Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Last Tuesday Night (April 23, 2019) a proposal that Temecula would proclaim itself as a constitutional city and view socialism as a threat to our way of life emerged. No problem, I thought to myself. It'll win no problem. Temecula is a very conservative, and constitutionally conscientious, city.
I was out of town, anyway, and I figured enough of my constitutional allies would be there to defend Temecula's proposal.
I was wrong.
The Marxist socialists came crawling out of the slime, pulling their way up to the podium on their crooked hind limbs to stand before the Temecula City Council and convince the noodle-spined members of the council to abandon their short foray in the direction of the Constitution. They claimed there is no constitutional language that stands against socialism, and to embrace the constitution and to deny socialism is a narrow-minded stance that would come back to bite them, later.
I knew about this meeting, but was out of town. Now, I wish I was there.
Two constitutional texts stand against socialism, and one of them not only makes socialism illegal in this country, but requires the federal government to guarantee that the States remain free of socialist policies.
1. At the federal level there are no authorities granted by the Constitution giving the federal government the power to control the means of production. The very basis of socialism is central control of the means of production, which ultimately leads to control over everything else - a road that becomes more tyrannical with each passing day until, in most cases, communism takes over as the population lies in the streets starving from lack of food and fighting for a scarcity of necessities. Therefore, by shear lack of authority, the federal government cannot legally participate in the policies required to move this country towards socialism.
2. Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." That means that no State may change its system of government from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist system, or to any other system that is not a republic consistent with the system established by the United States Constitution.
Therefore, embracing the Constitution is taking a stance against socialism, and embracing socialism is not only standing directly against the U.S. Constitution, but is calling for an illegal overthrow of our constitutional republic. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and murders its citizens through starvation and by robbing the population of their individuality and incentive to make a better life for themselves through the opportunities offered by a dynamic free market.
If Temecula revisits this proposal, next time I will be sure to be there.
What we saw in Temecula is a local window into how socialism takes over. Socialism does not cripple liberty with a violent revolution, but with twisted and misguided words that cause the leaders to cower in the corner, and with actions that steal liberty from the citizens as the idiots calling for socialism provide the thunderous applause. Liberty dies not with a violent revolution, but with a whimper as we roll over and allow the socialists to walk right in and take the reins.
Shame on the Temecula City Council for not having a spine, or willingness, to stand up to the children in the audience who are convinced they want socialism because they learned it in public school.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
4 comments:
How stupid. First, it was the homelessness and now Socialism. Schools, hospitals, roads, USPS, Medicare, SS, VA, libraries, etc. are all examples of socialism! I'm guessing these are Ok but socialized health care and free or affordable education is the threat to you people???? Because.... educated healthy people are dangerous????
This post is straight-up gibberish. I sincerely hope that you are there if this comes back up, because you might learn something. You seem to have no idea how "socialism", "communism", "Marxism", or "republic" are even defined, and your conflation of Democratic policy priorities with socialism and Marxism is laughably absurd. Socialism is an economic model; republicanism is a governance model -- they are entirely distinct. There have been quite a number of socialist republics already, and there has never been any incompatibility, either in practice or in theory. Socialism also does not require a strong state, or one that takes any of your liberties. In fact, a large number of schools of socialism are explicitly anti-authoritarian and anti-statist. What socialism opposes is concentration of economic power in the hands of a few. Technically speaking, capitalism requires a strong state, and socialism can exist with no state at all! None of this is especially relevant to the inane proposal in Temecula, however, since there is no push anywhere in the US by the Democratic party to embrace socialist, Marxist, or communist principles, aside from the extremely loose sense used by the poster above. (None of that stuff is actually socialist in any way, but I can see why it is mixed up with socialism by many people.) If you would like to understand how this stuff works, feel free to reach out to me -- I'll happily appear on your radio show to clarify it for you (given I am a professor of the history of ideas).
Watch my video on socialism and the constitution and then we can talk: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2019/05/constitution-study-television-socialism.html
Also a direct response to Mr. O'Mara:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2019/05/socialist-con-artists.html
Post a Comment