Can a true Christian embrace Che Guevarra ?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Dedicated Mind, how about this for a compromise? Why don't we simply follow the Constitution? Why don't we only allow the Federal Government to perform those 20 or so, few and defined powers delegated to it by the States, and allow the States to do as they see fit on the rest? That way, any State that wanted to could adopt these "progressive " policies that you condone, while citizen's of other States could adopt a more libertarian form of society if they wished. No specific philosophy or ideology should be forced on all the States from the top down, wouldn't you agree?

the policies of the federal government is the will of the majority of americans. we have a mechanism to decide the constitutionality of federal law. unfortunately you radical right wing states will have to swallow what the federal government dishes out. it is the fate of america and the will of god. the world is doomed to unite under the antichrist and socialism will be the mechanism. get used to it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the policies of the federal government is the will of the majority of americans. we have a mechanism to decide the constitutionality of federal law. unfortunately you radical right wing states will have to swallow what the federal government dishes out. it is the fate of america and the will of god. the world is doomed to unite under the antichrist and socialism will be the mechanism. get used to it.

the policies of the federal government is the will of the majority of americans. we have a mechanism to decide the constitutionality of federal law.

Actually, the majority can only rule where the Constitution allows it to. Furthermore, the States themselves are the final authority as to the limits of Federal power. Contrary to the opinion of some, the States did not create a common agent (the Federal Government) that would be allowed to decide the limits of its own power through the courts. But at least you admit that socialism is "doom" and of the anti-Christ. BTW, Truman's act saved millions of Japanese lives who would have otherwise perished had we resorted to a land invasion of Japan. Che's goal was to enslave. Truman's goal was to liberate.

BTW, I predict a bloody, second American revolution on this continent that will lead the the creation of at least three smaller confederations of States.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Actually, the majority can only rule where the Constitution allows it to. Furthermore, the States themselves are the final authority as to the limits of Federal power. Contrary to the opinion of some, the States did not create a common agent (the Federal Government) that would be allowed to decide the limits of its own power through the courts. But at least you admit that socialism is "doom" and of the anti-Christ. BTW, Truman's act saved millions of Japanese lives who would have otherwise perished had we resorted to a land invasion of Japan. Che's goal was to enslave. Truman's goal was to liberate.

BTW, I predict a bloody, second American revolution on this continent that will lead the the creation of at least three smaller confederations of States.

dropping 2 atomic bombs and slaughtering millions of people are acts of liberation. ultimate hogwash, twisted radical right wing thinking. i would rather be in hell than to serve a god that would allow you into heaven.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

dropping 2 atomic bombs and slaughtering millions of people are acts of liberation. ultimate hogwash, twisted radical right wing thinking. i would rather be in hell than to serve a god that would allow you into heaven.

Wow, DM. Be careful what you wish for.

[Praxeas]

An essay by Dr. Douglas Young, Professor of Political Science & History at Gainesville State College
February 10, 2009
Hollywood has dutifully churned out yet another cinematic agitprop paean to a leftist “martyr,” this time Ernesto Guevara. So let’s recall the real “Che” and try to discern why many supposedly democratic, civil libertarian liberals still swoon over this Stalinist mass-murderer.

The meticulous myth of Senor Guevara is of a handsome Argentine heroically helping Fidel Castro’s guerrillas liberate Cuba from Fulgencio Batista’s military dictatorship in 1959. Then he became a global revolutionary icon inspiring the downtrodden to rise up everywhere, even personally leading rebel warriors in the Congo before being executed doing the same in Bolivia in 1967. The (communist) party line says Che personifies the selfless humanitarian courageously fighting for “social justice.” He’s the Marxists’ martyred Christ figure replete with pictures of his half-naked corpse riddled with bullet holes. And the classic poster of an angry young Guevara has scarred countless college dorm rooms for over 40 years, putting a face on the eternally young rebel for angry adolescents everywhere.

The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.

Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?

Did the Obama volunteers in that Texas campaign headquarters with Che’s poster on the wall know that Guevara fervently opposed any free elections? How “progressive” is that?

How socially just was it that Che was enraged when the Russians blinked during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and withdrew their nuclear missiles from the island, thus averting a nuclear war? Guevara was such a zealous ideologue that he relished the specter of millions of Cuban lives sacrificed on the altar of communism, declaring Cuba “a people ready to sacrifice itself to nuclear arms, that its ashes might serve as a basis for new societies.” Some humanitarian.

Che was a narcissist who boasted that “I have no house, wife, children, parents, or brothers; my friends are friends as long as they think like me, politically.” This is a role model for today’s “post-political” voters claiming we should get beyond partisanship?

Adding to the ridiculousness of the Che cult is that he was virtually a complete failure. As a medical doctor, he never even had a practice. When put in charge of the Cuban economy at the start of Castro’s government, his uncompromising communist diktats ran it completely into the ground, from which it never recovered. Humiliated, and also angry that Castro wasn’t fomenting enough revolution abroad, he then tried to lead such quixotic adventures in Argentina, the Congo, and Bolivia, failing miserably everywhere while sacrificing the lives of scores of naïve, idealistic young followers as deluded pawns in the service of his personality cult.

Another reason he fled Cuba in the mid-1960s was the complete mess he made of his private life. Though he preached sexual purity to his colleagues, he was a shameless adulterer who abandoned two wives and many children, some legitimate, others not. As a grandson put it, “he was never home.” The public Che who supposedly had such great love for humanity privately couldn’t stand most folks.

Guevara’s promiscuous communist adventurism was the pattern of a terminal adolescent running away from his problems to get caught up in some heroic crusade against his eternal bete noir, “Yankee imperialism.”

So why do so many well-heeled American libs still admire this thug? Are the young simply ignorant of his execrable record and drawn to the image of the dashing young rebel? Do older progressives feel guilt for their free market prosperity, and showing solidarity with Che absolves them? Do hippies-turned-yuppies get nostalgic for their youthful protests and rationalize that the symbolism of Che as a “social reformer” eclipses his actual horrific human rights record? And are some American Guevaraistas truly dangerous leftists who seek to emulate their icon and destroy our free, democratic, capitalist society? Ask that guy wearing the Che t-shirt.

http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wow, DM. Be careful what you wish for.

I still say this poster (DM) is just a parody, someone joking around.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Actually, the majority can only rule where the Constitution allows it to. Furthermore, the States themselves are the final authority as to the limits of Federal power. Contrary to the opinion of some, the States did not create a common agent (the Federal Government) that would be allowed to decide the limits of its own power through the courts. But at least you admit that socialism is "doom" and of the anti-Christ. BTW, Truman's act saved millions of Japanese lives who would have otherwise perished had we resorted to a land invasion of Japan. Che's goal was to enslave. Truman's goal was to liberate.

BTW, I predict a bloody, second American revolution on this continent that will lead the the creation of at least three smaller confederations of States.

Can we stop here with your statement and take a reverent pause to truly take in the brilliance of those who formed the US constitution and laid down the framework of this republic's existence?

Here's a lesson in the concept of "democracy" and why the American public if it continues understanding democracy the way we understand in modern times will destroy itself.

America is not rule-by-popular vote democracy, and for good reasons. Another term for that is a "direct democracy" where the "majority" or the "masses" as the socialist likes to say wield the power to have their various whims imposed upon the nation. The founding fathers of America feared this moreso then they feared monarchical rule. Which is why they were extremely careful to form a framework where certain inalienable rights were protected, and that this system could not take a massively dramatic swing in any direction of some massive populist movement.

The brilliance of all this is seen in the middle east, where there is so much talk about "democracy" or a government "by the people". However we miss understand true freedom for "having elections". Just about every time an Islamic nation has "elections" Islamism wins and the nation becomes an Islamic republic. Perfect example Egypt. Well meaning Americans cheered on the "Arab spring" and the calls for "democracy". However they failed to understand why the United States supported Mubarak all those years. Was he a dictator? Yes. However he was the greatest supporter of peace in the region of Arab nationality, he was the foundation of Israel-Arab relations, he was a secularist who defended the rights of women, christians, and ethnic minorities, and he was America's greatest Arab ally in the war against radical Islam. He knew what America's leaders once knew: that if egypt was given "elections" the masses of the people were liable to swing anywhere especially with the massive Muslim Brotherhood presence in the country. It happened, and without a firm and sturdy constitutional framework protecting the rights of minorities and women there will very possibly Sharia Law in Egypt.

Liberals and leftists in the UN love these free "elections" and stand behind the "masses" but you can get the "masses" to do just about anything if you want. Need examples? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Cambodia, all leaders elected by the "masses" which lead genocides carried out by those same "masses". Marx knew this, and knew exactly how to exploit it especially in weak struggling and newly forming nations in Latin America and Africa. It is all propaganda, "the masses" "the people's republic". DM has that mindset... they'd drink Jim Jones Kool Aid come back from the dead and drink it again this time with Jim Jones fries and a David Koresh burger with cheese. Sad but true.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

BTW, I predict a bloody, second American revolution on this continent that will lead the the creation of at least three smaller confederations of States.

I disagree. 'Bloody' revolutions require motivated people. People motivated to literally lose all at the chance for forcing change.

Not much of that kind of motivation in America anymore.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the policies of the federal government is the will of the majority of americans. we have a mechanism to decide the constitutionality of federal law. unfortunately you radical right wing states will have to swallow what the federal government dishes out. it is the fate of america and the will of god. the world is doomed to unite under the antichrist and socialism will be the mechanism. get used to it.

And you support Socialism???