Rita Wilson, Who Do You Think You Are

Rita Wilson, who do you think you are and why are you trying to make America a socialist gulag?
By Coach Collins, on April 1st, 2012



By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Rita Wilson, who do you think you are and why are you trying to make America a socialist gulag?

A network television show called “Who do you think you are?”, which airs on Friday night’s, traces the family trees of celebrities. Many of the shows provide interesting and insightful looks into family histories, but some expose the hypocrisy of those whose families are featured. Rita Wilson the actress and current wife of Tom Hanks was exposed this week.

While most episodes trace people’s lineage back several generations, Wilson’s went back only to her father’s life in Eastern Europe from his birth in 1920 until his arrival here in America around 1950.

As the story goes her father, who was born a Muslim in Greece, was brought to Bulgaria as a child and had strong ties there. He was a conscript into the Bulgarian army and was by definition one of Hitler’s soldiers.

At some point he was tried and convicted of theft by the army and sent to prison which may be the first sign of his personal rectitude. If Hitler didn’t like him he was probably a good man. When the Communists took over Bulgaria, because of his love of freedom, they declared him an “Enemy of the State” and put him in a work camp.

Wilson’s father had to risk his life to escape and do who knows what to get away from socialism to come to America a country he truly loved even before he got here.

Please read remainder of article here

Contradictions of Socialism (I Saw The Future & Ran Away!}

Courtesy of Red Square from The People's Cube

There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn't work in translation - not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America "advances" back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become.

Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have four more glorious years to make it happen.

One of my favorite political jokes is this:

The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:

1. There is full employment - yet no one is working.
2. No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
3. The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.
4. The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.
5. People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.
6. Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.

It reads like a poem - only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it's the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of "contradictory six-liners." It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I'll try anyway.

Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient "scientific" excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable - unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.

Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:

Economic justice:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Hollywood cliches:

1. Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet filmmakers hate capitalism.
2. Filmmakers hate capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies.
3. They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share.
4. On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves.
5. They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
6. They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism.
7. They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism - yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.

I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to "progressive" principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where "progressives" have assumed positions of leadership - education, news media, or the entertainment industry - contradictions become "historically inevitable."

If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the "progressive" narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven't there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why, if George W. Bush had removed our freedom of speech, was nobody ever arrested for saying anything? And if Obama has returned us our freedoms, why was a man harassed by police in Oklahoma for having an anti-Obama sign in his car? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the "Fairness Doctrine"?

After the number of "caring," bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers. Which resulted in a bigger demand, which resulted in rising prices, which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans, which resulted in more pressure on the banks, which resulted in repackaging of bad loans, which resulted in a collapse of the banks, which resulted in a recession, which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs, which resulted in no further mortgage payments, which resulted in a financial disaster, which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas - who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan - becoming even poorer than they had been before the "progressives" in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.

As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they're planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.

If that doesn't fix the problem, there's always the last resort of a liberal: blame capitalism. It's always a win-win. Today government regulators may be blaming capitalism for the crisis caused by their dilettantish tampering with the economy, but who do you think they will credit after market forces resuscitate the economy?

Years ago, living in America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent "revolutionary" changes have turned reality on its head - which is what "revolution" literally means - I'm getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.

As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don't become a nation of cowards - but watch who might be listening.

Let's start with these few.

People's power:

1. Liberals believe they're advancing people's power - yet they don't believe people can do anything right without their guidance.
2 People can't do anything right - yet the government bureaucracy can do everything.
3. The government bureaucracy can do everything - yet liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives.
4. Liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives - yet they vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government.
5. They vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government - yet they believe they're advancing people's power.

Bush and the media:

1. The media said Bush was dumb - yet he won over two intelligent Democrats.
2. He won over two intelligent Democrats - yet the media said his ratings were hopeless.
3. The media said his ratings were hopeless - yet the 2004 electoral map was red.
4. The 2004 electoral map was red - yet the media said his policies failed.
5. The media said his policies failed - yet the economy grew and the war was won.
6. The economy grew and the war was won - yet the media said we needed "change."

Public education:

1. Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years - yet education is out of control.
2. Education is out of control - yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
3. Liberal teaching methods prevail - yet public schools are failing.
4. Public schools are failing - yet their funding keeps growing.
5. Their funding keeps growing - yet public schools are always underfunded.
6. Public schools are always underfunded - yet private schools yield better results for less.
7. Private schools yield better results for less - yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.

Foreign radicals*:

1. Foreign radicals hate America - yet they're all wearing American blue jeans.
2. They're all wearing American blue jeans - yet they disdain American culture.
3. They disdain American culture - yet they play American music, movies, and video games.
4. They play American music, movies, and video games - yet they call Americans uncivilized.
5. They call Americans uncivilized - yet they expect Americans to defend their civilization.
6. They expect Americans to defend their civilization - yet they think American capitalism is outdated.
7. They think American capitalism is outdated - yet most of their countries require American handouts.
(* Some US politicians have similar opinions about their redneck constituents - yet they won't shut up about how proud they are to have their mandate.)

Liberals and taxes:

1. Liberals want to help the poor - yet they won't give money to charities.
2. They won't give money to charities - yet they'd like the government to become a gigantic charity.
3. They'd like the government to become a gigantic charity - yet the money has to be taken from people by force.
4. The money has to be taken from people by force - yet they call it welfare.
5. They call it welfare - yet higher taxes make everyone poorer.
6. Higher taxes make everyone poorer - yet liberals find ways not to pay taxes.
7. Liberals find ways not to pay taxes - yet they get to be chosen to run the government.

Liberals and the CIA:

1. The CIA is a reactionary institution - yet its agents always leak information that helps liberals politically.
2. CIA agents always leak information that helps liberals politically - yet liberals say the CIA is clueless.
3. Liberals say the CIA is clueless - yet in their movies the CIA is running the world.
4. In their movies the CIA is running the world - yet they tell us that better intelligence could have prevented the war.
5. Better intelligence could have prevented the war - yet "enhanced interrogations" of captured terrorists must not be allowed.

Love and marriage:

1. Sex differences are the result of social conditioning - yet homosexuality is biological.
2. Homosexuality is biological - yet everybody is encouraged to experiment with it.
3. Everybody is encouraged to experiment with it - yet venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers' expense.
4. Venereal diseases are treated at the taxpayers' expense - yet taxpayers have no right to impose standards since there are no moral absolutes.
5. There are no moral absolutes - yet gay marriage is an absolute must.
6. Gay marriage is an absolute must - yet family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression.

Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from Ukraine, currently lives in New York. He is the creator of ThePeoplesCube.com, a satirical website where he writes under the name of Red Square. Please click on the link above to visit the site. It's absolutely brilliant and spot on politically, ethically and morally.

The Rapacity of Odacity - James Lewis, American Thinker

Excellent article by James Lewis of the American Thinker on socialism. Here's an except:

The Rapacity of Odacity
By James Lewis

Just before the election, Barack Obama made fifteen references to "pie" in 100 seconds of a speech -- all about dividing up that yummy pie of the American economy. His audience laughed and chanted, "Pie! Pie!" to show how hungry they were. In one fell swoop Obama gave away the rapacity of socialism. In his first weeks of his presidency the world has seen how hungry he really is.


Mr. Obama doesn't look like he has an eating problem, but he is hungry, voraciously hungry. Or as Michelle O explained,


"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."


Socialism is rapaciously greedy -- that's what endless envy warfare comes down to. The Left likes to preen itself with the word ‘progressive,' when it is actually the most regressive political strategy in history. The key political move is to seek out the most rapacious people -- not hungry for food but power -- and use them to mobilize an attack on the productive sector, the milk cows of society. It is the most primitive political strategy ever. It goes back to the Romans and long before. Karl Marx merely reinvented a very old and decrepit wheel.


That is why everything is grist for the mill of Obama Marxism. Old-time Marxism just pitted the poor against the rich -- a compelling sympathy play in the 19th century, with grinding poverty, industrial workers living in little better than slavery, and peasant farmers in Europe who were all but slaves, as in Czarist Russia. Then decades of capitalist vitality provided the goods and services for an unprecedented spread of wealth, so that today Joe the Plumber is an instinctive conservative. Industrial workers became prosperous.


So the Left needed a new underclass. That is why the Boomer Left had to find new victim groups -- women who could be made to envy men, blacks to envy whites, homosexuals to envy heterosexuals, the young against their parents, each ethnic group against the other. The New Marxism plays off any victim group against any perceived winner. In this presidential election, the Democrats pitched it perfectly, setting every manipulable group against its favorite scapegoats, symbolized by President Bush and Veep Dick Cheney.


That is why today, in his first month in office, President Obama needs to go after executives who earn more than 500 thousand dollars per year. Marxism has become the politics of universal envy and rapacity, as long as there is a victim group hungry enough to be led into battle against the ever-shifting enemy. That is why racial politics has not been left behind by the Democrats; on the contrary. The United States is more racially sliced and diced than it has been since the Dixiecrats lost their power.


Socialism is rapacious because it has an endless appetite for power. If you doubt it, look at Britain today, where average people -- the productive ones -- are taxed, constantly bullied by the government-owned BBC, and bribed into voting socialist. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gone to the logical extreme of demanding that British citizens donate their body parts to the National Health Service when they die -- mandatory organ donation, or socialist cannibalism. He calls it ‘presumed consent," which means that if you're dead, the government gets to decide who will re-use your mortal remains.


That is also why the socialist parties in Britain have suicidally imported hundreds of thousands of Pakistani Muslims, and are constantly telling them how welcome they are to import 7th Century Shariah law into the former home of parliaments. Those votes are easy to buy, and jihadi terrorism be damned. Antisemitism is now rife in Britain, whipped up by the radical Left, the BBC, and the Guardian, in alliance with Islamic fascists. It is a shameful loss of decency, no different than any other race baiting politics in human history.


Odacity is voracious because there's never enough free pie. It's the pie supply that grinds to a halt if the bakery is coerced into working without compensation -- a condition that used to be called "slavery." Without suitable incentives, producers can only be forced to work by the threat of punishment. And with full media control, our socialists make sure the baker gets the blame for any sudden pie shortage. We've watched it happen with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Coal, and on and on -- but never with Big Media or Big Government. It's easy to tell who the demagogues are -- their names are never on the hit list. As the bitter old Soviet joke went, "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the opposite." Only the apparatchiks, the new ruling class, wins.


Our universities have gone that way already. That is why Harvard University dumped President Larry Summers for telling a well-known truth about precocious mathematical talent among boys. Nobody knows exactly why, but the typical genius mathematician is a pimply teenage boy with girl problems. That's been true for centuries, and most of the time it has been a source of pity or ridicule for those socially isolated boys. Today talented mathematical geniuses of the Wrong Sex are the objects of feminist envy. Almost every Harvard faculty member knows all that, but they kept their heads down when the campus Left went after Larry's scalp for telling the truth. That's Politically Correct socialism, and the firing of Larry Summers was designed to chill free speech on all the campuses. It was a power-play, and everybody understood who won. Harvard now has a new set of Feminist Commissars, to make sure that forbidden thoughts are never again spoken in public.

Read the rest here

There are lots of great articles on American Thinker. Be sure and check out the site.