|
|
|
|
|
Liberal Democrats seem to be quite enamored with the right kind of tyrannical despots and dictators. In fact, they are downright giddy to spend time with them.
Witness model Naomi Campbell, who said of Fidel Castro: "Fidel Castro is a source of inspiration for me!".
Or Jack Nicholson, who said in the same article: "Fidel Castro is a genius!" as well as "Castro is a humanist. Cuba is simply a paradise!"
Do we need to post quotes from Michael Moore about Castro?
This from the Cuba where 79% of Cubans don't think the current government can fix Cuba's problems, where Cuba is ranked 166th of a list of 178 countries for press freedom, where the socialist "paradise" has suffering crippling rationing of basic goods like milk and bread for years.
Where Fidel Castro just said Cuba's economic model "doesn't work".
Mr. Nicholson, you still think Cuba is a paradise?
Then we have liberals gushing about Hugo Chavez, such as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and Kevin Spacey. Oliver Stone made a gushing film "South of the Border" about Chavez.
And we had liberals before gushing about Stalin and the Soviet Union. Many liberal writers (George Bernard Shaw, etc.), artists, and songwriters (Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, etc.) praised Stalin and were members of the CPUSA.
So there is no question that liberals are endeared by dictators and tyrants in other countries that spew leftist rhetoric.
The real question is: would liberals be happy in America living under the rule of a Communist tyrant?
The answer is yes. Look at this poll from democraticunderground.com: 54% think Chavez is the "Hero of Venezuela".
Many liberals in America praised FDR for stealing private property and nationalizing huge swaths of industry during the Great Depression. Indeed, FDR is still a hero to liberals today, as we talked about here.
Many liberals seem perfectly content and happy with not only foreign socialist dictators ruling without freedom in other countries, but they are perfectly content and happy with that happening in America. The people of Cuba are slaves, working without freedom or choice; the people in the Soviet Union were slaves to the Communists as well. Slaves are people that work without freedom of movement, without freedom to earn their own money, freedom to speak out.
It seems that rather than valuing freedom of themselves or others, liberals would gladly give up their freedom in exchange for socialism: EVEN IF EVERYONE IS A SLAVE. Everyone including themselves.
What prevents that from happening here? It's not the will of liberals; even after the death and destruction, the mass enslavement of people around the world by leftist dictators, they still happily embrace leftist dictators and praise the actions of President like FDR that brought us closer to slavery. Their desire for socialism hasn't ebbed one bit.
What prevents socialism from happening in America is only American voters, and our freedom of press which allows us to disseminate information.
Just remember that the next time a liberal runs for office, and a swing voter you know doesn't know how to vote. Calmly remind them if not for the bulwark of conservatives, where liberals would happily take us.
|
|
|
|