Osama bin Texan, the terror commie (i.e. Kerry supporter) too afeared to admit he himself is a terrorist has bin tryin to get me to join a cult: Something called the John Birch Society. He's been forcing me to edumacate myself at the point of a gun. Here is what I done gone learned:

Author Alan Stang writes that he often heard Mr. Welch say that "most of the ills of the world would disappear if people just started telling the truth." Stang called Mr. Welch a "fanatic for the truth" and went on to relate that many people revere it; some even tell it. Robert Welch is ferocious about it .... The surest way to set off an eruption that would rank with Krakatoa is to prove to Robert Welch that somebody is lying .... To Robert Welch, honesty is everything.

Lying Leaders

This characteristic, Stang writes, is one of the reasons Welch decided to lead a fight, literally to the death if necessary, against conspirators whose entire worldview has always been rooted in deception and whose unacknowledged spiritual leader is that very same father of lies spoken of in the Gospel of St. John. It was this unyielding zeal for truth that impelled him to write his most famous book, The Politician. The Politician is Mr. Welch"s study of the amazing career of Dwight David Eisenhower and was originally written as a private letter to close friends. Welch had been involved for some years in the Republican Party in his home state of Massachusetts, where he ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in 1950.

During the 1952 presidential campaign, conservative Robert Taft was the favorite of patriotic individuals and organizations for the Republican presidential nomination. Conservatives saw in Taft possibilities for a patriotic counterrevolution that would undercut the rising forces of internationalism and welfarism and restore the Republic as it had existed before Roosevelt's election in 1932.

Those hopes were dashed, however, by the entry into the race of General Eisenhower, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II. Eisenhower, though he snatched the nomination away from Taft, ran as a conservative (like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush in more recent years). Like many other Americans, Mr. Welch tried to maintain optimism, hoping that Ike might, after all, accomplish at least some of what Taft had promised. Yet such hope soon floundered on the sharp rocks of reality. Eisenhower spoke against communism, against the welfare state, and against the moral decay that even then was evident in American society. But once in office, he did everything in his power to preserve and reinforce all of those policies for which the American electorate had rejected the Democrats. Eisenhower soon dubbed his brand of leadership "modern Republicanism," which actually meant liberal, big-government Republicanism. The Eisenhower Administration differed from liberal, big-government Democratic administrations in style, but not in substance. This betrayal of conservative principles led Mr. Welch to scrutinize more closely the record and career of General Eisenhower, and what he found left him stunned.

Eisenhower Exposed

First, he discovered that Eisenhower was no military genius, contrary to the image so assiduously cultivated by the liberal media. Such capabilities as he possessed were more in keeping with those of a wily politician, not a military man. So mediocre were Ike's talents that only a few years before his appointment as Supreme Commander he had served as aide-de-camp, with the rank of major, to General Douglas MacArthur. However, what he lacked in military acumen he compensated for in shrewd political savvy. Succeeding in capturing the attention of President Roosevelt, from that moment his future was assured. Eisenhower rose ever higher in the starry upper echelons of military rank while serving as the ever-faithful crony of Roosevelt and his Administration, the leftist ideology of which he apparently shared fully.
Mr. Welch's second discovery was that, throughout World War II, Eisenhower was obsessed with the notion that, whatever the sacrifice in Allied lives or cost to the postwar order of the various European nations, everything possible must be done to facilitate the forward motion of the Red Army and to assure that, when all of the dust finally settled, the communists would control as much of Europe as possible. Eisenhower's penchant for protecting Soviet interests was made manifest especially as the war entered its last phases. Though Berlin and Prague might well have been captured by U.S. forces, thus making the postwar world infinitely less complex and dangerous, Eisenhower ordered advancing U.S. armies to stop, thus assuring the capture of strategically vital territory by the Soviets.

To make matters even worse, Eisenhower gave unqualified approval to such monstrous schemes as the Morganthau Plan which, had it been carried out completely, would have resulted in the deaths of roughly 40 million Germans and the swift Bolshevization of Europe. He insisted too on the notorious Operation Keelhaul, the "repatriation" of Russian, Ukrainian, and other peoples who had escaped Stalin's hell on earth behind the retreating German armies. Perhaps five million people were herded into trucks and railway boxcars and shipped eastward to certain death or worse. Operation Keelhaul was FDR's and Eisenhower's magnificent gift to Stalin and to his grim, satanocratic gulag empire; it was a culmination of friendship, fidelity, and accord; and it was a deed that for its sheer infamy is unmatched in the history of our nation and its armed forces.
...
The struggle against the forces of the collectivist conspiracy is the fiercest in which the American Republic has ever engaged. Too few people today, however, grasp the fact that many Americans did not immediately fathom the seriousness of this fight. In the Roosevelt and Truman years, Americans were told that Joseph Stalin was our friend and ally, that he was a good "democrat," and that he was in no way different from us in wanting a just and peaceful world. Exhausted by the tremendous exertion of the war, Americans were slow at first to come to grips with the communist menace.

To make matters worse, Roosevelt and Truman refused themselves to come to grips with communist subversives in the U.S. government. "Some of my best friends are communists," Roosevelt once declared (no doubt accurately!) with a chuckle. With so blasé an attitude on the part of the President of the United States, it is no surprise that hordes of communists infiltrated critical agencies of the federal government and, once ensconced in influential positions, used their newly
acquired power to advance the aims of their superiors abroad. Robert Welch was among the first to expose the scandal of the use of the country's power, prestige, and money in furthering communist objectives, and he did this by writing his first major political work, May God Forgive Us.
...
In 1951, in his concurring opinion accompanying a 6-2 decision upholding the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, Supreme Court Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson labeled communism a "conspiracy."
...
As of January 1, 1957, Mr. Welch gave up most of his business responsibilities-and most of his income-in order to devote practically all of his time and energy to the anti-Communist cause. Believes that the only thing the Communists now fear is having the truth become widely known, to the American people, about the methods and the progress of the whole international Communist conspiracy. For his readers or his listeners, Mr. Welch simply puts together clear but separate facts about the Communist advance, so that their significance becomes more apparent. Through this method he is trying to wake up as many of his fellow citizens as he can, to the horror and the imminence of the dangers which they face.

Hmmm. So basically he wanted to terrorize citizens about the wicked bad dangers of unrelenting commie-nism? So I guess he was pretty much like W.

It turns out that jib-jab, the brainwashing craze sweeping the internet is actually based on bad commie poetry:

As I went rumbling that dusty highway
I saw a sign that said "private property"
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
This side was made for you and me

In the squares of the city, in the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office, I see my people
And some were stumbling and some were wondering
If this land was made for you and me

Hardly anyone sings the last verse anymore. Some performers do include the
one before it, but they usually substitute the phrase "no trespassing" for "private property." If you're going to accuse the Spiridellis brothers of corrupting Guthrie's message, you'd be better off ignoring their political jabs and jumping to the end of the movie, when Kerry and Bush throw their arms around each other and declare they're for unity after all. That doesn't quite square with Guthrie's attitude towards politicians.

At any rate, this is hardly the first time Guthrie's song has been parodied, and there's no reason to believe that this take-off is any more likely to destroy the tune's reputation than the others. When I was a boy, I usually eschewed the original "This Land" in favor of the version I learned on that great transmission belt of folk songs, the playground:

This land ain't your land, this land is my land
I've got a shotgun, and you ain't got one
I'll blow your head off if you don't get off
This land is private property

Private property to commies is like garlic to vampires, in case there is some readers of my blog just getting their readin training wheels.

In other news, the old guy has been getting confused as to which side he is on again. He thinks there is some side called America - I never heard of it - I only heard of republi-commies and democra-commies. Here is what the old guy done said:

Pump oil and put the revenue into the Iraqi treasury; but the world oil
price goes to $20/bbl, the Dow goes to 12,000, US tax revenues wipe out the
deficit, and we are all happy.

But that didn't happen. Why not? I do not know, but Bush ought to find
out, and fire a bunch of idiot advisors.

We are in Iraq and reduced to the argument that Saddam was not a nice
guy so the Iraqi are better off now. That may be true, but it is hard to see how
we are better off now. No, we can't cut and run; but peace and order and flowing
oil are the best things Iraq can wish for, and as it happens, that is what is
best for us as well. And if the US Army and Halliburton can't get the oil
flowing, what good are they?

As to domestic politics, the NEA, the Trial Lawyers, and Jesse Jackson
are all no more than shakedown artists and bandits, and while some individual
members of those coalitions may have more in mind than loot, the organizations
themselves behave exactly as you would expect them to: producing the ghastly
American education system which Charlie Sheffield and I described in Higher
Education, only it's worse than we thought it would be. And it will be worse
yet. The Trial Lawyers have looted the nation of billions and there is no end in
sight to that. And Jesse Jackson's shakedown techniques are honed to a fine
point. And of course I name only three of the groups that must be satisfied once
the Democrats obtain office. There are dozens, all voracious.

Where is anyone who wants to devolve the government back to the states,
and counties, and cities, and villages? Not that the Republicans have not their
share of thugs: but one would have thought, at least until recently, that they
were intelligent thugs who could be satisfied: parasites but at least parasites
who will not kill the host. But now I am not sure.

I don't believe the Democrats can get the oil flowing again; and the
last time they were in control of the military they demonstrated that they are
still the Party of War (US involvement in WWI, WW II, Cold War, Korea,
Viet Nam, Haiti, all started under Democratic presidents), and also that they
were now interested only in wars in which there is no discernable US interest:
Bosnia, and the whole Balkan affair. Republican adventures were generally short
and decisive (Granada and Panama come to mind) and had some faint connection
with national interest: even Iraq if we had done it right. Bush the Elder got us
into Somalia but was ready to get out: staying to build nations was another
President's idea. The Party of War kept us there until the Black Hawk was down.
The Party of War, but never war in American interests. "What's the use of that
splendid army if we can't use it to do good?"

I do think the Republicans may be able to get the Iraq oil out of the
ground and flowing, and that can save us from the coming Depression; but it is a
faint hope, similar to my hope that most of the Republican thugs are at least
partly satiated with public pork. I have less confidence in Democrat competence:
not disciplined enough and too many horde leaders to satisfy. That may be
cynicism, but it is based on observation and experience.

We live in the wealthiest nation that ever was, and had until recently
the best educated population that ever was: and yet we live at the edge of a
precipice. Jane Jacobs' new book DARK AGE AHEAD holds many truths; one hopes she is not correct in the title.

This brings up an interesting point. Lets say you had a group of thugs, lets call them republithugs, that always said one thing and speechified one thing, but always secretly did another. And whenever a rival gang of thugs (democrathugs) got to uppity, the republithugs would accuse them of being against this one thing. Which group is better if you happen to believe in the one thing? Also consider that the democrathugs never explicitly advocate for the one thing (less stealing). This sounds like the kind of serious question that I know EXACTLY how to settle.

BY STABBING ANYONE INVOLVED WITH A KNIFE.

STAB STAB STAB.

-posted by Bad Commie @ 6:02 PM