You have to pinch yourself

With too much frequency lately, it takes a foreign writer to be saying things that the American media should be saying. Here's a great article by Melanie Phillips in the UK's Spectator, including this quote:
You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.
See "Pinch Yourself", Melanie Phillips, Spectator.co.uk, 10/14/08 http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2293196/pinch-yourself.thtml
  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/01/08 @ 02:03:06 pm

    LOL...Obama is NOT a "Marxisant radical" that has been influenced at all by "black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters", period...but nice try at desperation anyways...

  • Bob Piccard
    Comment from: Bob Piccard
    11/01/08 @ 03:29:35 pm

    I'm not sure what is a Marxisant radiccal, but I'm wondering if you're hip to the way oil companies pay enough money into the state that every Alaskan gets around three K bucks (recently increased by Palin via a tax) because Alaskans were being hammered by high gas prices. This is classic Marxism-- from each according to his abilities and to each accorcing to his needs. Although, Palin didn't worry about the second half-- Alaskans got the three K regardless of need. The idea that the oil belongs to the state is a cornerstone of socialist thought. I would expect a free market capitalist to be outraged at the idea that big oil should pay a royalty for getting the oil and even further outraged that the royalties go to the state treasury. To ignore this while screaming "socialist" at the idea of raising taxes on quarter million dollar incomes makes me wonder about your priorities. Best Wishes, Bob

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/01/08 @ 04:00:19 pm

    Bob, I haven't been out there cheerleading for Alaska's policies. But that's a far cry from what Obama wants to do. It's so annoying how liberals want to take the few examples of Republicans being not pure supporters of free markets and say that justifies voting for an outright socialist. Ross

  • Bob Piccard
    Comment from: Bob Piccard
    11/01/08 @ 05:07:15 pm

    Come on Ross. You want socialism, look at Alaska. Or AIG. A progressive income tax isn't socialist. Cheerfully, Bob

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/01/08 @ 05:47:52 pm

    Bob, I don't care about Alaska. I disapprove of the government buying ownership of banks and other institutions. A progressive income tax is truly straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Go to this link, the text of the Communist Manifesto, and search for the word "progressive" http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html RGK

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/01/08 @ 10:45:37 pm

    "A progressive income tax is truly straight out of the Communist Manifesto." Tell that to Adam Smith.

  • grandpamike
    Comment from: grandpamike
    11/02/08 @ 09:35:49 pm

    Ross, You have to really "pinch yourself" to quote the laughable piece of drivel that Miss Phillips has written. But, it is refreshing to see you get miffed by obviously "liberal" readers of your blog, that you resort to signing with your trading initials instead of the usual Ross. Maybe you should expand your reading to more than the "right fringe" to get a better perspective. Peace bro....

  • Steve Balboni
    Comment from: Steve Balboni
    11/02/08 @ 10:38:58 pm

    "A progressive income tax is truly straight out of the Communist Manifesto." A progressive income tax is straight out of The Wealth of Nations, which predates the Communist Manifesto by more than 70 years. This is of course besides the point but as usual one must spend an inordinate amount of time correcting your ignorance of basic history and facts before we can even start to discuss the major issue at hand. By your own standards literally every President since the income tax was instituted is a Marxist. John McCain is an avowed Marxist, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower too. Is that really what you believe or perhaps you'd prefer to rephrase, be more precise and take another stab at this?

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/03/08 @ 06:21:59 am

    OK, let me make a clarification: a "strongly progressive" income tax is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. However, if you read the relevant quote from Smith, it seems clear (to me) that what he's talking about is much more along the lines of having certain items taxed and others not rather than necessarily a "strongly progressive" rate system as Marx proposes. Anyone who suggests that Smith would have supported redistribution of income on the scale Obama or Marx suggests is just being ridiculous. Furthermore, Smith was great, but nobody's perfect. Consider for example what happened when government tried to tax luxury yachts a few years back. Rich people didn't really care. They just skipped buying the boat...and hundreds of workers in boat-making companies lost their jobs and the states lost that tax income. Something far far more than what Smith suggested, i.e. something along the lines of Marx, is obviously what Obama supports. But it's not just that. It's all his other rhetoric over the years about income redistribution. It's what we never heard him say that landed him the endorsement of (and maybe membership in) an explicitly socialist political party in Chicago. It's "spread the wealth around". What more evidence do you need that Obama is, at best, an anti-capitalist?

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/03/08 @ 03:20:45 pm

    "Anyone who suggests that Smith would have supported redistribution of income on the scale Obama or Marx suggests is just being ridiculous." Once again, governments exists (at least in part) to redistribute wealth...it's one of the main ways that they can get things done! The govt. taxes and raises & pools money to do all sorts of things for all sorts of interests (both public & private)...there is nothing radical about that at all. Only the most extreme Right-wingers views taxes as "stealing" or progressive income taxes as "Marxist", period. "Consider for example what happened when government tried to tax luxury yachts a few years back." I dunno where you are from, but boats are still taxed all the time in coastal areas. They are also a horrible investment (as my Dad can attest to...lol...) in this environment of high gas prices & insurance. That likely has more to do with any downturn in the boat building business. "It's what we never heard him say that landed him the endorsement of (and maybe membership in) an explicitly socialist political party in Chicago." Again, this is totally bogus charge from one of the most extreme Right-wing websites on the web today. "What more evidence do you need that Obama is, at best, an anti-capitalist?" LOL...if President Obama really was "anti-capitalist", then he's be for pretty getting rid of all private business, which he isn't for BTW.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/03/08 @ 05:23:22 pm

    Governments do NOT exist to redistribute wealth. Spending money on constitutionally authorized functions of government, even if some pay more than others (not in % terms, but in actual dollars) is not redistribution. I didn't say boats aren't taxed. I said the imposition of a luxury tax on high-end boats wrecked that business. The stuff about the New Party has been shown in copies of a New Party newsletter. Part of me believes that Obama would be interested in the proposition of getting rid of all private business, but I stress that that's conjecture on my part.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/04/08 @ 10:20:13 am

    "Governments do NOT exist to redistribute wealth." Please...you don't seem to have a problem with our govt. "spreading the wealth around" to have a "strong national defense". Give us all a break...the differences here are about what the govt. spends money on, NOT whether it has a right to levy taxes from many people to spend on things that the people think are important. "I said the imposition of a luxury tax on high-end boats wrecked that business." And I say own a boat in order to know what you're talking about before you make such a wild claim. "The stuff about the New Party has been shown in copies of a New Party newsletter." Where?? "but I stress that that's conjecture on my part" ...for which you have ZERO facts to back it up with...that's the point BTW...

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/04/08 @ 01:00:43 pm

    The boat issue: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D9143AF934A35751C0A964958260&fta=y http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D91430F930A35752C0A967958260 Obama and the socialist New Party: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913