Stop Comparing Trump to Communists. Just Stop.

Former Senator Jeff Flake made the comparison last year. Now it’s a Czech tennis star.

The Trump-Stalin comparisons have seriously got to stop. Like now.

Last year, I wrote here at The Resurgent about how asinine it was for former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to compare President Trump to brutal dictator Josef Stalin. It wasn’t appropriate then, and it isn’t appropriate now. Here’s what I wrote on the matter then:

Trump doesn’t have a cozy relationship with the press nor does he manipulate them in a state-run fashion as Stalin did. Neither does he imprison, torture, or kill his political opponents like Stalin did. You may not like his governing style or brazen use of Twitter, but Trump’s no Stalin. Not in the slightest. Stop with this nonsense once and for all.

Most rational people—even those critical of Trump’s policies—find this comparison in poor taste and insulting to the memories of those oppressed and killed by Stalin. I’m one of those people. My maternal grandpa survived 18 months in one of Stalin’s gulags on the Russian-Finnish border. He was timid and scarred for life until his death in 1999 because of the torture he endured in that wretched place. Flake insults the memories of victims and survivors like my grandpa by insinuating Trump is like Stalin.

This time, Czech-born tennis player Martina Navratilova, who got scorched by her fellow Democrats for criticizing transgender people, is trying to redeem herself among her supporters with this tweet.

Martina Navratilova

@Martina

Here is why trump’s lying is worse than the communist propaganda and lies- they did it because either they believed in the cause, or they were scared or they wanted a better life. trump is lying only and only for himself- his bank account and, most of all, his ego.

2,043 people are talking about this

Gabriella Hoffman

Navratilova should know better as someone who grew up in communist Czechoslovakia.

Bless her heart.

My Family Fled Socialism. Let’s Not Give It a Try Here in the U.S.

Here’s my response to a Washington Post column calling for socialism in the U.S.

Socialism wasn’t implemented correctly in the 20th century, we’re told. Millions dying? “That wasn’t supposed to happen under Marxist-Leninism!”, leftists decry. We told, “If we’re given a second chance, we’ll do it correctly!”

Hogwash.

Global communism and its socialist variants have cumulatively killed over 100 million since 1917— following the ascension of the Bolshevik Revolution headed up by revolutionary terrorist Vladimir I. Lenin. This violent, bloody revolution propelled the rise of Hitler and National Socialism in Germany, Joseph Stalin in Soviet Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Castro in Cuba, Mao Zhedong in China, and countless other dictators—including those oppressing Venezuela and North Korea today. Millions were brutalized, tortured, or killed in the name of socialism. Socialism and communism deserve to end up in the ashtray of history alongside National Socialism—its equally ugly cousin.

When I came across this column from one Elizabeth Bruenig up at the Washington Post, I couldn’t help but shrug. The WaPo opinion columnist seems to romanticize socialism like the rest of our generation—of which a staggering 50% of Millennials now favor. The romanticism of socialism, especially its economic policies, has long been regarded by many on the Left due to the influence of higher education. The equality socialism preaches sounds fine and dandy on paper—until it’s implemented or until people get jobs. Upon further examination and examining past historical mistakes, the equality rendered by socialism results in the equitable sharing of misery. Sadly, free enterprise gets scapegoated for the failures of socialism.

Ms. Bruenig writes this about capitalism, discounting the value of individuals in favor of collectivism:

“Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual.”

She goes on to call for a “new” socialism, one devoid of its totalitarian bent and one that breaks free enterprise’s “strangehold over politics and culture”:

Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

How is socialism democratic? How does reduce inequality? Given socialism’s track record across the globe, it’s resulted in more inequality and strained human conditions despite their so-called “humanitarian” intentions. Everything socialists or communists touch dies—from the human spirit to the human flesh.

The attacks on capitalism, or free enterprise (a phrase that better reflects this remarkable economic system), are unjustified. Usually these attacks come of a place of inexperience, poor attention to detail, or blatant naïveté. How many of these individuals who romanticize socialism have lived in those societies ? (Answer: very few to none.) Those calling for the destruction of free enterprise admonish wealth acquired by individuals, yet fail to surrender their iPhones, Starbucks gift cards, and similar luxuries afforded to them under American free enterprise.

If those calling for socialism or communism had it their way, barring exceptions of bureaucrats who’d implement such a system in this country, we’d all be equally poor and miserable at the behest of big government. That’s a scary thought.

Imperfect capitalism, or free enterprise, is far more preferable than perfect socialism. Human progress is made possible thanks to free enterpriseWhen socialism is perfected, chaos, bloodshed, and death follow.

In societies where free market policies reign supreme or exist, greater human freedom flourishes. Why else do people flee here? To experience more socialism or communism? No, they come here to pursue the American dream, to give their children a better future, and to enjoy freedoms denied to them in their homelands.

My family saw firsthand how ugly totalitarian socialism is when implemented. My maternal grandfather endured torture and survived 18 months in one of Stalin’s gulags on the Belomor Canal on the Russian-Finnish border for being a Catholic land owner. My maternal grandmother was similarly imprisoned in a German labor camp. My father’s side of the family faced institutionalized anti-Semitism.

Free enterprise, flaws and all, best uplifts people from nothing to something. My parents, grandparents, and aunts and uncles came here in the 1980s virtually penniless. There was no future for them in the Soviet Union. Had my family not come here 30+ years ago, they wouldn’t have worked in corporate America or started their own businesses. Like countless other children of socialism’s survivors, I’m so grateful they came here.

The next time someone calls for socialism in America, remind them of its failures across the globe. Remind them that however contorted and misguided their thinking is with respect to free enterprise, the freedoms afforded to them by the U.S. allow them to hold such views. Remind them that human progress and equality of opportunities best thrive in a society rooted in free enterprise, not socialism.

Bolshevik Revolution Centennial: Deadly Legacy 100 Years Later

Today marks a dark moment in history: the centennial of the Bolshevik Revolution that metastasized in Soviet Russia.

From Lenin, this movement empowered Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and countless other dictators across the globe to order their henchmen—or they personally—to carry out policies on torture, starvation, collectivization, confiscation of private property, and outlawing religion.

Since 1917, over 100 million have died at the hands of socialism in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and South America. The late historian RJ Rummel estimated a high of 148 million murdered as a result of the tyrannical regimes Bolshevik Revolution spawned.  But that doesn’t bother most academics, media elites, and historians. To them, Soviet communism is misinterpreted or was, gasp, poorly executed! Look at “Red Century” columns published at the New York Times over the last year. Many of the articles, which were absolutely ridiculous in nature, affirmed  the spirit of Walter Duranty (their famed propagandist and Stalin apologist) lives on.

We hear these people clamor and say, “Well if we had another chance to retry it, it won’t turn out like this!” Oh really? Bless their hearts.

This centennial perhaps is personal for me because my family, especially my grandparents, suffered at the hands of Stalinist policies born out of this bloody movement.

It was Stalin’s gulag system that broke my grandpa’s spirit when he was imprisoned at the Belomor Canal on the Finnish-Russian border for eighteen months. By some act of God, really, he survived. Surviving this barren tundra, built on the bones of prisoners, was virtually impossible. Due to my grandpa being able-bodied from farm work all his life, he miraculously survived. Many of his fellow prisoners weren’t so lucky—ultimately succumbing to the deadly effects of life in a gulag.

My parents grew up in post-Stalinist Soviet-occupied Lithuania, but similarly encountered limited opportunities due to this movement deep-rooted infection in their homeland. While the death camps slowly disappeared, many oppressive policies were still in tact after Stalin died. Racism was rampant, opportunities were limited, kids snitched on their parents, and food was heavily rationed, for example. This was the reality of life in the Soviet Union—not some rosy fairy tale we hear from many on the Left.

These horror stories aren’t isolated to countries previously (and illegally) occupied by the former Soviet Union. Look at the blood that was shed in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and South America. So many families were wrecked by this movement and not a peep or sympathy from scholars, academics, celebrities, and supposed reporters.

The White House issued its first-ever National Day for the Victims of Communism honor those who were oppressed by communism. Below is the statement:

Today, the National Day for the Victims of Communism, marks 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution gave rise to the Soviet Union and its dark decades of oppressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with liberty, prosperity, and the dignity of human life.

Over the past century, communist totalitarian regimes around the world have killed more than 100 million people and subjected countless more to exploitation, violence, and untold devastation. These movements, under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people of their God-given rights of free worship, freedom of association, and countless other rights we hold sacrosanct. Citizens yearning for freedom were subjugated by the state through the use of coercion, violence, and fear.

Today, we remember those who have died and all who continue to suffer under communism. In their memory and in honor of the indomitable spirit of those who have fought courageously to spread freedom and opportunity around the world, our Nation reaffirms its steadfast resolve to shine the light of liberty for all who yearn for a brighter, freer future.

Bolshevism in 1917 gave rise to global communism. It’s time this horrible movement in history be rejected and its effects be condemned like its ugly cousin, National Socialism. Please take this week to honor the victims of communism and honor their memories.

 

*Updated article to include White House declaration honoring victims of communism.

Murderer Che Guevara Shouldn’t Be Lionized 50 Years After His Death

Today marks 50 years since Ernesto “Che” Guevara was executed by CIA-backed Bolivian forces. Yet, our country and countless nations abroad still idolize him as a pop culture figure while whitewashing his crimes against humanity.

Here in the U.S., modern-day leftists love and worship Argentinian-born Che Guevara–who was instrumental in helping overthrow Cuba’s government to install the now-dead Fidel Castro as supreme leader there. Guevara, who was ruthless and devoted to Marxist-Leninist ideology, was responsible for overseeing the personal execution of 123 individuals (recorded thus far) without a fair trial–while communist Cuba oversaw 14,000 executions by the late 1960’s. Ultimately, Cuba has been responsible for the deaths of an estimated range of 35,000 to 141,000 people (with the medium number at 73,000 individuals) since a communist dictatorship was installed there in 1959. Freedom has yet to touch the island nation in the present day.

Guevara’s role as mass executioner for Fidel Castro drew inspiration from behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union (which viewed Cuba as a “little sister” nation). He wrote, “‘My ideological training means that I am one of those people who believe that the solution to the world’s problems is to be found behind the Iron Curtain.” Here’s more on his affinity for Karl Marx from his Notes for the Study of the Ideology of the Cuban (October 1960):

The merit of Marx is that he suddenly produces a qualitative change in the history of social thought. He interprets history, understands its dynamic, predicts the future, but in addition to predicting it (which would satisfy his scientific obligation), he expresses a revolutionary concept: the world must not only be interpreted, it must be transformed. Man ceases to be the slave and tool of his environment and converts himself into the architect of his own destiny.

Controversy is brewing across the Atlantic (and rightly so) over the decision to glorify Che Guevara’s “legacy” fifty years after his death by Ireland’s An Post. Dublin artist Jim Fitzpatrick designed a €1 stamp in Guevara’s honor. In response, prominent Cuban-American figure Ninoska Perez Castellón from Miami, Florida, told Morning Ireland it’s objectionable to feature and “celebrate a man who slaughtered so many people.”

So why would Ireland decide to lionize this murderous thug? Apparently, he boasted Irish roots and was born as Ernesto “Che” Guevara Lynch:

His father was Ernesto Guevara Lynch, a civil engineer of Irish descent.

A quote from Ernesto, “in my son’s veins flowed the blood of Irish rebels”, features on a cover envelope to accompany the stamp.

Some in Ireland’s parliament have found this decision objectionable, asking if fellow murderous thugs Pol Pot (Cambodia) and Nicholas Ceausescu (Romania) are also acceptable to display on stamps. Senator Neale Richmond is quoted as saying the following:

“Although Che Guevara seems now to be classed as a romantic revolutionary figure and that some of his political ideals might be shared by some in this country, it is my belief that he is most definitely not a suitable candidate for such an honour,” said Senator Neale Richmond, who represents Dublin and wrote in a letter to Minister Naughten.

He added, “Minister, as you will be aware, Che Guevara was a violent revolutionary whose legacy has been greatly glossed over. While I do not dispute that the Batista regime that ruled Cuba prior to the violent revolution was deplorable, what came after and the actions of Guevara where equally as heinous.”

The Irish Times approached Che Guevara’s brother, Juan Martin Guevara Lynch–who explained more about the family’s Irish roots:

“My grandmother was North American. A Lynch, but born in the US. She was born in San Francisco. The family moved from here, the province of Buenos Aires, but moved to San Francisco where she was born. But her father yes, he was born in Ireland, ” he said, continuing.

“Then on the other side the Guevaras were Basque. It is because of that our aunt always said we are the descendants of the Basque and Irish, meaning we have one steadfast idea of how things are and we are not for turning.

“With my old man a bit, yes. He used to speak about the rebellious nature of the Irish. Beyond that he liked the Irish because of their party nature; they like to drink a drop of whiskey! He was really fond of all that.

Irish roots or not, Che Guevara is not someone to celebrate. He was an unrepentant executioner, narcissist, racist, and homophobe who thrived on bloodshed as a means to usurp and retain power.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times published a piece entitled Che Guevara’s Fiery Life and Bloody Death today in response to the 50th anniversary of his death.

Fifty years ago today –October 9, 1967–Guevara was captured and shot by Bolivian forces–aided by the C.I.A. Fidel Castro praised him as a central part of the bloody coup d’etat in Cuba, calling him “the paradigm of the revolutionary” who is “everywhere there is a just cause to defend.”  He was lionized in the film The Motorcycle Diaries–and yet, Hollywood has yet to offer a counter narrative highlighting his crimes and his true brutal nature. Sad.

With the centennial year marking the start of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution coming up, it’s no surprise why Che Guevara and other brutal communist dictators are being propped up more than ever. That’s why it’s imperative to honor and commemorate the 100 million plus lives lost to global communism today and every day.

The Shame of Communist Hollywood, Trashing Ronald Reagan With Scandalous Lies

The Communists have won in Hollywood, and have rewritten history to discredit President Ronald Reagan, communism’s greatest foe and vanquisher. They’ve done it by eviscerating him in fiction, but calling it “history.”

Some background

From 1947 to 1952, Ronald Wilson Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild. He helmed the organization during the height of the Red scare. The Democrat-run House Un-American Activities Committee sent ten Hollywood actors to jail for contempt of Congress. HUAC was wrong to do that, but Reagan understood the violent strikes and Communist ideals some in the film industry had adopted were dangerous.

He and Walt Disney both hated the violent and strong-arm tactics of avowed Stalinists like John Howard Lawson and Dalton Trumbo, two of the “Hollywood Ten” who are frequently referred to in hagiographic terms as “martyrs” of McCarthyism. But they were in fact Communists or at least sympathizers.

Trumbo is less well known for a script that never made it to the screen: An American Story, whose plot outline, in the words of film historian Bernard F. Dick, goes like this: North Korea finally decides “to put an end to the border warfare instigated by South Korea by embarking upon a war of independence in June 1950.” (In his papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society, Trumbo says he “dramatized” Kim Il-sung’s supposedly righteous war for a group of fellow Communist screenwriters, including at least two Hollywood Ten members.)

 “American Made”

Fast forward to the 1980’s, when Reagan was embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, that featured Marine Col. Oliver North funneling cash for arms to oppose communism in Nicaragua.

This is the playground of fake facts and invented history that the movie “American Made” plays in like a class of pre-schoolers at recess after an all-you-can-eat M&M’s binge.

Somewhere in the background of  the 80s drug war was a petty drug trafficker who was caught by the DEA and turned into an informant. Barry Seal, former TWA pilot, is played by Tom Cruise as a super-secret, jet-setting CIA plant deeply embedded in the arms-for-cash deals and subterfuges of the mid-80s.

According to National Review’s Kyle Smith, the only part of this that’s even close to true is that Seal was a TWA pilot (who was fired in the 60s, not, as the movie shows, dramatically walking off a departing flight because he was “bored” in the late 70s), and he flew drugs for the Medellin Cartel. Oh, and he was caught by the DEA and ratted out the drug lords (who were in turn, very unhappy with him).

The rest is Communist revenge on Ronald Reagan.

How does Smith know this? He reads.

Was Seal being run by the CIA? Former FBI agent Del Hahn, who was involved with Seal’s case and published a book on him, says no, citing Seal’s own sworn testimony and interviews. “There is not one iota of credible evidence that Seal ever worked for the CIA or assisted them in any operations,” Hahn told Vice. But Liman and his screenwriter Gary Spinelli badly need a much stronger CIA connection than Seal’s merely having had spy cameras on his plane during that DEA sting because that’s the conduit they have for bashing Reagan and tying in the Iran-Contra scandal, to which this entire movie is supposedly the back story.

The unhappy end of the real Barry Seal was due to his own dimwittedness. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Ronald Reagan, but the premise of the movie was to show that it did.

Liman’s shoulder chip

Did I mention that Doug Liman, the producer, who has some good street creds (Swingers, The Bourne Identity, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), is the son of the late Arthur L. Liman, chief counsel for the Senate Iran-Contra hearings? It’s almost like there’s an element of revenge here. Did I also mention that Liman directed “Fair Game,” about the Valerie Plame affair, in 2010? Apparently, Liman–a Jew–didn’t realize his project was about a virulent Jew-hater. But then again, like all good Communists, Liman is an atheist.

Actually, Liman himself is (probably) not a Communist. He’s as opportunistic as any film producer, but he’s got a chip on his shoulder for Ronald Reagan, and wanted to have fun smearing communism’s greatest foe on screen.

“We’re not making a biopic,” Liman has said, confessing that during filming he would dream up on the spot entertaining new exploits for Seal: “Wouldn’t it be fun if we did this, or funny if we did that?” He calls the film a “fun lie” in publicity notes.

Communism wins

In Hollywood today, Ronald Reagan would be blacklisted, just like Nick Searcy or Tim Allen or Jon Voight. In 1969, then-Governor Reagan called out the National Guard to quell riots in Berkeley. Today, Governor Jerry Brown encourages them to riot in the name of “Free Speech” while shutting down speakers with whom they disagree.

They march under a neo-communist banner called Antifa, that many in Hollywood openly praise and fund, with their black balaclavas and jars of excrement and bricks to hurl at police.

In Hollywood, communism and Che Guevara T-shirts are in. Doug Liman is in. Ronald Reagan is out.

In “American Made,” Hollywood invented, Doug Liman produced, and Tom Cruise starred in an entire narrative, complete with a real historical figure, real news clips featuring Ronald Reagan, and real historical events, in order to smear the memory of a dead president.

They have immersed themselves in indelible shame in doing so.

NYT: Lenin Pioneered Conservation in USSR, So Let’s Excuse His Bloody Past




Did you know V.I. Lenin was an avowed conservationist who loved hiking and the outdoors? Me neither. That’s why the New York Times’ latest attempt to humanize this evil guy will continue to fail.

In the latest installment of their “Red Century” series, the NYT printed an op-ed by Fred Strebeigh called “Lenin’s Eco-Warriors” where he highlighted V.I. Lenin’s supposedly conservationist policies:

How did Russia — hardly considered a cradle of environmentalism, given Joseph Stalin’s crash program of industrialization — become a global pioneer in conservation?

Much of the answer begins with Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. In 1919, a young agronomist named Nikolai Podyapolski traveled north from the Volga River delta, where hunting had almost eliminated many species, to Moscow, where he met Lenin. Arriving at the Bolshevik leader’s office to seek approval for a new zapovednik, Podyapolski felt “worried,” he said, “as before an exam in high school.” But Lenin, a longtime enthusiast for hiking and camping, agreed that protecting nature had “urgent value.”

Two years later, Lenin signed legislation ordering that “significant areas of nature” across the continent be protected. Within three decades, some 30 million acres (equal in area to about 40 states of Rhode Island) from the European peaks of the Caucasus to the Pacific volcanoes of Kamchatka were set aside in a system of 128 reserves.

Recent articles in the series highlighting “history and legacy of Communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution” include Socialism’s Future May Be Its Past (the usual defense of perfecting socialism) and The Unexpected Afterlife of American Communism (how communism allegedly combats racism). Laughable, if you ask me.

Strebeigh’s Twitter bio reads that he teaches non-fiction writing at Yale University.

Per his official Yale University biography, he is a Senior Lecturer of English and Forestry & Environmental Studies Course Director, English 120.

Throughout the article, he went on to praise the “Communist conservation movement” for its efforts –including…praising Putin!?

In 2015, President Vladimir Putin, who famously enjoys photo opportunities in nature with tigers, bears and whales, announced that the centennial year for Russia’s zapodneviks, 2017, would be the “Year of Protected Areas.” His government pledged to increase Russia’s protected acreage by 18 percent over the next eight years.

Was the Soviet Union environmentally-friendly? Far from it.




In the now-defunct Multinational Monitor, previously owned by Ralph Nadar, this 1990 article examined environmental conditions in the former Soviet Union:

40% of the Soviet people live in areas where air pollutants are three to four times the maximum allowable levels. Sanitation is primitive. Where it exists, for example in Moscow, it doesn’t work properly. Half of all industrial waste water in the capital city goes untreated. In Leningrad, nearly half of the children have intestinal disorders caused by drinking contaminated water from what was once Europe’s most pristine supply.

In a 1996 Russia Country Study published by the Library of Congress, Russia’s environmental conditions were categorized as heavily polluted, unclean, and disastrous by American standards. Only 15% of the nation’s urban population “breathes air that is not harmful.” As for water conditions in the former USSR, the same study found that “75 percent of Russia’s surface water is now polluted, 50 percent of all water is not potable according to quality standards established in 1992, and an estimated 30 percent of groundwater available for use is highly polluted.”

Moreover, three crises in the country — most famously Chernobyl in 1986 — paint an equally grim picture of environmental standards in the USSR:

Dangerous environmental conditions came to the attention of the public in the Soviet Union under the glasnost policy of the regime of Mikhail S. Gorbachev (in office 1985-91), which liberated the exchange of information in the late 1980s. The three situations that gripped public attention were the April 1986 nuclear explosion at the Chernobyl’ Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine, the long-term and ongoing desiccation of the Aral Sea between Uzbekistan and Kazakstan, and the irradiation of northern Kazakstan by the Semipalatinsk (present-day Semey) nuclear testing site. The overall cost of rectifying these three disasters is staggering, dwarfing the cost of cleanups elsewhere, such as the superfund campaign to eliminate toxic waste sites in the United States. By the time the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, such conditions had become symbols of that system’s disregard for the quality of the environment.

Yes, New York Times, let’s look to Lenin and the former USSR for inspiration when it comes to raising environmental standards. (Not!)

If you recall history or want some context behind NYT’s affinity for the Bolshevik Revolution and a return to the “good ol’ days” of communism, examine their past associates. Walter Duranty, who headed the publication’s Moscow bureau from 1922-1936, was an avowed Stalin apologist. He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his “award-winning” coverage in the USSR despite whitewashing accounts of Soviet prisoners starving there. Despite condemnation by his colleagues, Duranty remained with the NYT until 1941. See the connection now?

Let me be clear: Lenin was a great steward of the environment. He and his Bolshevik successors believed in composting–the composting of dead bodies comprising Russians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Belorussians, and other nationalities they abused and killed under their regime for most of the 20th century. By their standards, that’s environmental justice — don’t you know?

As many have said in years’ prior: green is the new red. Unlike many on the Left, I’ll be honoring the 100 million + victims of communism this year by not giving license to the Bolshevik Revolution’s bloody history. Learn how to honor its victims here.

Not All is Lost in California: Communist Ban Remains in Place

After facing backlash from many California residents–particularly Vietnamese-Americans–one Democrat assemblyman has dropped the effort to lift a 1940’s era ban on communists working in public sector jobs in California’s government.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta of Alameda reversed course after many defectors of communism residing in his district sounded the alarm.

“Many expressed these concerns to me,” Bonta said in a statement yesterday. “Through my conversations with veterans and members of the Vietnamese American community, I heard compelling stories of how AB 22 caused real distress and hurt for proud and honorable people. For that, I am sorry.”

Here’s more on the proposed bill:

His bill, AB22, would have repealed part of state law enacted during the Red Scare of the 1940s and ’50s, when fear that communists were trying to infiltrate the U.S. government was rampant. The Cold War-era law made belonging to the Communist Party a fireable offense for public employees.

Had this bill passed, it would have eliminated a portion of existing law that makes affiliation with the Communist Party a fireable offense for California public employees. However, employees with this affiliation could still be fired if they belonged to groups that advocate the overthrowing the government by force or violence.

This is rather interesting, given how Democrats in Sacramento silenced state senator Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) and threw her out of the Senate chamber after she delivered a speech criticizing former Sen. Tom Hayden’s activism–think ties to Jane Fonda–opposing the Vietnam War. (An investigation into the incident is currently underway.)
California has certainly gone off the deep end, but perhaps not all is lost there. Now if Sacramento could get its act together, that would be great.

 

Communism Inspires People to Escape Their Homelands and Come Here

Did you know communism supposedly played an integral role in making America great? Neither did I.

When I came across this New York Times column titled “When Communism Inspired Americans” yesterday, I wasn’t surprised to see a romanization of collectivism published. After all, it’s part of their Red Century series propping up the centennial of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution. (I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!)

Did communism die with the USSR’s physical collapse? Sadly it didn’t, given nostalgia for it in the present day by many of our friends on the Left. Academics shove Marxist-Leninist theory down students’ throats. Hollywood generally downplays communism’s horrors. The fashion industry thinks its chic to host events in communist countries. So why not try to make it mainstream–especially on May Day? Sadly, people have yet to develop the same disdain for it as they have with National Socialism–its fascist cousin.

In her article, columnist Vivian Gornick suggested communists largely defined and shaped this country:

My mother was in the audience that night and said, when she came home: “America was fortunate to have had the Communists here. They, more than most, prodded the country into becoming the democracy it always said it was.”

She went on to write that communist inklings in the U.S.–largely born out of the Progressive era–made this country great:

When these people sat down to talk, Politics sat down with them, Ideas sat down with them; above all, History sat down with them. They spoke and thought within a context that lifted them out of the nameless, faceless obscurity into which they had been born, and gave them the conviction that they had rights as well as obligations.

Not surprisingly, Gornick believes Marxist ideology is largely misunderstood by the masses:

It is perhaps hard to understand now, but at that time, in this place, the Marxist vision of world solidarity as translated by the Communist Party induced in the most ordinary of men and women a sense of one’s own humanity that ran deep, made life feel large; large and clarified. It was to this clarity of inner being that so many became not only attached, but addicted. No reward of life, no love nor fame nor wealth, could compete with the experience.

Communism is supposed to make people–particularly ordinary people–have “a sense of one’s own humanity that ran deep, made life feel large; large and clarified”? Tell that to my maternal grandfather, who spent 18 months at the Belomor Canal gulag on the Russian-Finnish border against his will, simply because he was a landowner and a practicing Catholic. Did he feel “large and clarified” having to endure starvation, torture, and abominable weather conditions? He and his fellow prisoners didn’t feel “large and clarified”; they felt humiliated, small, fearful, and dehumanized by the Soviet Union’s wretched policies. My grandpa was lucky to survive while millions of others weren’t. Ask other survivors and victims of communism how this evil system made them feel “large and clarified” and you’ll find very few defenders of this sentiment.

The romanticization of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the present day is very disturbing. Why do some Americans continue to whitewash the ills of communism? Global communism has left over a hundred million people dead across Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. The “equality” tyrants promised–from Stalin to Mao and Pol Pot to Fidel Castro–was the equitable sharing in misery, not equality of opportunity like that afforded here in the United States. Why do some on the Left today obfuscate the truth –the bloodshed, the abject poverty, the state-sanctioned atheism, the nationalization of industries, and the disregard for human life–wrought by collectivist policies? (I’ll let you decide for yourselves.)

On this May Day, it’s important to remember this: The United States was born out of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — not “down with the bourgeois!” To suggest this country was great because of communism is to misconstrue what America stands for. If my family and countless other political refugees who fled their home countries wanted to live under collectivism, they would have stayed behind and not come here. Why risk your life to come to America only to be met with more tyranny?