THE NEW HOME OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNISTS?

For a long time I have felt that the Ecology movement was the new religion for secularists. The Internet even has a web page for "The Church Of Deep Ecology", but lately I have begun to feel that many, not all, Ecology leaders and fellow travelers are members of the resurgent American Communist Party!

This opinion has been reinforced by an article in the Friday edition of Investors Business Daily. The article is entitled "Green Comes Clean".
"In a letter addressed to President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, makes an appeal for a carbon tax, ostensibly as a means for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that's allegedly causing a dangerous greenhouse effect and warming trend.

Hansen suggests that the tax be levied "at the well-head or port of entry" from where it "will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels."

This tax will have "near-term, mid-term, and long-term" effects on "lifestyle choices," Hansen acknowledges. But he seems unconcerned about how such coercion will rearrange the lives and manage the behavior of a people who should be free of state coercion.

Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to reveal the environmentalist Lefts deeper ambition: a collectivist redistribution of wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to the public in "equal shares on a per capita basis."

It appears the veil of deception has been lifted. For the past four years we have heard that all the Ecologist wanted was cleaner air, water and prevention of "global warming".
Now it appears the real reasons for the movements attraction for Goreites scam of Carbon Credits is to redistribute the wealth of our nation.
The Ecology "cult" or perhaps I should say, Ecocosophy was articulated over thirty years ago by Norwegian Philosopher, Arne Naesss. He called his movement, Ecophilosophy.

The longer-range, older originators of the movement included writers and activists like Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and Aldo Leopold; more mainstream awareness was closer to the "wise-use" conservation philosophy pioneered by Gifford Pinchot.The long-range deep approach involves redesigning our whole systems based on values and methods that truly preserve the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems.This leaves little room for our way of life as we know it today, I believe.


In his talk and papers Naess explained the difference between the short-term, shallow and the long-range deep ecology movements in broad terms. He explained that the distinctive aspects of the deep ecology movement is its recognition of the inherent value of all other living beings, and of the inherent worth of diversity of all kinds. This awareness is used to shape environmental policies and actions. Those who work for social changes based on this recognition are motivated by love of Nature as well as for humans. They try to be caring in all their dealings. They recognize that we cannot go on with industrial culture’s business as usual. We must make fundamental changes in basic values and practices or we will destroy the diversity and beauty of the world, and its ability to support diverse human cultures. Source:Alan Dregson "Ecocentrism Home Page


Karl Marx and Engels believed that Capitalism took advantage of the working man, and to level the "playing field" the elimination of private property, repudiation of religion and the redistribution of wealth was the only way to establish a "just" society.

In the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argued that human history was best understood as a continuing struggle between a small exploiting class and a larger exploited class. At any point in time, the exploiting class controlled the means of production and profited by employing the labor of the masses. In the capitalism that developed alongside democracy, Marx and Engels saw a progressive concentration of the powers of production placed in the hands of a privileged few.
According to Marx and Engels, this was the internal contradiction of capitalism that would spell its doom.( Blogger note: It is the taxation by the unfair internal revenue system and inflation caused by the government "printing" money that has hurt the middle class, I believe)
At the end of The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that this transfer of power could only take place by force. Marx later retreated from this position and wrote that it was possible for this radical change to take place peacefully.Source: Law Encyclopedia,"Communism" And I believe we are on the peaceful "slippery slope"!

In late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common,( the government) but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.
I believe we Americans are rapidly approaching the first stage of the road to communism.

WE have government bailouts that effectively establish a permanent presence of government in the mortgage, banking and brokerage areas of the private economy.
The Supreme Court has made it legal for governments to confiscate Private property, in direct opposition to the Constitution. The city government of New London, Conn., has run upon hard times, with residents leaving and its tax base eroding. Private developers offered to build a riverfront hotel, private offices and a health club in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But there was a bit of a problem. Owners of 15 homes in the stable middle-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood refused the city's offer to buy their homes, but no sweat. The city turned over its power of eminent domain -- its ability to take private property for public use -- to the New London Development Corporation, a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. The city condemned the homeowners' properties. The homeowners sued and lost in the state court, and last week they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The framers of our Constitution gave us the Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from government property confiscation. The Amendment reads in part: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Which one of those 12 words is difficult to understand? The framers recognized there might be a need for government to acquire private property to build a road, bridge, dam or fort. That is a clear public use that requires just compensation, but is taking one person's private property to make it available for another's private use a public purpose? Justice John Paul Stevens says yes, arguing, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government."Source: Walter Williams

The Russian Revolution of 1917 occurred because Russia was in a period of depression. Since entering the war(WWI) they suffered huge losses, not only by the loss of millions of lives, but also the government had lost most of the support it had from the lower class. Most people that had migrated to the cities in search of work during the war-factories boom, Russia's currency had lost its value to the point where people were burning it for a source of heat rather than a source of buying power. Thousands of people were rioting to be fed by their government.

If the USA government keeps printing money and investing taxpayers yet unearned money to bail out favorite industries like the UAW's Big 3. The inevitable result will be hyperinflation and a near worthless dollar.

All the above scenarios are putting in place a point of tipping for the public. Will we choose Democracy or go the way of the Russians in 1917?