(originally launched into cyberspace on 01/08/2008)
People are so accustomed to viewing politics as a choice between
two slightly different flavors of collectivism (Democrat and
Republican), that when I bash one side, some people automatically
accuse me of being for the other side. For example, recently I've
been continually bashing the Republican establishment. So, in case
anyone thinks that means I like the Democrat tyrants, here's a
little "equal time" for leftist bashing.
When I stated that Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually
wants significant "change" in our system, even though ALL
politicians say they do, someone opined that Dennis Kucinich also
wants significant change. Well, that just may be, but what kind of
change? I went to Mr. Kucinich's web site to find out.
Mr. Kucinich is against the war in Iraq. Good. But WHY is he
against it? Because it is unconstitutional? No. Because it is
immoral? Nope. He is against it because he thinks being against it
will get him votes. How do I know this? Because he openly advocates
all manner of OTHER unconstitutional, immoral violence against
everyone in this country. So it obviously isn't actual principles
determining his positions.
Like all tyrants, he buries what he really wants under so many
layers of euphemism that there's almost nothing left of the truth
in his words. As you may have noticed, I am very literal and blunt
about what I believe. I'll give you an example. The following story
tells how, in this "land of the free," a gang of Nazi thugs did an
armed invasion and forcible kidnapping of an American child,
because some moronic bureaucrat (aided by an evil fascist
pretending to be a "judge") decided that the parents weren't quite
making the right decisions.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59581
So here is an example of my literal, spin-free opinion: Though it
would have been dangerous to do so, so I wouldn't recommend it for
practical reasons, I believe the family had every right to blow
every SWAT team thug's head off, if that's what it took to stop
them from kidnapping their family member. Notice I don't bother
with saying they had the right to "take action," or "demand
justice," or any other vague niceties. I mean, quite literally,
that it would have been justified for the father to point a gun at
the head of the first fascist into the house, pull the trigger, and
kill the guy dead, and to keep doing that until they stopped the
invasion--either by choice or because they were all dead. Is that
Whether you agree or not, I think you'd agree that I say what I
mean. I don't bury my opinions in decorations and icing to disguise
the meaning, or to make it more appealing to more people. You don't
have to guess about when I believe violence is justified (only in
defense), because I'm as blunt as possible about it.
Now let's see an example of how Dennis Kucinich advocates massive,
unjustified violence, without the spine to be honest about it. Here
are just a few examples:
1) His web site says he wants a "Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-
Profit health care system." Any mention of violence in there? Nope.
It sounds nice and benevolent. But what does it actually mean? It
means you would be FORCED, under threat of VIOLENCE, to fund the
government-controlled system of "health care" that HE wants you to
use. If you resist, you will be put in a cage. If you forcibly
resist being put in a cage, you will be killed. I hate to have to
repeat the obvious so often, but ALL "law" is backed by the ability
and willingness to use deadly force. Otherwise, it's only a
2) Mr. Kucinich also says he would "make it a national priority
to fight poverty worldwide." Well, that sounds good and charitable,
doesn't it? But what does it literally mean? It means that he would
use the FORCE of law to take your money from you (and put you in a
cage or kill you if you resist), in order to do "charity" HIS way.
(Of course, it's not charitable to be robbed, nor is it charitable
to give away someone else's money, which is why I put the term in
quotes there.) Like all tyrants, his propaganda emphasizes the
giving, and omits any mention of the VIOLENCE that must come first.
3) He wants to "renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons
ban." Again, what does that mean? It mean he wants to put people in
CAGES if they own a weapon he doesn't approve of. Of course, that
won't apply to thugs who would be ENFORCING his every whim upon
you. They get machine guns, tanks, bombs--whatever they want. Oh,
and you get forced to pay for them, too.
4) His web site says that, "[w]here the private sector fails to
provide jobs, the public sector has a moral responsibility to do
so." Wow, that sounds swell, too. What does it mean? It means that,
for those who "can't" get a job working for someone who WANTS to
hire them, he will use the VIOLENCE of "government" to steal money
from everyone, and use it to hire the unemployed.
5) He wants to "restore the value of the federal minimum wage."
That sounds nice. What does it mean? It means using VIOLENCE to
prevent mutually voluntary trade that he doesn't approve of. Yes,
even if the employer AND the employee agree to the deal, Mr.
Kucinich wants MEN WITH GUNS to make sure the deal is forcibly
The list of euphemisms used by Mr. Kucinich goes on and on, as is
the case with ALL leftists. (Ever heard a Democrat tell the literal
truth, and say, "I want to use force to take your money and spend
it how I think it should be spent, instead of how you think it
should be spent"? I doubt it. Yet that is the truth for EVERY
"program" they advocate.)
Here's an appropriate example: Who could possibly be against
"ensuring that all American children have access to and receive
proper medical attention"? Doesn't that sound swell? Well, that
would be the tyrant-speak description of the story at the link
above, where overt VIOLENCE is used by the thugs of "government" to
forcibly impose THEIR choices upon us. It doesn't matter how you
describe it, it's still FASCISM.
I don't want to sound like I'm picking on Mr. Kucinich in
particular. I could point out exactly the same things about EVERY
Democrat candidate, because they ALL advocate the extensive,
widespread initiation of state-sponsored violence to control and
rob several hundred million Americans. And NONE of them have the
honesty to admit it.
There. Does anyone still think I like the Democratic party?