Sunday, August 5, 2012

More Insanity

I read an article by Richard (RJ) Eskow yesterday that I found in a newsletter I get. It was entitled "Hey, Sarah Palin! Some Marxists Want a Word With You". This may be the first time I've actually written the words "Sarah Palin". As a rule, I don't see/hear/read anything by or about that woman. I would say she's a disgrace to women, except that she is a disgrace to humanity.

In the article, Eskow ridicules Palin for her statements re Elizabeth Warren speaking at the Democratic Convention, stating that she's "almost confessed to her Marxist views". Eskow takes issue with Palin's use of the word "Marxist", as well as her locution, calling the verbal equivalent of an Escher drawing. (And I so agree with that!)

Eskow then offers her some other quotations from people she would have to call Marxist based on her criteria ~ people like Lincoln, Eisenhower, Bush I. One I really liked came from Eisenhower, who I have to admit is not a President I every really cared for. Except for this:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid

Right on, Ike! Sadly, of course, their number is no longer negligible, but yes, yes, they are still stupid.

And another from Ike:

In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims? (Iran, anyone?)

I loved the fact that Eisenhower refused to lower the tax on the 2%ers. It was at 92% during his administration, and he felt the country needed the money, so he wouldn't lower that rate more than one point, to 91%. And insited that corporate taxes stay at 52%.. And they complain today about an effective rate of 13% being way too high? Oh, and he expanced the Social Security ranks by about 10 million people.
And from Lincoln:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

"job creators"?

Lincoln also enacted the first Federal Income Tax, which was, effectively, a tax on the wealthy. It started at $600 dollars, which most people didn't earn in those days, at 3%, rising to 5% for those who made more than $10,000. Progressive taxes from Lincoln? Heh.

He goes on to state that there are only two explanations for the disconnect between Palin's view of Marxism and the actions and statements actually made by fellow Republicans. (I can think of a third ~ Palin has no clue what other Republicans, living or dead, have said or done. Reading comprehension is not one of her strong points.) So, Eskow says, "Either the Republican Party's greatest heroes were all closet Communists - or even the most right-leaning among them were not completely irrational human beings." (Italics are his)

I am just sick to death of these completely irrational human beings that currently inhabit the Republican party. To me, it's treasonous to sign a document pledging to uphold a policy of an individual who has never even held elective office. Congresspeople are sworn to uphold the Consitution, not Grover Norquist. It's at least fraud.

The duty of a congressperson is to represent the interests and concerns of the people who elected him/her. It is not to impose their own half-baked ideas on everyone, regardless of whether they're one of his constituents or not. What part of "representative" do these cretins not understand? And Mitch McConnell? You were sworn to uphold the Constitution, too. What part of "My goal for this Congress is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president" relates to that, at all? And did your constituency actually elect you to blockade a presidency? Did they elect you to try to torpedo each and every act that would better their lives, ease the rapid descent into poverty? I sincerely doubt that. Shame on all of you!

(Eskow's article can be found in the Nation of Change newsletter, but I can't find a way to link it here. Sorry.)

No comments:

Post a Comment