Posts

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left

Book Review: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg
Grade: A+, 5 Stars, A Ten, whatever the scoring system, this is a great book.

There is so much to say about this outstanding book, I’m not sure where to begin. There is no way I can put everything I want to say in one post, so I plan to dedicate the next several blog posts to topics and learnings from this book.

The premise of the book is that conservatives have long been unfairly derided by liberals as fascists. The more conservative you are, according to liberal logic (or illogic), the closer you are to being a fascist. This is because liberals equate fascism with racism, warmongering and just about any other evil you can think of, and anyone who wants to stop liberals from achieving their political goals, like conservatives, must be just as bad as fascists. The truth of the matter, though, as revealed my Mr. Goldberg, is that it is liberals, and not conservatives, that resort to fascist methods to achieve their political goals. It is liberals, and not conservatives, that have political roots in the Progressive movement which also gave rise to fascism.

I will go into more detail defining what is fascism in a future post, but for now suffice it to say that fascism is a polar opposite to conservatism and much more closely akin to socialism and modern American liberalism. The Nazi party, perhaps the best example of fascism, was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hardly a right-wing organization. And Mussolini, the Italian example of fascism, was a life-long socialist; he was perhaps to the political right communism, but far left of American conservatism.

As the title of the book indicates, this is an expose on American liberals, their mind and methods. For me, every chapter was a real eye-opener. I learned much I never knew before, particularly about the Progressive movement of the early 20th century. And when I wasn’t learning new things, Mr. Goldberg was shedding new light on things I thought I already knew, like the fascist tactics of Woodrow Wilson during World War I.

This book should be required reading for every American. If we are to resist the onslaught of so-called progressive ideas from the American left, we must know their playbook and this book reveals liberals for what they really are and what they really want: an all-powerful government that reaches into every corner of our lives and replaces God with the religion of the state.

Here’s a great interview of Jonah Goldberg on the Glenn Beck TV program:

Liberal Tightwads and Compassionate Conservatives

It truly is a Christmas miracle that the New York Times printed an article over the weekend called Bleeding Heart Tightwads. The columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, admits what many of us have always instinctively known, that conservatives are more generous than liberals. He cites three studies in his column, all of which support the conclusion that liberals are far more stingy in their charitable giving than conservatives:

  • Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
  • A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
  • The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states (Republican voting states) are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states (Democrat voting states) are least likely to do so.

Kristof further says, “when liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires…(but) according to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded…(still) conservatives are more generous than liberals.”

Now after reading this, I wanted to dig into the numbers myself. Not that I don’t believe Kristof or his sources, I do, but like the name of my blog indicates, I like to analyze things. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find on the Internet any of the data he referenced in his column. Good data is so hard to come by 🙂 But I did find a report called Volunteering in America, which has state by state trends from 2002 to 2005. The volunteer rate cited in the report is the percentage of the population, 16 years of age or older, that participates in volunteering activities. As you can see in the chart below, 8 of the top 10 states are traditional Republican states, so the data seems to back up Kristof’s conclusions that conservatives are more generous in their giving.

Obama: Most Liberal Senator

Every year a computer-assisted analysis is done by the National Journal that uses key Senate votes and places every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale. Earlier this year, the 2007 ranking were released and Senator Barack Obama was rated by as the number one most liberal senator. Obama was given this ranking for good reason, here is a summary of his key voting record for the year:

  • A bill to give states the authority to set their own minimum wages…Obama voted NO.
  • A bill to require higher-income seniors to pay higher premiums for Medicare…Obama voted NO.
  • Repeal the estate tax (aka repeal the Death tax)…Obama voted NO.
  • Speed up the permitting process for oil-refining…Obama voted NO.
  • Support adult-stem-cell and other non-embryonic-stem-cell research…Obama voted NO.
  • Permit law enforcement officers to question individuals about their immigrant status…Obama voted NO.
  • Require the disclosure of information on visa applicants to law enforcement officers…Obama voted NO.
  • Make English the official language of the United States…Obama voted NO.
  • Define a fetus as an “unborn child”…Obama voted NO.
  • Raise the tax rate on income over $1 million…Obama voted YES.
  • Raise the cigarette tax by 61 cents a pack…Obama voted YES.
  • Require a study of global-warming effects…Obama voted YES.
  • Increase taxes to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program…Obama voted YES.
  • Make temporary guest workers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit…Obama voted YES.
  • Require U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by July 2007…Obama voted YES.
  • Set a timeline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq…Obama voted YES.
  • Increase financial aid for college students…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Block abuse from non-pregnant adults for coverage under SCHIP…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Limit governments’ eminent domain power over private land…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Permit funding for international organizations that perform abortions…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Prohibit family-planning funds to organizations that perform abortions…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Restrict the U.S. share of the cost of United Nations peacekeeping operations…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Block funding for World Bank…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Condemn personal attacks on Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Implement a free-trade agreement with Peru…Obama DID NOT vote.
  • Add $70 billion to a fiscal 2008 omnibus spending package to pay for the Iraq war …Obama DID NOT vote.
  • NationalJournal.com, Key Votes Used To Calculate The Ratings

    Obama consistently voted for higher taxes and more government encroachment into our lives. He voted to give benefits to illegal aliens and to make it more difficult to enforce immigration laws. And unborn child is apparently not an unborn child to Obama. His national defense record is abysmal, voting to give money to the UN and World Bank while cutting off funds to our own troops. And its astonishing the amount of key legistlation on which he did not even vote. He can’t even make up his mind, yes or no, on college financial aid or on funding abortion groups. Someone too weak to take a stand on key issues is sure to weaken our country. Obama’s voting record clearly shows us the direction he will take this country and it is not a good one.

    Godless, the Church of of Liberalism

    I just finished reading this book, and enjoyed it very much. I thought Coulter she did an excellent job of highlighting the hypocrisies and and down-right lunacy of the liberal mind-set. Here are some good quotes from the book:

    “If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.”

    Liberalism requires taking so many things on faith that it amounts to a religion with “its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys.”

    Liberalism has “its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.'”

    “Liberals’ creation myth is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It’s a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record—and that’s after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn’t still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.”

    I love the title of Chapter 9 called “Proof for How the Walkman Evolved into the iPOD by Random Mutation.”

    “Nor are intelligent design scientists looking at things they can’t explain: Quite the opposite. They are looking at things they can explain but which Darwin didn’t even know about, like the internal mechanism of the cell, and saying, That wasn’t created by natural selection—that required high-tech engineering. By contrast, the evolution cult members look at things they can’t explain and say, We can’t explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe. It must have been random chance, or it’s not ‘science.'”

    “Because of liberals druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save the Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds.”

    “Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn’t the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation?”

    “Water. Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky. Here’s an idea: Just wait. It will rain.”

    “In the 1970s, Paul Ehrlich wrote the best-selling book The Population Bomb, predicting a global famine and warning that entire nations would cease to exist by the end of the twentieth century — among them England. “[I]t is now too late,” he wrote, “to take action to save many of those people.” In 2001 — despite the perplexing persistent existence of England — the Sierra Club listed Ehrlich’s Population Bomb as among its books recommended by Sierra readers. How many trees had to be chopped down to make the paper for all those copies of The Population Bomb?”

    “Assuming you aren’t a fetus, the Left’s most dangerous religious belief is their adoration of violent criminals.”

    Liberals say, “(w)e’re the only modern democracy with the death penalty. I think that should be treated as a selling point: “come to the United States for the economic opportunity, stay because we fry our Ted Bundys!”

    “One year after Miranda, New York County district attorney Frank Hogan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that confessions in his district alone had fallen from 49 percent to 14 percent solely as a result of the Miranda decision. Federal Judge and former law professor Paul Cassell has calculated that one decision alone, Miranda, has led to the release of about 100,000 violent criminals a year. Instead of hanging their heads in shame and trying to make up for the needless suffering and death inflicted on America by their policies, liberals are proud of releasing violent criminals.”

    “At private schools, 80 percent of the personnel are teachers. By contrast, at public schools only about 50 percent of the personnel are actual teachers — most of the rest are cogs in the endless layers of machinery of the “education” bureaucracy. This would be like having 26 full-time coaches for a 26-man baseball team.”

    “Between 1982 and 2001, spending on New York City Public schools increased by more than 300 percent, clocking in at $11,474 per pupil annually. Only Washington, D.C., that hotbed of educational achievement, spends more per student. By contrast, the average tuition for private elementary schools is less than $4,000 and around $6,000 for private secondary schools.”

    “As Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace explained, “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” No set of facts can disprove the environmentalists’ secular religion. In 2004, former vice president Al Gore gave a speech on global warming in New York City on the coldest day of the year. Warm trends prove global warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman.”

    Profits Are Not Obscene and Government Distorts the Market

    In the wake of congressional, witch-hunt hearings with oil executives regarding the price of gas, John McCain has chipped in to display his liberal side once again:

    “I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.” From Michelle Malkin.com

    For 1: Profits are not obscene. As W. Cleon Skousen puts it profits are “the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.”

    For 2: Government intervention is what distorts the market, not law-abiding companies. In a free market, oil companies would be free to drill for and refine the oil we have at our finger tips. Government regulations prevent this free market activity and distort the market.

    John McCain wants to punish oil companies for running efficient operations that turn a profit. And what is this government intervention going to do? Only make the problem of high gas prices even worse. And by putting additional tax burdens on oil companies, John McCain will be taking away dividends (profits) from every day Americans who’s 401Ks are invested in these companies (43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds).

    Of course, McCain’s policy is sounding like his good buddies int he Democrat party, like Barak Obama, who’s solution to the energy problems is to make do with less: “We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK.”

    Remind me again how a liberal like McCain got the GOP nomination? Sure McCain is better than the Democrat Party nominee, but not by much. Isn’t there a better choice? Where is the conservative running for President, who believes in small government and free market solutions?