So, who really won the Cold War?

Here is an outstanding article published in Canada's National Post about why this proposed Wall Street bailout is nothing other than warmed-over Marxism.

The author is absolutely right.

Economically, a centrally-planned national bank is the fifth principle of Marx's Communist Manifesto, as the author points out. He also explains coherently and concisely why this principle - which is now embraced by mainstream "conservatism" is doomed to fail.

For further evidence that the Soviet Union didn't really fold but has only relocated to American shores, read this Associated Press piece. I especially like this part:

Now it's not about financial institutions. The focus has switched to everyday Americans. And it's not an expenditure of taxpayer money, it's an "investment."

...

"Let's not call it a bailout. Let's call it a rescue," said Republican John McCain.

Democratic rival Barack Obama said, "This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis -- it's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's take: Its not a bailout but "a buy in, so that we can turn our economy around."

Bush, McCain, Obama and top congressional leaders agree the plan -- which would nationalize large numbers of bad mortgages and securities tied to them -- is needed to unclog the nation's financial arteries.

We need to "nationalize" bad mortgages. It's not a bailout, but a "buy-in," a "rescue plan," an "investment." The Communists (who were likewise proponents of nationalizing the economy) often changed the names of things to try to convince us, in the words of George Orwell, that "War is peace", "Freedom is slavery", and "Ignorance is strength."

Politically, I'm struck by the inherent Soviet-style polit-bureaucracy going on here. Instead of the mythical two-party system, we have the leadership of both "parties" agreeing in principle about the need for this unconstitutional corporate welfare. Both presidential candidates of our allegedly two-party system are in lockstep unity with each other that the taxpayers bear the burden of this bailout. Pelosi and Bush might as well be slow-dancing with each other.

So, in reality, we only have one party (sound familiar?). Finally, notice the use of rhetoric, of euphemisms, and of outright propaganda and lying that is going on! Goodness, back in the Cold War days, we mocked the Russians for this kind of thing.

And speaking of Communism, check out this excerpt from the actual bill (now, this is the one that failed in the House, but a version of which will most certainly be brought back from the dead like the Frankenstein monster to be wed to its bride that passed the Senate today):

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Huh? Non-reviewable? May not be reviewed by any court? Goodness, does that sound remotely American? Again, such a proposal coming out of 1950s Moscow would have drawn hoots from the same supposed "conservatives" who are willing for this to become law in 2008 Washington.

Incredible.

Well, there are two small silver linings here, comrades:

1) quite a few people are waking up the the fraud that is today considered "conservative" economics and are learning about truly conservative economics instead (and they are calling their senators and congressmen, as well as pulling their money out of Wall Street and away from the increasingly-worthless dollar - or should we just go whole-hog and start calling it the American Ruble?).

2) Louisiana's two senators, one from each half of our single American party, were among the 25 senators who voted against Karl Marx on this one.