sign a bill that will end property taxes to business. That tax cut only hurts the cities and education and city services. That is a direct hit on the cities. Many cities depend on that money for their education base and for their civil servants. To me, he is undermining the cities on their level, at the core, the city collapses financially, and BAM EFM…Total and absolute control…contracts cancelled, police and fire outsourced and the private sector moves in and privatizes everything. NOW THAT is fascism. The rich own all…your vote doesn’t mean anything because your city council…the people you voted in, is dismissed and the only power the mayor has is to take minutes at meetings. Robbing people of their vote…UNCONSTITUTIONAL…and my dear…fascist. Do you live in Michigan? If you don’t see it…you are one of those people that I put into the “heaven help us” pile of people that help our constitution diminish. Snyder is a perfect example of what I would consider fascist. All about privatization…like hey lets privatize the prisons…now what people don’t know is that the prison system makes a ton of money for the state…they just don’t talk about the million dollar contracts that the prisoners fill. If the system was such a drag on the economy then Engler (our last governor before grandholm) wouldnt have been so eager to take from education to build many new prisons…some that sat empty…and who would want to buy them if they were not money makers? He is wants to privatize education. Hows that for the rich in high control. How many single mom’s can afford to send their children to school if they have to pay for it. Open your eyes Baronious, fascism is a knocking…and when you fuel it with Patriot I and II and now NDAA…with outragous police powers…know that is nothing like Free America!

  • Baronius

    So, fascist really does mean “I don’t like it”.

    How’s your soup?
    I don’t know. It’s a little fascist.
    Oh, that’s too bad.

    So, I was going to go for a jog, but the weather turned fascist. Stupid fascist clouds.

    Oh the weather outside is fascist,
    but the fire is anti-fascist,
    and since there’s no place to go,
    let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    You are being rather immature and childlike. If you don’t get it…you are better off. Life is good when you are oblivious. Take good care. It doesn’t have a thing to do with like…but never mind.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    You can’t argue with Baronius because he believes anything that even hints of conservatism is ordained by god, and anything remotely liberal comes from – well, I don’t want to stir up the flames, as it were, but one can certainly imagine where it is I’m going with that one.

    The governor and the state legislature have been given absolute power to take over any town or city it chooses. They even have the power to erase the city altogether. People in these towns and cities have no voice – no vote. Mayors and town councils are booted from power. Any decisions made by the managers appointed by the governor cannot be challenged. There is no democracy.

    And, paranthetically, it’s hardly accidental that most of the communities that have been usurped have large minority populations.

    Fascism: any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views. As per “Oxford Pocket American Dictionary of Current English.”

    Is Snyder right-wing? Ummm. Yes, I’d say so. Is he authoritarian? Given what has taken place since his taking office, I’d say most definitely. I guess we could opt to find another term to describe Snyder – say – asshole? Oh, but that would be loutish, and fascists have never taken to loutishness.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Touche’ Baritone…and Thanks!

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    We all know extreme right is fascist and extreme left is socialist…fyi Obama is neither.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I disagree that extreme left is socialist. Communist, yes, but not socialist. Why? Because every first-world nation on the planet (with the exception of certain oil-rich nations in the Middle East) is a socialized democracy…and the fact that ONLY socialized democracies comprise the first world should indicate that they’re doing something right.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    I would agree with that Glenn. But to most Righties, socialism is only slightly less heinous than communism. It’s just a matter of degree. Us Lefties don’t consider socialism to be the ultimate evil that Righties do. Neither are we generally the alarmists or paranoids one finds in greater #s on the Right. In that, we can recognize the good that can come out of certain applications of socialism.

    Most of us would agree, I think, that communism, as it was realized in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere has been a monumental failure. The only way China has been able to survive is, IMO, its significant forays into capitalism. I would not claim to be a socialist, but neither am I a capitalist – certainly not in any puritanical sense.

    On the other hand, fascism is most often aligned with political and economic conservatism at their extremes. What is happening in Michigan and elsewhere in the country leans far more toward fascism than anything else.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    But, just to agree with Baronius on one point: No, we don’t like it.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Glenn, that is my mistake. I meant Communist is the radical left…not socialist. I see a split in the neo con mentality. On the candidate side of the political spectrum, these are harsh business men and woman. They are the elite rich. They are the big business we are fighting against that are wanting world domination. They are USING God to manipulate the less intelligent base, the voter, with the moral values of their banter. They laugh behind the backs of their voters. The mentality of the “stop social programs in the name of Jesus” is an oxy moron in itself. They use the name of Jesus, or the belief of Jesus, to get elected and to further their own agenda. They could care less about Jesus or the biblical morals they preach to. It is their “in” to power and control and greed. We see this. Common sense, if we believe or disbelieve in God, should tell us that Jesus didn’t hang on the cross so Haliburton would gain even more wealth. He didn’t hang, with pierced appendages, so people could starve, go without medical help, or live in poverty. I don’t think that was the Jesus agenda. Ask a neo con: “What would Jesus do?” (I am laughing as I write this because neo con/Jesus is as oxy moron as it gets.) The neo con voters are against health care. I wonder if they realize that the U.S is 40th in infant mortality. We have health care that sucks. I’m not talking about insurance, I’m talking about health care, in general. We fall under many third world countries when it comes to the medical care issue. Why? Because we, as a country, have allowed our medical treatment to falter to the benefit of insurance and drug companies…again big business. We, also, are the only 1st world country without a national health care system. They will puff up and tell us all that this is what a democracy is. National health care is socialist. That’s insane. Jesus, the one that hung on the cross, would have simply healed the people, right? Or would he have been a neo con and just let them lay and die in a field someplace…you know, while they were starving to death because people were too selfish to share their food…was it more important for Jesus to purchase weapons and to feed big business at the time than it was to take care of the downtrodden and helpless? Oh, lets not forget, he was morally convicting those who didn’t fit into his moral way of thinking, wasn’t he? The neo con politicans knew exactly what they were doing with the fear factor, 911, didn’t they…it drove a lot of people to God, out of fear, and that is where they found the power to use and manipulate that base. Fear is a great motivator, isn’t it?

  • tro ll

    Pam and baritone employ a particularly misguided and sterile definition of fascism for this discussion – there’s not much one can do about the fact that modern Common American English is an ideologically degraded variant I guess

    happily there are plenty of interesting and fertile definitions out there to work with like for example the following from the thoughtful Chuck Anesi:

    Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.

    the F Scale

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Sorry, I am not misguided.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    Well, tro, how does that definition not fit what is happening now?

    However, when it comes down to it, all this argument about what is or isn’t fascism is beside the point. Call it what you will, but the Right has, since at least 2010, embarked upon a mission of disenfranchizing Democratic voters via strict and complicated registration laws, are finding every means possible to break up unions which are the only major source of funding for Democrats, and are doing all possible to move the calendar back 70 years to the “good old days” before the notion of civil rights raised up its ugly head.

  • Zingzing

    Hrm. Troll’s definition does make the right wing in the us sound pretty fascist.

  • t roll

    …far from denying the fascist nature of the Republican efforts my point is that to identify fascism with the “extreme right” is to whitewash fascist trends throughout American politics and society

  • Baronius

    I guess that Granholm was more of a fascist then. She forced a black man out of the mayor’s office in Detroit, took over the majority-black city of Pontiac, and pushed for government intervention in the auto industry.

  • Baronius

    Pam – It is childish to sing silly songs, but it’s just as childish to use words like “fascism” that you don’t understand.

  • Baronius

    And let me go through this one more time. The government of Michigan takes money from businesses and private citizens every year, and gives it to the elderly and children and others. Snyder did that last year, and he’s doing it this year. You may not like the amount he took from businesses, or think that he should give more money to education and the elderly, but that doesn’t change the fact that he did take money from business and give it to education and the elderly. So your comment #26 is completely backwards.

  • Baronius

    And I just got around to reading your comment #35, Pam. Now it all fits together. You don’t like the international financiers who aren’t Christian. That’s a nice bit of anti-Semitism there. You also want government to have more say over our lives. I understand why you so loudly denounce your opponents as fascists now; you’re afraid we’ll notice what your real agenda is.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Baronius, you aren’t even worth the argument. You are flat out wrong on Rick Snyder…but believe yourself if you need to. I am done with this. It’s like trying to explain sight to a blind man. I’m done.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Wait, Baronius, did you just say “before civil rights raised it’s ugly head?” Wow. Not even worth responding to…you have said enough.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius #44 –

    I’m not sure if you realize this, but there’s a BIG difference between anti-Christian and anti-Semitism – I’m not sure where you got any anti-Semitism whatsoever in her comment. Furthermore, if you’ll look again, what Pam is doing is not against Christians, but is against the hypocrisy of those who are using the Name of Jesus to justify doing things that Jesus would never have approved of.

    In other words, you completely misread her comment and castigated her for saying things she never said. I’d say you owe her an apology.

    And when it comes to #43, what Pam referred to was Rick Snyder’s decrease in funding for education and the elderly. You stated that while it was a decrease, he still ‘gave money’ to social programs. So that begs the question: at what point should funding for education and the elderly be decreased in your eyes before you think that Rick Snyder was no longer good for the state? At what point should said funding be decreased for the ‘benefit’ of Big Business before you start thinking that Big Business has too much sway in government?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pam –

    That was Baritone – not Baronius – who referred to Civil Rights, and if you’ll read #38, I think you’ll agree with what he said.

    And don’t feel bad – I’ve gotten Baritone and Baronius mixed up before, too.

  • Baronius

    First of all, I won’t apologize to anyone who calls me a fascist. Secondly, “neo-con” is a code word for Jewish. It becomes clear who Pam’s bloodsucking international businessmen are when she laughs at the idea of neo-con Christians.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    So you don’t like someone else determining you are a fascist but are fine determining someone else is an anti-Semite? What a hypocrite

  • roger nowosielski

    Regardless of the disagreement as to the definition of terms, you have been badgering Pam, Baronius — simply because you thought you could.

  • Baronius

    No, I’m not a hypocrite, and I’m not badgering Pam. I’m pointing out how stupid this kind of labelling is. Come on, people. The author writes an article about how people shouldn’t call Obama a communist and she calls her opponents fascists. I point out how wrong she is and she reiterates her error. Of course I’m going to find every reason to call her a fascist and demonstrate how stupid her argument is. The one thing I can’t believe is that everyone else read it and didn’t realize what I was doing. How far have the boards degenerated, anyway?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Secondly, “neo-con” is a code word for Jewish.

    That’s crap. Why? I looked up ‘neoconservatism’ on the Wikipedia, and while I found word-for-word the quote you gave above by David Rubin, I also found this:

    Neoconservatives respond to charges of merely rationalizing support for Israel by noting that their “position on the Middle East conflict was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor Israeli interests could be found – not to mention the fact that non-Jewish neoconservatives took the same stands on all of the issues as did their Jewish confrères.”

    Yes, Jews were quite influential in the formation of the neo-con movement, but the movement went quite beyond their influence. Not once – not once – have I ever heard before today “neo-con” conflated with anything resembling “anti-Semite”. I’ve often heard (and pointed out) how the neo-cons seemed to have (in so many words) a fetish for Israel, but the neo-con movement embraces many, many issues that involve Israel not at all.

    “Neo-con” refers to “Jews” in much the same way that “Democrat” refers to “NAACP”. In other words, it doesn’t. Some Jews are influential with the Neo-con movement just as some NAACP members are influential within the Democratic party…but the Jews don’t run the Neo-cons, and the NAACP doesn’t run the Democratic party.

  • roger nowosielski

    For the life of me, I never used the term as Baronius suggests. Nor have I ever thought that Rumsfeld or Chaney were Jews, the prototypes of “neocons” in my universe of discource.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I’ve gotten Baritone and Baronius mixed up before, too.

    We don’t see much of Baritone around here any more, sadly. I sometimes thinks he jumps onto threads where Baronius has commented just to see how much fun he can have.

    :-)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    troll’s “F Scale” is interesting (I turned out to be a “whining liberal”), but since anyone taking the quiz knows that they are being tested for fascistic tendencies, they may moderate their answers to appear less so.

    Politics is pretty much a giant Venn diagram. Any two vaguely similar philosophies are going to share some of the same ideals, goals and behaviours. So while it’s probably true that Governor Snyder wants to destroy unions, and it’s certainly true that historical fascist regimes also destroyed unions, that doesn’t in itself make Snyder a fascist, any more than the fact that I like salmon makes me a grizzly bear.

    What might be more edifying would be to take some of Snyder’s public utterances, then take some of Hitler’s, Franco’s and Mussolini’s public utterances, mix them up and see if people could tell who said what.

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m certain even some of Hitler’s utterances would sound innocuous enough if taken out of context.

  • Baronius

    Glenn (and I guess Roger too), I didn’t have to look up the connection between the use of the word “neoconservatism” and anti-Semitism. For someone who is so hyper about racism, you’re apparently quite blind to the sneering anti-Semitism of the left. A quick Google of “neoconservative Jewish” finds 1.2 million results. I checked the Wikipedia page for neoconservative, and found the word “Jewish” 26 times. Maybe you guys have been ignorant of the left’s dog-whistles all this time, but look back on it and you’ll remember that Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol were labelled as neocons more than Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    But, again, I’ll remind you that this is exactly the opposite of the main argument I’m making.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    What Snyder says and what he signs and pushes through is totally different. You would have to see Snyder politics and then you would understand why I say he is a fascist. It isn’t so much in his words, but his actions are tell tale.

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m totally ignorant, Barionius, of the so-called “racist” (or anti-Semitic) whistles. In fact, I find the term rather hilarious, and I communicated this to Glenn who was raised in the Delta.

    Of course, I wasn’t born or raised in the South as he had, so I must plead my ignorance.

  • roger nowosielski

    Shows my naivete, I guess.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    There’s racism found in many places, including the left and the right. On the left, you’ll find racism between blacks and Jews, or blacks and Hispanics, almost all of which has squat to do with politics. On the right, you’ll find racism of whites against almost anyone who isn’t white, and it DOES infect their politics. Okay? I’m not blind to racism…but having been racist, I still hear the dog whistles quite clearly…and I’m of the opinion that most of those on the right who claim to not be racist hear the dog whistles just as clearly, but simply choose to ignore their existence and the influence those dog whistles have on the GOP as a whole. Or doesn’t the nearly lily-white nature of GOP gatherings mean anything to you?

    That said, I have yet to see anti-Semitism truly tolerated on the left – or weren’t you paying attention Helen Thomas was fired?

    I sugget, Baronius, that you consider whether perhaps the racist dog-whistling you claim is used by the left is actually a projection of the racist dog whistles you certainly DO hear on the right…or haven’t you been paying attention to the race-baiting endemic among conservative pundits, as contrasted to the (AFAIK) total dearth of race-baiting among liberal pundits?

    Racism IS tolerated by the rank and file on the right, Baronius – but don’t make the mistake of assuming it’s tolerated by the rank and file on the left, for while there will always be some who are racist, it’s simply not tolerated as it is on the right. There is no equivalency between the left and the right when it comes to racism. Back during the years during and immediately following the Civil Rights Act, you’d have been quite correct in your assumptions, but there’s a reason why the once-completely-blue South went completely red following the Civil Rights Act. It was called Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, and they gladly accepted the racist whites (called “negrophobes”) into their ranks. Do you really think that such attitudes among the people go away in a mere generation, or that those attitudes of the Republican base in those states that now comprise the strongest base of the GOP would not infect the GOP as a whole?

    Before you preach to me about racism, Baronius, I suggest you do some real research concerning the Civil Rights struggle and Nixon’s Southern Strategy and the rise of the white evangelicals within the GOP, and then learn how these led to the almost completely lily-white nature of GOP events. I can promise you that if you’re humble enough to learn, to see what really happened, you’ll begin to feel as nauseated by the sound of those dog whistles as I am.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Baronius –

    From the “Southern Strategy” link above:

    Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

    Lee Atwater:
    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”.

    Herbert wrote in the same column, “The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.”

    ====================

    I grew up in this atmosphere, Baronius, I lived it – I know all this to be true. And what does this have to do with your accusation of anti-Semitism? Easy. Any group of people that accepts racism will be much more likely to tolerate prejudice against those of other religions or cultures or creeds…and they are miuch more likely to assume that other organizations are just as bad.

    Conversely, any group of people that rejects racism against people of color is FAR less likely to tolerate prejudice based on religion or creed.

    The proof? How much prejudice have you seen on the right against Muslims? LOTS. On the left? Not much, as Keith Ellison can tell you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    And here’s yet another example of prejudice and racism on the right. Do you really think that such behavior would be tolerated for even a day among liberals? No, I don’t think so.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “I’m pointing out how stupid this kind of labelling is.”

    Right. That’s why when Glen told you to apologize you repeated the charge. You might want to rethink your tactics because they are as clear as mud

  • Baronius

    “I sometimes thinks he jumps onto threads where Baronius has commented just to see how much fun he can have”.

    Dread, I find myself hoping that whole threads like this are practical jokes by particularly cruel friends of mine who know how much flawed reasoning irritates me.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    I can’t help myself. Thanks Glenn, but he can’t say a simple sorry because he can’t see he is wrong. That’s okay…but thank you. As for you, Baronius….you definately have the flawed thinking. Open your mind….

  • Baronius

    Glenn, we’ve talked about this before. I don’t have much hope to gain any ground with you, given that we’ve had the exact same conversation over and over, but I want to at least demonstrate to the newcomers where you’re wrong.

    First of all, you give the Southern Strategy too much credit. Some politicos pursued it, I know. But at the same time, the Democrats were getting creamed in California, New England, the West, pretty much everywhere. So it wasn’t like the South moved in some unique way. I mean, Nixon and Reagan won New York. Whatever the Republicans were doing was working everywhere.

    Secondly, it isn’t like every white Southern bigot changed parties. For every Strom Thurmond you can point to, I can point to a Robert Byrd. Why did some stay and some go? I’ll get to that in the next two points.

    Thirdly – and this is huge, given your military background – you have to recall that at the same time as the Southern Strategy, the Democratic Party shifted towards pacifism. You know how respected the military is in the South. The Democrats may have lost North Carolina on the Marine vote alone. There were two dominant issues in the 1960’s, civil rights and Vietnam. Your analysis ignores the impact of the latter.

    Fourthly, it isn’t like the Democrats really became anti-racists. They changed a little. They adopted a policy of set-asides and pandering – in a word, condescension. The Republican Party has always looked upon blacks as worthy of equality. The Democrats never have.

    Finally, there was a generational shift. The 1984 voter wasn’t the same person as the 1964 voter. You seem to ignore that too.

  • Zingzing

    Baronius, you’re just the other side of the coin to glenn’s argument. Just as slanted as ever. That bit about the republican party and equality is laughable…

  • roger nowosielski

    Was thinking the same thing, zing. Where in hell did he get that idea? Must be thinking of Lincoln, I suppose.

  • zingzing

    i bet he likes to think that the playing field is level, and therefore any special consideration given to minorities is “pandering” and “condescension.” but of course the playing field isn’t level, and only a fool, or the willfully blind, believes that it is. baronius seems to be in that latter camp, as he wants to believe it so much, he’ll buy any type of garbage in order to make himself feel better about it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Your third point is the only one that holds any water, and your fourth point…

    Fourthly, it isn’t like the Democrats really became anti-racists. They changed a little. They adopted a policy of set-asides and pandering – in a word, condescension. The Republican Party has always looked upon blacks as worthy of equality. The Democrats never have.

    …evinces a wealth of ignorance. The Republicans DID fight for equality for blacks back in the 1800’s…but that was back in the day when the Democrats were the conservative party and the Republicans, the liberal party. Ever since the years following the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans have been of the opinion that “okay, you’re equal now, so we don’t have to do a damned thing for you, never mind the centuries of slavery and decades of Jim Crow you went through.” To Republicans, I guess, equality for blacks was just as easy as flipping on a light switch.

    Which is why, I guess, the Republicans think it’s okay to race-bait all and sundry, and why white supremacists are always on the right and never on the left, and why Ron Paul – who believes the Civil Rights Act should be repealed – is a Republican and not a Democrat.

  • roger nowosielski

    It’s uglier than that, zing. According to Baronius, if you’re poor, you’re undeserving and it’s your own damn fault, whether you black or white. He’s well to do and, naturally, self-justified in his own eyes.

    How does he deal with this ugliness inside? Personal charity speaks to the goodness of his heart.

  • Igor

    Hey Baronius: how many black Americans has the Republican party sent to the House Of Representatives in the past 40 years?

  • Zingzing

    Baronius isn’t that bad, Roger. He’s not evil, just somewhat delusional.

  • Igor

    @72-Glenn:

    “Ever since the years following the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans have been of the opinion that “okay, you’re equal now, so we don’t have to do a damned thing for you, never mind the centuries of slavery and decades of Jim Crow you went through.”

    I don’t think that was their opinion, IMO it as just a pose; an attempt to excuse their behaviour.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I think that you’re right when it comes to many of them.

  • Baronius

    Igor – I don’t count blacks. That’s the point. Why do you?

    There have been some. I know that there have been black candidates on the GOP side, but they rarely win in general elections. The Democrats won’t vote for them – and to some extent I say, good for them. They shouldn’t vote for people based on their skin color. I hope that Republicans don’t back candidates based on their skin color, but sometimes it seems that a candidate or an official will get a boost because he’s black and Republicans want to prove they’re not racists.

    I think that Clarence Thomas is a good example. He was qualified for the position, but he was clearly chosen to fill the black seat on the Court. Democrats do hate black conservatives and female conservatives more than the average white male conservative though. It takes away the party’s one claim to fame, its openness. I mean, if being a dumb VP candidate was really a problem for them, they wouldn’t have voted for either ticket in 2008.

    As to Roger’s comment, I don’t believe that every person should be abandoned, black or white. I think that everyone should receive the same assistance, and most of it shouldn’t be governmental.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    On the question of whether Rick Snyder is turning Michigan into a fascist state, it might be edifying to look at this article in which Dr Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies the 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

    I think many of them are outside the scope of Snyder’s powers as a state governor, but to my mind they are a dead ringer for the United States as a whole over the past decade or so.

  • Baronius

    Dread, it appears that Britt isn’t a doctor or a political scientist. He’s a fiction writer who wrote that article as a criticism of the Bush administration.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Dr. Awesome article. Thanks for sharing. Yes he lacks the total U.S power, but there is a lot of talk that Romney will be choosing Snyder as a running mate….that in itself makes me question Romney’s intent.
    Baronius: I guess you missed all the researched and referenced titles at the bottom of the page…Enlighten me Baronius, what is do you think fascism is? I can’t wait to hear this response.

  • Baronius

    Pam, a historian wouldn’t have written an article that sloppy. The first thing that struck me was his inclusion of the Pinochet regime as fascist. Lousy, yes. Not really fascist. Pinochet broke half a dozen of the “defining” characteristics of fascism, his reign ending with a free(ish) election and his stepping down.

    Next, the author claims that fascist regimes are anti-abortion. For an authority on fascism, he hasn’t read much about the Third Reich. Their position on abortion was complex, and didn’t have anything to do with religion or women. It was primarily about raising Germans, and not raising non-Germans. Including opposition to abortion on a list of characteristics of fascism showed me that the author was more interested in hitting the American right than analyzing the topic at hand.

    Further on, he made a few statements about religion and fascism that made sense for a writer in a secular humanist journal, but not for a historian. Again, it’s a lot more complicated than he depicts it. A historian worth his salt wouldn’t have generalized the way he did.

    And the capstone is that, after reading it, I was so sure that the author wasn’t an expert that I took the time to look it up, and sure enough he isn’t.

    As for my definition of fascism, well, I’ve written several comments about that already. In comment #9 I said that nationalistic totalitarianism was a good working definition.

  • Baronius

    Dread, I should note that I’m not questioning *your* status as a doctor.

  • Baronius

    One other thing. The article says that fascist governments fix elections, if necessary through a supportive judiciary. That was obviously an allusion to the 2000 US Supreme Court decision. But as far as I know, that never happened in any of the seven example countries that Britt cites. The regimes may have ignored election results, or cancelled elections, but I don’t know of a one that used the court system to overturn or invalidate an election. Again, I’m not saying that Hitler or any of the others was a wonderful guy. I’m simply saying that a historian doesn’t get to make up facts, and I think that Britt is wrong on this.

    I could be wrong on this point. Does anyone know if any of the example countries’ judiciaries ever improperly intervened in elections? Or if it’s happened often enough that it belongs on a list of essential features of a fascist government?

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Well, you count a lot on historians and their fact finding. I think the list is pretty totalitarianism as it stands now. That list, historically proven by your standards or not, is not the list of a free society, by any means. I think it shows the freedoms we have lost. Baronius, you can’t truly believe the laws made against the Constitution are laws to protect you and I. It doesn’t make sense. It’s obvious there is a larger agenda and it isn’t pro freedom. It is fascist. It is totalitarian. The right fixes elections all the time. Look what the Rep party did to Ron Paul in Maine. Look at the Bush/Kerry or Bush/Gore elections. Look at voter suppression. That is all backed by corporate money. The Koch Brother’s play a huge part in voter suppression. Should it be allowed in our democracy? Is that free? Is that what we stand for? Win, win, win, and if you have to cheat, cheat? The vote is the crux of our democracy and when we cheat, who are we cheating? What are we cheating? It isn’t anything but the control and the union of business and state….and that is fascism.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    As for the Supreme Court decision. How dare they appoint our President. “For the people” really fell on its red, white, and blue asses on that one.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Interesting responses to my #79. With regard to Baronius’s objection to Britt’s inclusion of the Pinochet regime in his analysis, Britt does acknowledge that fascism isn’t a “one size fits all” thing, and of course he’s right: no political system of any kind is going to be exactly the same in any two different states – including within your very own federation here.

    Baronius is also correct, of course, that Britt devised his list as a criticism of the Bush regi… excuse me, administration. With that in mind, it contains one fatal flaw, which is that it exists. Were the US an actual fascist regime, the article would have disappeared pronto and Britt would be inhaling Zyklon-B right about now.

    Interestingly, here are some of the key features of a certain politico-economic system that was a big hit a few decades ago:
    – no social classes, although there is a ruling elite
    – a single political party
    – seizure of private property and its transference into public ownership
    – government control of the economy and of the means of production
    – secret police who spy on the state’s own citizens
    – pervasive militarism, including frequent aggression or threats against foreign powers
    – pervasive propaganda
    – suppression or discouragement of political dissent

    …You’ll find plenty of people who would say that these things are happening in America right now and that we are plummeting headlong into socialism or, worse still, communism.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    As for the Supreme Court decision. How dare they appoint our President.

    What other option was there, Pam?

    The final decision went precisely along party lines. The justices are only human, and there was far too much at stake for their personal preferences not to trump any legal misgivings they might have had.

    The sensible thing, of course, would have been to call the whole election a tie (at least in Florida), give everyone a few weeks to cool off and then re-run it.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    My problem with Bush/Gore, and don’t misunderstand, I didn’t like Gore, would have been to set aside the electoral votes and to honor the vote of the public. The popular vote went to Gore and that is what should have stood. I would have had a lot of respect of bush would have said: The people have spoken and maybe I’ll see you the next time around” but they had to act like babies and fight over it like two little fat kids fighting over an oreo. No self respect and no respect for the rights of the people. The voter suppression shit has to end, as well. The lobbists have to end. The “party” theory has to change or end. Not that Ron is a fav, either, but what they did to him in Maine isn’t much different than the dems did to Hilary. It’s all bullshit that is totally not what we are supposed to be based in.
    I am hoping Romney picks Snyder as a running mate….that will show his true colors…

  • Baronius

    Pam – You can’t change the rules during (or after) the election. Both parties knew how the Electoral College works, and they made their decisions accordingly. They would have chosen different strategies, or even different candidates and platforms, if the election were to be decided by popular vote. Besides, I think the smaller states would have had a problem with their constitutional rights being stripped away.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    With Voter suppression today I think all states should have a problem with their rights being stripped away. The need for electoral votes has passed. We aren’t waiting for Paul Revere to come riding up on his horse to deliver the votes by hand anymore. Every vote should be counted and electoral votes should be a thing of the past. The popular vote should have superceeded a court ruling. The voice of the people or the ruling of a court, which one “should” be the stronger voice? You tell me. Are we “for and by the people?” Not at all…not anymore.

  • Baronius

    Pam, if you want to change the Constitution, by all means feel free to try. The Constitution provides the methods for doing so. (One BC regular always calls for a new Constitutional convention.)

    But you don’t get to suspend the Constitution because you don’t like the results of an election. I mean, isn’t that what you’re asking to do? The law says we follow the Electoral College. It has benefits and drawbacks, but it’s the law. Britt’s list included “fraudulent elections”. Any variation from the law is fraud. Overturning the results for any reason whatsoever is the worst sort of fraud.

    I don’t always like the outcome of constitutionally correct actions. I thought that Clinton should have been removed from office. If the Senate had voted for it, I would have been happy. They didn’t. I have no respect for any senator who voted for an aquittal just because he’s a Democrat, and no respect for anyone who voted for a conviction just because he’s a Republican.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    I can’t believe I’m going to agree with you on one point…nobody should be held guilty or innocent due to party…period. As for changing the Constitution…come on … the patriot Act 1 and 2 and NDAA didn’t do that? Of course nobody will change electoral votes…it’s harder to buy the public.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    (One BC regular always calls for a new Constitutional convention.)

    Ah yes, Joel Hirschhorn, bless him, and his particular talent. Wonder where he’s got to lately?

    Joel could begin an article with any proposition whatsoever – e.g. “The price of lima beans is too high” and conclude with “therefore we need an Article V convention”.

  • Baronius

    :) Sometimes there wouldn’t be any steps between the lima beans and the convention.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    “A reasonably priced can of lima beans, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

  • Igor

    Most of the legal opinions I’ve read say that the SCOTUS at least bent (and probably broke) the constitution when they took the decision away from the state of Florida in order to decide it themselves. Of course, once constitutional law was set aside a party line vote followed. I was disgusted and I had voted for Bush.

    The common excuse for the SCOTUs’s extreme action was to finalize things and remove any tarnish from a Bush presidency.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Igor, Bush would be a lot of fun at a bbq, but short of that…well we all know, now. That was my point, if Bush would have said: “The people have spoken and I’ll catch you next election” I would have at least been able to respect him, somewhat? Until the next time came, of course.

  • STM

    America suffers terribly as a nation from never having had a political party (as a genuine force in politics) that represents the ordinary working American … a Labor Party.

    The Democrats are still very to the right, and the GOP really runs the gamut from mainstream capitalists to the extreme right.

    In the process of all this, the ordinary American gets shafted (as happened in 2008).

    If Americans understood the changes that have been brought about by this representation as a political force of working men and women in other parts of the English-speaking world, and the rights they have won and legislated for, they might not be so inclined to bizarrely label Obama a commie.

    He still heads a political party that remains only slightly to the left of Atila the Hun, while the Republicans stand marginally to the right of Genghis Khan.

    There are many other rights to be had apart from those contained in the Bill of Rights.

    The more the merrier.

    Nothing wrong with a bit of orchestrated wealth sharing either as long as everyone’s getting something out of it – including the rich and the corporate, perhaps in terms of better productivity, higher profits staff loyalty, etc.

    When everyone’s got a decent slice of the pie and it’s all going around and around, it creates more jobs, better lifestyle, higher standard of living.

    America is now in danger of creating a very dangerous divide between those who have everything and those who have a bit, or nothing.

    If Obama’s a commie, he’s not doing enough then in that regard.

    And don’t tell me none of this stuff works because it takes away individual freedoms … I live in a country where it very much does work and where I can still jump up and down as a small part of one big voice and force governments either to change their tack or get turfed out at the ballot box.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    STM, where are you from, because I know you aren’t that free here, now!

  • STM

    I’m from Australia Pam … workers’ paradise in the sun, and where employers are doing pretty well too!

    I think this place is how America could have been if they’d just got on with it :)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Pam, STM hails from Australia, a country which from personal experience I know to be absolutely marvellous in all respects except that they too cannot spell the word “labour”. :-)

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    Dr. Dread, I have friends in Australia. I love talking politics with them, they view America without the propaganda we are fed. It’s interesting. They are much more free than we are…assuming you are in the States. Yes, STM, you guys have it made compared to us. You make our “freedom” reveal it’s real self. I know, Dread, they can’t spell…funny.

  • STM

    Lol. At least we drive on the proper side of the road, though …

  • STM

    Doc, no one’s ever been able to give me a good reason why we spell Labor Party the American way, when everything else – including the word “labour” used in any other context – is spelled the Queen’s English way.

    I suspect spelling might not have been the strong point of the trade unionists who set up the party way back.

    Certainly that is the case with other similar anomolies regarding names in the state to which I’ve recently moved – they have a Victor Harbor and an Outer Harbor here. Everyone has very pointedly told me that unlike Sydney Harbour, it has no “u” in it.

    The reason: back in the early 1800s, people often spelled things as they sounded. The surveyor-general of the time wrote it as Harbor, and that’s how those two names have survived … because it’s on all the official state documents without a “u”, there it simply is named as it;s spelled.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    @ #104: You do indeed. Did you miss the bit where your only national imperfection was your difficulty with the names of political parties?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    no one’s ever been able to give me a good reason why we spell Labor Party the American way

    Perhaps the party’s inaugural meeting was at a cinema, and they wanted to advertise it on the board out front but the theatre had run out of Us.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    I sort of like the Aussie way of spelling….

  • STM

    Pam, you know what else is interesting about this place? There is no bill of rights, and a movement to make sure we don’t get one.

    The reason: at the time of the constitution being written in Australia at the time of federation, and while the debate raged about how it should be drawn up, those rights written down in the US constitution were taken to exist anyway either under common law or through statutes and the like inherited from Britain.

    We have the same rights as Americans, with some slight differences in such things as defamation (in which the courts hold there is a line that can be crrossed in this regard and that people have a right not to have their lives screwed up by the publication of rumour and hearsay with no basis in fact. However, the High Court has ruled that free speech is implied in our constitution, No one ever believed we didn’t have it or exercised it, but it’s good that the court has ruled on it).

    Rather than that being against free speech, I see it as a sensible control to stop idiots in their tracks before they do too much damage to a person’s reputation in the public arena … and an extra right. The other is around gun laws. There is no ban on gun ownership, but there are some sensible controls around automatic weapons and handguns. But we actually voted to have those introduced after a spate of mass killings with easily available assault-style weapons (including the shootings of 35 people at Port Arthur in the ’90s). If a nation votes for that, we are exercising our right to the democratic freedom of having our voices heard.

    I see not going bankrupt when you get sick as a right, and I see the industrial courts awarding workers six weeks’ a year paid leave on top of their public holidays as a hard-won right for the ordinary worker.

    Sometimes I think Americans have got to the point where they only define rights as being those listed as so in the constitution – yet many of these are what are regarded throughout the rest of the English-speaking world as the natural rights of man, courtesy of our very enlightened and forward-thinking British cousins way back.

    I worry for thev wellbeing of the US and the American people in the current circumstances (I always buy out of season fruits from America at the groceries hoping that will help keep another American in a job). I hope people realise over there that if they begin spending their money on things produced and made in the US instead of offshore, the US economy benefits.

    The slight fall in the value of the US dollar, which the shysters on Wall Street always kept artificially high, has been a bonus for US producers as it’s helped them win back some lost export markets,

    I read a piece in the news here recently that it had been partly responsible for the glimmer of a US recovery. Let’s hope so … the world would be a rotten place without a US as we know it and love it.

    Cheers

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dr Dreadful’s Quick Introduction to Australian Political Parties:

    Labor Party: Can’t spell. Has trouble with governing also. Has lost popular touch, i.e. Aussie tradition of prime ministers having blokey, common-man names like “Fred”, “Reg”, “Sid”, “Frank”, “Bob” and “Alf”. Does not realize that “Kevin” and “Julia” just don’t cut it. Frankly, “Paul” was pushing it.
    Liberal Party: Right wing, fiscally and socially conservative. Enjoys introducing draconian, hugely unpopular policies right before an election.
    National Party: A regional party.
    Democratic Labor Party: Also can’t spell. Anti-union, favours abolition of elections and direct rule by oligarchy of business leaders.
    New Party: Founded by members of the Pitjantjara tribe in 23,704 B.C.
    Greens: Pro-nuclear. Claims global warming is a hoax. Would shut down national rail network and build 12-lane expressways at five-mile intervals across entire country. Wants Australia to develop own whaling industry.
    Australian Nazi Party: Strongly pro-Israel. Favours mass public gay love-ins.

  • http://www.passionoftruth.blogspot.com Pam Messingham

    STM, I know you have way more rights than we do…and I will bet a U.S. dollar that you also have national health care. Right?
    Dread…that was great…thanks for the chuckle.

  • Baronius

    Dread, I guess that some things really are upside-down there.

    As for the driving thing, most everyone drove on the left in the single-horse years, then switched to the right when wagons went to double horses. Most of the holdouts were island nations, who weren’t pressured into switching by neighbors. (India and Pakistan as well.)