Monday, March 15, 2010

Joseph Farah: Social Issues, Fascism, Political Spectrum

All issues are 'social issues'
by Joseph Farah article link
Between The Lines, WorldNet Daily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: March 15, 2010

Just as many Americans don't understand the left-right political spectrum extends from totalitarian government control on the left to anarchy on the right [article follows below], there's much confusion over the phony divide between "economic issues" and "social issues."

A story in last week's edition of Politico attempts to stir up conflict between what it calls the "evangelical right" and the tea-party movement. I am certain it will be the first of many like it in media determined to see an end to both movements.

"A reeling economy and the massive bank bailout and stimulus plan were the triggers for a resurgence in support for the Republican Party and the rise of the tea-party movement," explains Politico's Ben Smith. "But they've also banished the social issues that are the focus of many evangelical Christians to the background."

The story goes on to say the tea-party groups "eschew social issues."

We have become conditioned to hearing that "social issues" are abortion and the gender-bending agenda. However, I would like to make the case that all political issues are, in fact, "social issues." And just as those entering the political fray as tea partiers should recognize this, so must the traditional "conservatives" who have focused their attention on abortion and gender-bending.

I have some familiarity with both camps.

The problem both have is not always seeing the forest for the trees.

America is not just in trouble because government no longer respects the sanctity of life.

America is not just in trouble because government no longer respects the sanctity of marriage.

America is not just in trouble because government is spending more money than it has.

America is not just in trouble because government is redistributing wealth.

America is in trouble because government is doing all of these things and more to exceed the strict limits of its constitutional authority.

And, America is in trouble because government has, to paraphrase Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "forgotten God."

These are the two principles that unite the vast majority of the tea-party movement with the more traditional "conservative" movement and especially those who are devoted to the sanctity of life and family.

There's no divide here.

There's only a divide if we create one.

And if we create one – or allow our enemies to create one – then America will return to business as usual, and the great awakening we have seen in the last 18 months will have been just a momentary blip on history's radar screen.

This is a time for unity among pro-life activists, pro-family activists, "conservative" activists and libertarians. There are two principles that unite most of these people – whether they know it or not:

Overwhelmingly they believe we are accountable to a sovereign God who grants us unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Overwhelmingly they believe the Constitution strictly limits the power of the federal government and uniquely recognizes and protects those unalienable rights.

This is where the focus needs to be between all of the freedom-oriented groups now battling to take America back from those who would transform it to be more like all the other nations of the world – those that long ago turned from God and those that don't have a 223-year-old Constitution that removed shackles from the people and placed them on the government.

I know the heart and soul of the tea-party movement.

It is populated by people who think just like I do about these big issues. It is a movement of prayerful people, people who love God, people who go to church and synagogue. And it is a movement of people who revere the Constitution. It is not just a movement founded upon issues of materialism and economics.

Furthermore, I would submit to you that "all issues are social issues." The great economic plundering taking place by a rapacious government and the elite they serve is a "social issue." The victims are people. Private property rights is a "social issue." Equal protection under the law is a "social issue." The rule of law is a "social issue."

And, most of all, the will of the people is a "social issue."

Don't let your enemies dictate the terms of debate nor the rules of engagement.

If you care about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you care about "social issues."

© 2010

Today's bad guys truly are fascists
by Joseph Farah article link
Between The Lines, WorldNet Daily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: February 26, 2010

Self-described "progressives" seldom respond well to being labeled fascists.

They usually consider themselves to be the very antithesis.

But, as I wrote in my column last weekend, "The real political spectrum 101," [article follows below] they really are not so different.

In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find any substantive difference.

Even moderate Democrats today, people like Pat Caddell, are calling today's American "progressives" – people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – "statists." Can any reasonable observer deny they are just that? Don't they believe the state has the answer to all problems? Don't their actions suggest they think government can pretty much always do a better job than the private sector? Are they the folks pushing the "public-private partnerships"? Heck, didn't they facilitate the public takeover of General Motors?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those are the very definitions of "fascism."

[advertisement in article] Laugh out loud at the Obama administration with this unique WND T-shirt

The political ideology of fascism has nothing to do with killing Jews or even imperialistic ambitions. It has to do with government controlling corporations, doling out favors to some and punishing others and harnessing the power of success by corporations for the benefit of the state.

Again, it's a tiny step short of communism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production. Fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler recognized the inefficiency and foolishness of that utopian notion.

Mussolini put it this way: "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Here's another key quote: "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the state are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."

Sound familiar yet?

The state was God in both fascist Italy and fascist Germany. And it is rapidly becoming God in the United States.

Again, listen to Mussolini: "It is the state which educates citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission, and welds them into unity."

And if you don't believe me when I say that fascism is simply another form of left-wing socialism, read Mussolini's history. Or simpler still, listen to this quotation from Hermann Goering, Nazi German leader and close Hitler loyalist: "Our movement took a grip on cowardly Marxism and from it extracted the meaning of socialism. It also took from the cowardly middle-class parties their nationalism. Throwing both into the cauldron of our way of life there emerged, as clear as a crystal, the synthesis – German National Socialism."

I don't suppose I have to remind this sophisticated audience that's how the Nazis got their name – "national socialism."

Once again, the take-away is this: What is right now strangling the historical framework of individual rights and self-government in America today is not communism. It's fascism.

That's the proper term for what Obama and Pelosi and Reid are all about.

They may like to call themselves "progressives." So did Mussolini. So did Hitler.

They may publicly reject the notion that they are socialists. Mussolini and Hitler were a little more candid.

This is not to suggest that Obama and Pelosi and Reid are setting up America for death camps. But fascism certainly means less freedom. Fascism certainly means the state comes first. Fascism certainly places little emphasis on the rights of individuals.

Again, communism and fascism are ideological kissing cousins. They are not, as many "progressives" like to suggest, opposite ends of the political spectrum. They couldn't be any closer. All forms of socialism, collectivism and state tyranny is on the left side of the political spectrum. On the opposite end is no government – anarchy.

What's the center of the political spectrum?

Limited self-government under the rule of law and accountable to the will of the people – just the unique formula invented by America's founders.

Therefore, I can proudly and accurately say, "I'm a centrist – just like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison."

© 2010

The political spectrum 101
by Joseph Farah article link
Between The Lines, WorldNet Daily Exclusive Commentary
Posted: February 20, 2010

There's much confusion about the meaning of left and right in America today.

The confusion is, ironically, on both the left and the right.

I witnessed this most recently in commentaries and news reports about the riots at the Vancouver Olympics.

Those participating in the riots most frequently describe themselves as "anarchists."

So let's start with proponents of "anarchy." Where do they fall on the left-right political spectrum?

As proponents of no government, they would fall on the extreme right.

A true anarchist would be as far to the right as you can get on the political spectrum. Just to the left of anarchists would be libertarians, who acknowledge there is a role for government but want it strictly limited. Those we call "conservatives" might be just to the left of the libertarians.

[advertisement in article] Don't miss our Founding Fathers' most inspired arguments for constitutional government translated into today's English: "Federalist Papers In Modern Language"

Over on the other side of the political spectrum, the left side, would be those who want government to have totalitarian control. These would be hard-core Stalinists and communists.

Just to the right of them, but still way over on the left side of the spectrum, would be fascists, those who are still totalitarians, but don't insist that government own all the means of production. Fascists are content to control the means of production.

Just to the right of these folks are those in our society who call for a "mixed economy" in line with the European model. You could also call it "soft socialism."

In other words, what truly defines the political spectrum is attitude toward the proper role of government.

How does this model differentiate from the general misconceptions we hear so frequently?

First of all, fascism is often portrayed as a "right-wing" ideology, when, in fact, it is far left. Fascism and communism are ideological kissing cousins. That's how close they are on the political spectrum and in their way of governance.

In fact, I would say that fascists are often mistakenly called communists. Take a look at China today and it is not by any stretch of the imagination communist. It is fascist. Even though most people who think of themselves as "left" would tell you they detest fascism, in practice, they often have not.

Mussolini was beloved by the left and practically defined fascism. Hitler was embraced by the Communist Soviet Union, until he betrayed Stalin's non-aggression pact. Hollywood Communists led the "peace movement" in the U.S. and fought involvement in the European war until Hitler betrayed Stalin. Then, overnight, they became war mongers.

Secondly, anarchists are often descried as left-wingers, when in fact they are on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Again, the political spectrum, if it is to make any sense at all, should be based on attitude toward government.

Because of these misconceptions, many Americans are missing the real political threat facing our country. It's not from communism, but it is from another form of socialism – fascism.

Whenever you hear about "public-private partnerships," you're hearing about a fascist concept.

Whenever you hear about emergency government plans to confiscate property, block transportation and seize control of communications, it's socialism that is knocking on the door.

Look at the way we have abdicated our individual liberties in favor of "group rights." That's a fascist concept. Look at the way we demonize certain groups (whether you're talking about smokers or Bible-believing Christians) and elevate others (native Americans and homosexuals come to mind as the new noblemen or chosen people) in our society. That, too, is a fascist concept.

One of the reasons America is moving toward fascism today is because it has lost its constitutional moorings. We're supposed to believe in limited government in the United States. The federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But, in recent years, Washington has far exceeded its authority. And very few politicians – Democrats or Republicans – seem to give a darn.

So, maybe you ask, who's in the middle of the political spectrum?

The Founding Fathers were.

They believed in very limited central government but left to the states broad powers to legislate.

And I'm with them.

If we really want to understand what it is we believe and why the American form of constitutionally limited government is so superior to other forms, it's important to understand the political spectrum.

© 2010
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His book "Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality and Justice" has gained newfound popularity in the wake of November's election. Farah also edits the online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

WorldNet Daily home page


No comments:

Post a Comment

Mammon or Messiah research contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is presented without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.