Posts Tagged ‘Occupy’

Reagan Honored in Former Soviet Bloc Countries While Defaced in US

Friday, November 25th, 2011

In Tbilisi, Georgia

Twice in the last week, nations that had once been slaves of the Soviet Union honored Ronald Reagan with statues.  As a statue of Reagan was being defaced in our own capital, first in Hungary, more recently in Poland, and now in Georgia, “the Gipper” is still remembered as the man whose vigilance and willingness to call evil by its name caused the Soviet Union to wither and die of its own grotesque weight.  He’s cited as the man whose firm stance against the “evil empire” brought the USSR to its end, and with it, the nearly half-century long Cold War.  How stunning it is that while his statue isn’t safe in this country even in his home state, across the region of Europe that had once lived under the tyrannical iron fist of the Soviet Union, he’s afforded more honor and reverence than he receives in some quarters here at home.  None can convince me that this irony isn’t symbolic of the disease that afflicts our nation.  When a man whose efforts liberated millions and whose policies lifted a nation to the pinnacle of its success at home and abroad cannot find respect he deserves at home, it’s time to question the culture that permits such an absurdity to endure.

Most Americans remember Reagan fondly, even some of his opponents at the time.  He was an optimistic leader who thought that the efforts of the people, and their simple values ought to prevail upon their leaders to provide the liberty that has been America’s great promise.  His memory is truly cherished among the great body of the American people, but to doctrinaire leftists, both his political success and his philosophical foundations are occasions for disdain and discontent.  The left simply hates Ronald Reagan.  The simple truth is that he offered a thorough refutation of leftist ideology.  He didn’t need a ten-dollar vocabulary, and it didn’t matter to the American people that he was in his seventies throughout his presidency.  He told it like it was, and still is today.

I find comfort in the fact that while freedom is withering in the US at the hands of Reagan’s opponents, in the eyes of a majority of the American people, he’s still supremely popular.  As his detractors hurl insults at him, in Eastern Europe, leaders whose nations were freed by his efforts are remembering him with statues, and saying plainly what the left has spent two decades trying to pretend hadn’t been so:  Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.  Others deserve some credit, but theirs were ancillary roles.  Only Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II deserve any mention among western leaders along with Reagan. Let’s consider what others have said recently.  From Tbilisi, Georgia:

In Tbilisi

Georgia’s pro-Western president has unveiled a monument to Ronald Reagan in the capital of the ex-Soviet state praising the 40th U.S. president for “destroying the Soviet Empire.”

Mikhail Saakashvili, whose government has for years had tense relations with Russia, also lambasted Moscow’s attempts to “restore” the Soviet Union by creating an economic bloc with other ex-Soviet nations.

He said Wednesday that the bronze statue that depicts Reagan sitting on a bench “deserves a place in the heart of Tbilisi, the heart of Georgia.”

In Warsaw, Poland, Lech Walesa:

In Warsaw

“Let us bow before Ronald Reagan for the fact that our generation was able to bring an end to the great divisions and conflicts of the world,” Mr Walesa said in a ceremony in the heart of the Polish capital Warsaw.

“What happened seemed impossible or unthinkable. The older generations still remember,” the Nobel Peace laureate said.

“In Poland, we had more than 200,000 Soviet soldiers. Across Europe, there were more than a million, as well as nuclear weapons. Major changes without a nuclear conflict seemed unlikely,” he added.

In Budapest, Hungary:

In Budapest

Prime Minister Viktor Orban and former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped unveil the statue Wednesday.

Reagan was remembered for the aid and encouragement he gave Hungary and other former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe to gain back their freedom.

Reagan “changed the world and created a new world for Central Europe,” Orban said at the unveiling ceremony. “He tore down the walls which were erected in the path of freedom in the name of distorted and sick ideologies.”

 

In Newport Beach, CA

This is simply astonishing.  While the people who had lived under the oppressive Soviet boot understand and remember what they have gained, too many in this country have spent the intervening years lying about the nature of the Soviet Union and the philosophy on which it had been based, and little is taught in our schools that would explain the importance that an honest retelling of history demands.  Look at the “Occupiers,”  our modern day iteration of the Bolsheviks.  Their historical understanding is so frightfully narrow, and their philosophical underpinnings so atrociously bankrupt, they believe, with the crude indolence of club-wielding children that the are some sort of “freedom-fighters” while they agitate on behalf of ideas refuted before many of their births.  They tell themselves they aren’t anti-capitalists, as if some sort of self-delusion will prohibit to the rest of us the view of what they’re really preaching.

I don’t think they have any idea what it is for which they now agitate, and as history repeats as the Occu-pests cry out for the United Soviet States of America, I cannot imagine a more fitting spectacle than to see that while these misguided brats rant about the inequities of the markets, they nevertheless don’t realize that what they’re demanding will only make things infinitely worse.  Perhaps it is better that statues of Ronald Reagan are erected and unveiled in Eastern Europe, because at least there, it seems the people will have some reason to remember the reasons for which his memory is honored.  These Occupiers don’t have a clue, but thankfully we have conservatives and the Tea Party who can yet teach them.

Questions For Occupiers: Do You Believe Michael Moore?

Saturday, October 29th, 2011

Occupying More than His Fair Share

I have a hard time understanding how anybody believes Michael Moore.  After sitting through three of his documentaries, including Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Capitalism: A Love Story, I don’t know why anybody really takes him very seriously.  His pushing of real conspiracy theories over 9/11 really do challenge all credulity, and I say this knowing not all my readers will agree.  Nevertheless, Moore appeared in Oakland to rally the Occupy crowd on Friday.  According to reports from the scene, the Moore was mobbed.  For me, this raises two questions of some importance:  Did none of them notice Moore is part of the one percent they claim to oppose?  If they believe Michael Moore, is there any point in talking to the Occupiers?  My answers to both questions may surprise you, but then again, perhaps not.

I doubt that the Occupiers really have any sense of what constitutes the “one percenters” they claim are the problem, but more importantly, I think they conveniently issue a political pass to those among the so-called one percent willing to kiss their feet and claim solidarity with them.  It’s a basic symptom of an ideological self-contradiction that permits them to ignore this dichotomy between their stated complaints and their acceptance of radical leftists who happen also to be rich. Roseanne Barr?  Rich, yes, but on their side?  You bet.  Susan Sarandon? Oh yes, mightily rich, but they don’t seem to want to eat her.  Michael Moore? Well, he’s “down for the cause” or whichever trendy saying they’re using these days.  George Soros?  Ah, well, now you see, they feel some unease about Mr. Soros, which is probably the reason why despite funding almost all of the organizations involved in this Marxist Mosh-Pit, he has stayed well away.  The Occupiers really don’t like having to explain away their Soros connections, their Tides Foundation connections, their Adbuster affiliations, or anything else to do with Mr. Soros.  This may be too big a contradiction even for them to talk out of existence, so instead, they simply ignore it and claim they have nothing whatever to do with Soros.

Since these people believe in Michael Moore, I suspect that for those of the type to do so, there isn’t much point in talking.  Frankly, it’s my conclusion that Moore’s dishonesty is perhaps best exhibited in Bowling for Columbine.  This anti-gun, anti-right screed is nothing short of ludicrous in its proposals and in its reporting.  When a person can tell you they support the man who produced such a piece of “work,” you know almost reflexively that you’re not going to be able to reason with them in any meaningful way.  The way in which Chuck Heston was treated and portrayed by dishonest editing is one of the greatest bits of personal assassination ever committed to film, never mind submitted to the world as a “documentary.”  If you’ve not seen these ridiculous propaganda pieces, I’d urge you to do so if for no other reason than opposition research.  Debunking them should provide you an opportunity to learn just who some of the members of Occupy really are, and what they are prone to believe.

It’s small wonder that they could be led to believe that all their problems lay at the feet of big business and Wall Street, but most particularly, those evil bankers.  Simplistic arguments of that sort always appeal to those who are most easily conned by the Michael Moores of the world.  It’s simple:  You create some bogeyman, assign them all the blame, find some mechanism by which to throttle them, and call it a day.  Nice, simple, and without effort, particularly intellectual, but nevertheless wrong.  I can’t help but feel a little sympathy for them as they come along with all their excuses for believing Michael Moore while hating Peter Schiff.  It’s an astonishing demonstration of who they are, what they believe, and whether it is even fruitful to hold a discussion with them.  The answer is firmly “no.”  When you ask them: “How is it that you have occupied a private park for nearly two months,” their answer is likely to be something absurd and naive.  None of them at the so-called “organic” level can tell you, and they’re not generally curious enough to care.  That should be your first clue.