“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism."
"But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program,
until one day America
will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it
happened."
Nancy Morgan
says, when a word comes too close to actually identifying an
inconvenient reality, secular progressives spring into action. The
offending word is either redefined or reduced its first letter, thereby
signifying that polite society will no longer accept it. You’ve
heard of the "N" word, the "B" word (think Hillary) and now comes the
"S" word.
By its abbreviation, the "S" word, formerly
known as socialism, infers a negative connotation. A negative
connotation richly deserved due to the incontrovertible fact that
socialism
In a nutshell, socialism is
an economic system where property is held in common, not individually,
and its ideal is a centrally directed economy. Socialism entails
the substitution of group decision making for individual choice.
In this case, the "group" making the decisions are the 34 (and counting)
unelected and unaccountable czars Obama is anointing.
The origins
of socialist thought come directly from Aristotle. Aristotle
believed that since only actions aiming at a perceived benefit to others
were, to his mind, morally approved, then actions solely for personal
gain (capitalism) must be bad.
This theory of Aristotle’s is the
basic premise of the Obama administration. By claiming the "moral
high ground" of the "greater good" Obama and his minions have free reign
to radically alter both our system of government and the hundreds of
years of tradition it represents.
Under the guise of altruism and
the greater good, Obama has launched a full scale attack on capitalism.
The very capitalism that has fed the world for decades. The
capitalism that has produced the highest standard of living in the
freest and most productive country in the world. But, according to
the ruling elite, capitalism is bad, because it entails, gasp, "profit,"
and every progressive worth his salt knows profit is only possible on
the backs of less fortunate. Right?
Obama and the secular
progressives who now determine policy in America pride themselves on
being the intellectual representatives of modern thought and thus
superior in knowledge, wisdom and moral virtue than those who hold
traditional values (conservatives). They believe their duty is to
offer new ideas to the public and deride whatever is conventional and/or
traditional. Newness, not truth, is their main value.
The fly in
Obama’s ointment is the fact that the system of socialism isn’t very
good at creating wealth. Only individuals do that. But hey,
socialism is "ethically superior" and that’s what counts. Right?
Obama was voted into office based on his skill at selling abstract
ideas like equality and justice. Millions of Americans bought into
his spiel. Most likely the very same Americans who buy lottery
tickets. Against all reason, they were led to believe that the
government can provide them a free lunch. And there will be no
cost to them. And best of all, these moochers can also claim the
moral high ground. After all, they are victims of rich
capitalists. And that’s not fair! And its not their fault
that they haven’t won life’s lottery.
The problem with their
premise can be reduced to two words -- free will. God gave us free
will -- the ability to fail or succeed based on the choices we make.
Obama proposes to do away with free will and vest those decisions in a
central government.
Losers can now breathe a sigh of relief.
Whew! Now, instead of losers, they’re much valued victims.
And the new socialist society Obama and friends are in the process of
implementing has a moral duty to shield them from the consequences of
their bad choices. But best of all, socialism allows life’s losers
the moral high ground as they systematically plunder the fruits of
another man’s labor.
This is socialism. This is what Obama
wants America to be. But students of history insist on asking the
question: How long can a society survive that rewards failure and
punishes success? Unfortunately, America will get an answer to
that question if Obama is allowed to continue transforming our country
into his "new and improved" idea of a socialist utopia.
A Lesson On Socialism
An economics professor said he had never
failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class.
The class had insisted that socialism worked -- and that no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society.
The professor then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on
socialism.
He said that all grades would be averaged and everyone
would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would
receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and
everyone was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset,
and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second
test rolled around, the students who hadn’t studied much for the first
test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren’t
motivated to study hard again, and they decided they wanted a free ride
too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D!
No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was
an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name
calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone
else. All failed -- and the professor told them that the socialism
they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of
success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government
takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.
The "S" Word
Nancy Morgan
says, when a word comes too close to actually identifying an
inconvenient reality, secular progressives spring into action. The
offending word is either redefined or reduced its first letter, thereby
signifying that polite society will no longer accept it. You’ve
heard of the "N" word, the "B" word (think Hillary) and now comes the
"S" word.
By its abbreviation, the "S" word, formerly
known as socialism, infers a negative connotation. A negative
connotation richly deserved due to the incontrovertible fact that
socialism
In a nutshell, socialism is
an economic system where property is held in common, not individually,
and its ideal is a centrally directed economy. Socialism entails
the substitution of group decision making for individual choice.
In this case, the "group" making the decisions are the 34 (and counting)
unelected and unaccountable czars Obama is anointing.
The origins
of socialist thought come directly from Aristotle. Aristotle
believed that since only actions aiming at a perceived benefit to others
were, to his mind, morally approved, then actions solely for personal
gain (capitalism) must be bad.
This theory of Aristotle’s is the
basic premise of the Obama administration. By claiming the "moral
high ground" of the "greater good" Obama and his minions have free reign
to radically alter both our system of government and the hundreds of
years of tradition it represents.
Under the guise of altruism and
the greater good, Obama has launched a full scale attack on capitalism.
The very capitalism that has fed the world for decades. The
capitalism that has produced the highest standard of living in the
freest and most productive country in the world. But, according to
the ruling elite, capitalism is bad, because it entails, gasp, "profit,"
and every progressive worth his salt knows profit is only possible on
the backs of less fortunate. Right?
Obama and the secular
progressives who now determine policy in America pride themselves on
being the intellectual representatives of modern thought and thus
superior in knowledge, wisdom and moral virtue than those who hold
traditional values (conservatives). They believe their duty is to
offer new ideas to the public and deride whatever is conventional and/or
traditional. Newness, not truth, is their main value.
The fly in
Obama’s ointment is the fact that the system of socialism isn’t very
good at creating wealth. Only individuals do that. But hey,
socialism is "ethically superior" and that’s what counts. Right?
Obama was voted into office based on his skill at selling abstract
ideas like equality and justice. Millions of Americans bought into
his spiel. Most likely the very same Americans who buy lottery
tickets. Against all reason, they were led to believe that the
government can provide them a free lunch. And there will be no
cost to them. And best of all, these moochers can also claim the
moral high ground. After all, they are victims of rich
capitalists. And that’s not fair! And its not their fault
that they haven’t won life’s lottery.
The problem with their
premise can be reduced to two words -- free will. God gave us free
will -- the ability to fail or succeed based on the choices we make.
Obama proposes to do away with free will and vest those decisions in a
central government.
Losers can now breathe a sigh of relief.
Whew! Now, instead of losers, they’re much valued victims.
And the new socialist society Obama and friends are in the process of
implementing has a moral duty to shield them from the consequences of
their bad choices. But best of all, socialism allows life’s losers
the moral high ground as they systematically plunder the fruits of
another man’s labor.
This is socialism. This is what Obama
wants America to be. But students of history insist on asking the
question: How long can a society survive that rewards failure and
punishes success? Unfortunately, America will get an answer to
that question if Obama is allowed to continue transforming our country
into his "new and improved" idea of a socialist utopia.
The Hexagon Of Progress
Barack Obama -- Working Families Party -- Democratic Socialists Of
America -- New Party -- ACORN -- SEIU
Folks, we are not
calling Democrats "socialists." That’s a mean, ugly word frequently
used as an epithet to smear people on a personal level. We are
calling them "Democratic Socialists."
We don’t mean this as a
judgment. It is simply a fact which the politicians involved
with the Working Families Party group should be made to own.
Caution: This is a lengthy post, but, it’s easy to follow and
there’s a party favor at very end.
Scott at PowerLine blog
says
that given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, the classic
political philosophers held that government based on majority rule was
untenable. They were of the view that it would lead to organized
theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle
warned in The Politics, for example: "If the majority distributes among
itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the
city."
The Founders of the United States were deep students of
politics and history, and they shared Aristotle's concern. Up
through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be
"incompatible with personal security or the rights of property."
James Madison and others
held that the
"first object of government" was to protect the rights of property.
Numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were
incorporated to protect the property rights of citizens from the power
of the government.
Whatever else might be said about him, Obama
operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the
Founders. As Michelle Malkin
observes, he spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his
administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough
money."
The Founders thought that at some point the government
had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in
unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called
health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama's
other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government
in general and the executive branch in particular.
Alluding to
other elements of Obama's Quincy
speech earlier this week, Michelle observes that Obama presumes to
know when you have earned "enough," who believes that only those who
provide what he deems "good" products and services should "keep on
making it," and who has determined that the role of American
entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill
their "core" responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective
economy. Michelle concludes: "That famous mock-up poster of Obama
as the creepy socialist
Joker never seemed more apt."
John Hinderaker adds: Federal
employees now are paid much more money than their counterparts in
private industry. Is Obama willing to acknowledge that they earn
"enough" and should forgo future pay increases? Obama himself
earned more than $5 million last year. Is that "enough"?
George Soros has made countless millions from currency manipulations
that many regard as little better than extortion. Does he have
"enough"? I suspect that "enough" will prove to be a standard that
is both highly flexible and intimately related to political influence.
Wake Up, America
Fred Dardick says wake up, America. Democrats
aren’t Democrats anymore. They’re communists. And the so-called
"moderate Democrats" are merely socialists.
It wasn’t so long ago
that much loved Democrat President John F. Kennedy told the nation in
his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask
what you can do for your country", implying a sense of self sacrifice
was needed by all Americans to keep the torch of freedom burning bright
in a world filled with tyranny.
An idea most could relate to
regardless of political affiliation.
But times have changed and
modern liberal philosophy has become almost unrecognizable to previous
generations. It can be more accurately described as: "Forget
personal sacrifice, keep sitting on your behind, and let the government
rob your neighbor for you."
Democrat political aims no longer
share the fundamental ideals that have served this nation so well for so
long. Rather than put their trust in the righteousness of the
American individual, their intention is to transfer as much power as
possible to the collective, as represented by the federal government.
Barack Obama outlined his openly communist thinking at a University
of Michigan commencement address this past weekend when he said "When
our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign
entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."
What is he talking about?
First off, you have to be out of
your mind to not be at least a little skeptical of an entity that can
force you from your home, take away your money, incarcerate you, and
ship you off to war…all for sometimes less than perfect reasons.
That’s an awful lot of power just begging to be misused by unscrupulous
politicians, and a community organizer should know it. I seem to
recall Obama having a real big problem with government not so long ago
when we invaded Iraq.
Our founding fathers were right to be
fearful of centralized government. They knew from their
experiences with the kings of Europe that a small number of people with
unchecked power could not be trusted. It wasn’t necessarily
unheard of for the ruling class to turn on the common folk and start
nailing people to trees.
Obama’s statement "government is us" is
likewise absurd.
Meredith Jessup
is reporting that last fall, leftist ideological groups of
socialists and communists teamed up with American labor unions to march
together for "One Nation." Now, as labor leaders struggle to
maintain a stranglehold on collective bargaining privileges in
Wisconsin, the same groups are once again marching together under a
banner claiming unions are the heart of the American dream.
As
we’ve reported, former White House green jobs czar Van Jones this week
issued a rallying call for the progressive movement to "renew itself and
become again a national force with which to be reckoned." On
Saturday, progressive groups and labor unions held
marches of solidarity in all 50 states.
Here in Washington, D.C.,
leftist activists at MoveOn.org are co-hosting a rally Saturday with the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU). But behind the
scenes, The Blaze has exclusively learned the rally has actually been
organized by the International Socialist Organization.
According to MoveOn.org’s website, the rally is meant to fight back
against Congress which has "been taken over by corporate lackeys who
want to destroy the American dream."
"The American dream," MoveOn organizer Bill Boteler
says, "is about fairness and equal opportunity… We’re standing
up for the American Dream and saying that now is not the time to start
slashing middle-class jobs in the middle of a recession, in Wisconsin,
or anywhere in America. Be there to tell the politicians: Before
you shut down the government and punish middle-class working Americans,
why not first make the richest of the rich pay their fair share in
taxes, just like everyone else."
Despite MoveOn.org and SEIU taking a leading role -- along with a
number of other sponsors including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, George Soros’
Media Matters, the Apollo Alliance and the Sierra Club -- the National
Park Service has confirmed that the Saturday rally’s permit was
requested by and issued to the International Socialist Organization,
a group committed to building a "future socialist society."
How many unionized American workers consider the "American dream" to
be a "future socialist society?"
According to their own
website, the ISO admits its branches across the country are "helping
to build a number of struggles," including "standing up for workers’
rights":
The misery that millions of people around the
world face is rooted in the society we live in–capitalism, where the few
who rule profit from the labor of the vast majority of the population.
In the U.S., a tiny proportion of the population enjoys fantastic
wealth, while millions of people live in desperate poverty, and many
more live paycheck to paycheck. Yet we have the resources to feed,
clothe and educate everyone on the planet.
A world free of
exploitation -- socialism -- is not only possible but worth fighting
for. The ISO stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists
Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky in the belief that workers
themselves -- the vast majority of the population -- are the only force
that can lead the fight to win a socialist society. Socialism
can’t be brought about from above, but has to be won by workers
themselves. …
We see our task as
building an independent socialist organization with members organizing
in our workplaces, our schools and our neighborhoods to bring socialist
ideas to the struggles we are involved in today, and the vision of a
socialist world in the future.
In addition to working with liberal activists and national labor
unions behind the scenes, the ISO is just one of many
socialist/Marxist/communist groups organizing their members to support
Van Jones' new "American dream" initiative.
The Daily Caller
noted Friday that a number of radical groups -- including the Maoist
Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party USA, Trotskyist
Socialist Workers Party and the Democratic Socialists of America -- are
taking up the labor unions' talking points and encouraging Egypt-like
unrest in the United States.
The Socialist Workers Party has
labeled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker "an enemy of the people."
"Egypt, whose revolution has been a constant source of inspiration
here, reflected in signs and chants -- and Walker’s new nickname, Gov.
Mubarak," an ISO
article reads. In addition, the article labels the current
budget debates in Wisconsin as "class war" and as an affront to "the
standard of living of working people."
"Using the deficit as a scare tactic, the right-wing corporate
Republicans are on a fast track to defeat every initiative of the Obama
administration, to destroy unions and public services at the federal,
state and municipal level, and at the same time protect tax breaks for
the richest few,"
writes Joelle Fishman, chair of the Communist Party USA’s Political
Action Commission. A "broad alliance of forces for social change
(labor, racially oppressed, women, youth)" need to step forward to
re-frame the nation’s political debate for the 2012 elections, she
insists.
While many skeptics claim these radical leftist groups may agree with
the unions on a number of issues, the fact that these groups are
actually working in conjunction with unions to orchestrate the ongoing
protests says a lot about American unions’ modern-day political
orientation -- far to the left and antithetical to the real
American dream.
The communist, socialists, and
the rest of the Marxist Left are out of the closet. They see this
as their moment to seize the American political system and turn this
country into Cuba.
