The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Like many Americans, I watched C-SPAN for the better part of yesterday. I watched as the Democrat controlled Congress won their "victory" on Health Care. At least we were told it was a victory. In all actuality, what we witnessed was our own Congressional Representatives micturating on the very document they swore to protect and uphold.

I'm not sure which was more ironic. That the party that calls themselves Democrats acted in a manner which completely defied everything within the ethos of Democracy, or that our Congress voted into effect a day to commemorate the Cold War Veterans while voting in the biggest piece of Socialist Legislation in the history of this country at the same time. Somehow, I think all of those men and women who fought, periled, and perished in the fight against Communism and Socialism do not feel honored by this.

For years now, I have heard many people refer to Liberals, Democrats, and the Left as Communists and Socialists. I myself have noticed these behavioral patterns and have used these terms to describe them. However, after yesterday, watching their complete incompetence and ineptitude, I wondered to myself: Just how good a Communist are they? After some minor research, I came to the conclusion: Not very.

The key to successfully destroying Capitalism is having a really big beard...

To truly understand Communism, you have to start with the father of the ideology--Karl Marx. The basic concept of Marxism revolves around a theory that Capitalism, like Feudalism before it, is a flawed socioeconomic system which will eventually fail and be replaced by Socialism. Socialism would, in turn, lead to a "stateless, classless society" he called Pure Communism.

In order for this to happen, a transitional period which he termed "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" had to occur. Marx believed there were two basic classes in a Capitalist society. The Bourgeoisie (Capitalists--e.g. Entrepreneurs) and the Proletariat (Working Class). In order for Socialism to come into effect, the Proletariat had to rise up against the Bourgeoisie and take over causing this Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

According to Rosa Luxemburg, a turn of the century Marxist theorist and philosopher:

"This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class, and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class — that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people."

Given this definition, the only conclusion one can come to is: If the Liberals are really Communists, they are failing miserably. 75% of Americans did not want anything to do with the Health Care Bill. They not only didn't want it passed, they wanted it killed. If this isn't a "little leading minority in the name of the class," I don't know what is. They may control the Congress, but this is 253 people speaking for 308.9 million people--3/4 of which are opposed to their agenda.

Adding further insult to injury, Marxist canon is fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy. Marx believed that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, because it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. He viewed liberal democracy as an "unrealistic utopia," because in a capitalist state all "independent" media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists and one either needs large financial resources or to be supported by the bourgeoisie to win an election.

After researching this, it is little wonder that most Left-Wing ideologues have largely rejected Marx and Marxism. This raises the question: If you reject Karl Marx and the philosophies of Marxism, how can you call yourself a Communist? The answer is, you can't.

This leads us to one final question: They're not Americans, they're not Capitalists, they're not Socialists, they're not Communists...so what are they? In a word, culls.

Behind The Deuce

Article

Today the penultimate case in the decades long battle over the 2nd Amendment is being presented before The Supreme Court of the United States of America. McDonald v. City of Chicago will finally decide the question: Does the regulation and legislation of the inalienable right of the 2nd Amendment lie within the hands of the Federal Government or the hands of the individual States?

For more than 25 years now, anti-gun lobbyists and the left-wing fringe have tried to impose gun regulations and bans based on a notion that the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment was up to interpretation, and that there was no clear judicial interpretation or precedent of either the Amendment itself or of the Founding Fathers' intent.

Today, as The Supreme Court hears McDonald v. City of Chicago, they will have to make that judicial interpretation. Even though their decision isn't expected until the end of June, they will have to decide--once and for all--what the 2nd Amendment means.

It's a Right the Left needs to stay out of.

In 2008, the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller decided that it was an individuals right to "keep and bear arms." It also decided that handguns were indeed "arms." It further stated that the Federal Government did not have the right to dictate to an individual citizen whether they could:

A. Have firearms within their household for private use.

B. Store a loaded firearm within said household.

C. Regulate or Legislate terms on the functionality of a firearm (e.g., disassembly or trigger-locks.) within said household.

Although it seemed like a major breakthrough, the victory was bittersweet. Even though it did break ground on the issue, the decision only referred to Federal Enclaves (Washington, D.C.), it did not specify whether or not this should apply to States, Counties, or Cities. Because the District of Columbia was a Federal Enclave, the city was using that as a loophole to allow for the ban.

It was also stated by the court:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

McDonald v. City of Chicago will now have to decide whether a State or any other ruling body has the right to regulate or legislate gun policy other than The United States Government. Additionally, NRA v. City of Chicago is being heard separately, but in conjunction with McDonald. The NRA's case will pose the question of the constitutionality of a regulation which disallows the registration of handguns.

The Supreme Justices seemed to be all over the map today while hearing McDonald v. City of Chicago, which means not only will the final decision be interesting, there will be a lot of finger-crossing, teeth-gritting, and hand-wringing going on up to the last minute. However, given the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, and its direct ruling on the classification of handguns being "arms," I predict a ruling will be made in the NRA's favor on NRA v. City of Chicago.

March Madness

Many Americans watched last week as President Obama crashed and burned during The Great Health Care Summit. Let's face it, when all you are is smoke and mirrors, you don't let the curtain down. Meaning, he was more well liked when people knew less about him. Americans being able to see him in action caused a backlash from both sides of the issue. Even his biggest fanboy Matt Damon has backed out from under him.

However, I had the great displeasure of catching his weekly address yesterday. It has been clear from the beginning that he knows every cheap parlor trick in the book, but he went way too far this time. Using the Olympics, the Olympic Spirit, and teamwork as a segue to a yes-we-can-let's-work-as-a-team prank to sell a dying health care bill to Americans was as stale as that pretzel that's been under the couch cushions since last July.

Watch out, Barack, your slip is showing.

The problem is, you can't sell Socialized Medicine to Americans. Even if you label it "Health Care," "Health Care Reform," "Government-run Health Care," or "Free Jujyfruits For Everyone," you're never going to sell it. It is especially hard to sell when you're using it as a veil to hide an unmistakable Democratic power grab. Add to that, all of your main objectives like Tort Reform, Mandatory Coverage, and Government Regulation are completely illegal, unconstitutional, and beyond the Powers of Congress outlined within the U.S. Constitution--et voila!--you have another dead whale on the beach.

Mmm...Jujyfruits.

As both an American and a member of what is affectionately known as "The Public," it further polarizes me against the entire issue when I see articles like this: Article

Even as President Obama prepares to convene a televised summit on health care reform designed to showcase his newfound commitment to “bipartisanship,” the White House and congressional Democrats have been finalizing their plans to ram through a health care bill using a little-known and seldom-used parliamentary gimmick known as “reconciliation.”

For those not versed in the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate, reconciliation is not what a divorced couple attempts when they visit Dr. Phil. It is a mechanism for avoiding filibusters on certain budgetary issues. If Democrats can find a way to apply it to health care reform, they could pass a bill with just 51 votes, negating the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and the loss of the 60-seat supermajority.

Reconciliation was established in 1974 to make it easier for Congress to adjust taxes and spending in order to “reconcile” actual revenues and expenditures with a previously approved budget resolution. Thus, at the end of the year, if Congress found that it was running a budget deficit higher than previously projected, it could quickly raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget back into line. Debate on such measures was abbreviated to just 20 hours (an eyeblink in Senate terms), and there could be no filibuster.

We're supposed to believe they just thought of this in last minute desperation. We're also supposed to forget that Obama has been trying to associate Health Care Reform with the Economy for months now. The present state of the Health Care System has little to no effect on the state of the economy to begin with, but it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the present state of the economy. Passing a 1.6 trillion dollar health care bill only affects the economy in one way: It puts us that much further in debt. Yet, if we can tie them together, then we can spin it so it becomes a "budgetary issue," and then we can use Reconciliation to close the deal.

Nevermind, Obama hasn't been laying the groundwork for this for months, this really is just a last minute act of desperation to pass a highly debated, extremely controversial health care bill that the majority of Americans do not want. I'm going to go back to eating my free Jujyfruits. I heard a rumor that they're made out of Kool-Aid. Delicious.

Besides, I'm sure he has better things to concern himself with, like licking his wounds after the special kick to the groin he received today when Warren Buffet, a name Obama liked to drop every five minutes on the Campaign Trail, said the Health Care Bill needed to be scrapped.