by Tina Grazier
Last week I had a discussion with a poster to our blog about fascism. Quentins somewhat veiled assertion, if I read him right, was that both republicans and democrats favor fascist policies; that we cant tell one from the other. Although I admit both parties have participated in the move toward greater government intrusion into private affairs, I greatly disagree that both parties have been motivated by a desire for greater government control. Today I came across two Wall Street Journal articles that illustrate the purpose and intent of prominent democrat leaders. I thought I would share them and challenge any person, particularly those of a more leftward persuasion, to offer similar evidence against republican representatives in our current government.
This challenge may go unmet, but I assure you that, even without a comparative, the information submitted here makes for compelling reading and is well worth your perusal. Lets begin by revisiting the definition of fascism:
FASCISM – any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition b : any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control.
Our first story involves a sitting senator of some significance. Henry Waxman has represented Californias 30th congressional District since 1975 and is now chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Prior to his entry into politics at the federal level, he served in the California State Assembly. The following excerpts in the Wall Street Journal article, The Waxman Method, followed the line of our discussion and the definition of fascism in the sense of a tendency toward dictatorial control and exercising forcible suppression of opposition. These are immediately apparent in Waxmans action and method:
Howard Krongard worked his last day at the State Department recently, having learned a hard lesson in the ways of modern Congressional “oversight.” To wit, if you don’t follow Henry Waxman’s orders, he’ll try to ruin you. ** In July, Mr. Krongard testified before Mr. Waxman’s House oversight committee about a non-scandal involving allegedly poor treatment of foreign workers at the construction site of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Mr. Krongard said he had inspected and found no evidence of human trafficking or human-rights violations. That’s not what Mr. Waxman wanted to hear. In his opening statement, the California partisan insisted that State’s approach to the inquiry was evidence of a “full bunker mentality.” ** Mr. Krongard soon found a bull’s-eye on his back. As if on cue, “whistleblowers” emerged to accuse him of being too cozy with top State officials, failing to pick up counterfeit computers in Afghanistan, and even of being a high-handed boss. The principal complainers were not under oath, nor did they offer much evidence. One accuser admitted that, “I have no proof, I want to make that clear it is just my opinion.”
The article goes on to list various accusations brought against Mr. Krongard as well as Mr. Krongards representation of what actually happened, the steps he took to insure his independent perspective in investigations, and examples of his integrity. The bottom line seems to be that he was unwilling to play ball in a scheme, one of many, to smear the administration through scandal. He therefore became an “enemy” in the tradition of leftist radical, hero and mentor Saul Alinski.
Political arm-twisting, to bring about scandal where none exists, is a radical feature of fascistic behavior and attitude. Another is using ones political position and power to bring legislation forward that moves our country toward greater government intervention and control; the fascism of a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance.
Examples of this method were illustrated in a second Wall Street Journal article, Equal Rights Nonesense, by Roger Clegg. This article features legislation introduced by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
There are actually two versions of “comparable worth” legislation, the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. The former is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama; the principal sponsor of the latter is Sen. Hillary Clinton (Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor). Both would push companies to set wages based not on supply and demand — that is the free market — but on some notion of social utility. The goal is to ensure that jobs performed mostly by men (say, truck drivers) are not paid more than those performed mostly by women (paralegals, perhaps). ** President Ronald Reagan correctly called comparable worth “a cockamamie idea.” A great lesson of economic theory, not to mention historical experience, is that government-set wages and prices not only curtail freedom, but lead to shortages, surpluses and market disruptions.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be aware of the social and economic realities of such legislation. Siting fairness as their motivation, they completely ignore the fact that fairness is not mentioned in the Constitution. Freedom, on the other hand, is central and foremost in the constitution and their bills, along with thousands of similarly fashioned “fairness” laws passed through the years, move Americans away from freedom. These are not random missives or temporary policy designed to ensure safety, or defense of the nation, nor do they promote the general welfare. They represent t he solid socialist philosophy that motivates each of these legislators. They represent a covert revolution; an ongoing push toward fascism.
I began this piece with the definition of fascism. I shall close with the definition of another word, a word that prompts this article’s inference. I chose to put the word intrigue in my title because, inevitably, those who embrace socialism and wish to foist it upon the people of this great nation must engage in methods of intrigue else they would have to take up arms to fight for their desired ends.
INTRIGUE – a covert and involved scheme to accomplish one’s end by devious maneuvering and crafty stratagem.
I submit that many democrats in leadership positions have fully embraced and are deeply committed to socialism and freely indulge in this brand of politicking.
Pleasevote wisely in November.