Friday, June 19, 2009

Looking at Socialism


Socialism works. It works exactly as intended every time it is implemented. It always succeeds – it never fails!

I know about the argument that Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried – but that argument is simply wrong.

It is really just a simple misunderstanding. We tend to look at it from the perspective of the promises we were made before it was implemented and that is the wrong way to go about it.

Think of it this way: A politician running for office will say anything his advisors tell him is necessary in order to get elected – he just piles on the promises – but, when he is elected and forgets all those promises do we say he “Failed”? No. He was elected and that was his only intention – all the rest of it was mere tactics.

Socialism is like that politician: it’s #1 purpose is not to make life better “for the masses” but it is to enable government to take control of everything of importance in the country; financial institutions, manufacturers, Pharmaceutical Companies, the Health Care Industry, etc.,

After The Government is thus centralized, the #2 purpose of Socialism is to consolidate all governmental power in the hands of just a relative few of “The Party Elite” who will run everything and reap all the rewards.

Socialism succeeds. It accomplishes the goals it actually set out to accomplish. Like the lying politician it breaks every promise it made to “We the People” but when it takes power the promises become meaningless.

Look at the countries you know of where Socialism has been implemented. What did it do for the people? What did it do for the party elite? Ask yourself: “Do we know what socialism looks like? What it sounds like? What it promises and what it actually delivers?” Do we know the history of those places that have tried it? Is that what we want for our children – is that the heritage we will pass on to them?

We have elected a Socialist as our President; a man apparently so mad with the lust for power and so drunk on the adulation of the crowds that he will do absolutely anything to keep the spotlight focused on him and to reward the party faithful with money and power.

Already he has appointed numerous “Czars” who will pass “Regulations” at his pleasure and those regulations will have the force of law without the constitutional requirement of being passed, or even reviewed, by congress. He and a few in Congress are determined to make the U.S. a Socialist Republic. They have taken the steps necessary to move us in that direction.


Socialism, unchecked, will destroy our country. His policies are pure Socialism.

Someone says: “But we don’t know for sure that he is a socialist: we should give him more time to succeed before passing judgment…” So – I ask again, “Do we know what Socialism looks like? What it sounds like? Do we know the promises it always makes and do we know for sure that it always breaks those promises? Do we know how it begins and what it leads to after that beginning?”

This is Socialism – beginning.

We want the President to succeed at being The President of The United States of America -- we don't want him (or anyone) to succeed at becoming The President of The Socialist Republic of America.

I am only one man. These are my thoughts. Thanks for listening – it is your turn now. What do you think?

13 comments:

  1. I think the current resident of the Whitehouse is without a doubt a socialist. I don't think how he got there was a result of the economic model of socialism but rather through disciplined adherence to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Like socialism's big brother communism, the ends always justify the means.That seems to be his logic and reasoning.

    I believe the current person living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500 was very skillful at concealing his true intentions for the country. If he was forth coming during his campaign, I doubt that the American people would have bought into it with such zeal. America has been dumbing down for decades and now it seems that citizens are willing to cash in their freedoms for the illusion of government security in all areas of the economy. I have not seen, in my life time, any country that has endured long term with a socialistic centralized govenment. The ruling class always becomes oppressive and eventually as Margaret Thacher stated..."they run out of other people's money to spend."
    Buzz Off

    ReplyDelete
  2. Buzz -- I am so glad you accepted my invitation! We need your thinking -- not just on Socialism but on the general topic of "Freedom" and all the things happening to our country as we become more and more willing to swap Freedom -- not for security as Franklin warned us about but for the illusion of security!

    The security won't last and Freedom will have been sacrificed for nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  3. When we see liberal, socialistic ideas and beliefs attain power, the following is almost always the result.
    CINCINNATI (TDB) — The Census Bureau released reams of data about poverty in the United States, and Ohio was the only state that held two spots in the Top Ten ranking of America’s poorest large cities. Cincinnati was No. 3 on the list and Cleveland was No. 4. They were in a a statistical dead heat with 27.8% of all Cincinnati residents living in poverty, versus 27% in Cleveland. That is roughly 185,000 people between the two cities, which once were envied around the globe as economic gems where jobs were plentiful and neighborhoods thrived.


    The ranking, including the percentage in poverty, is as follows:



    1. Detroit, 32.5
    2. Buffalo, 29.9
    3. Cincinnati, 27.8
    4. Cleveland, 27.0
    5. Miami, 26.9
    6. St. Louis, 26.8
    7. El Paso, 26.4
    8. Milwaukee, 26.2
    9. Philadelphia, 25.1
    10. Newark, 24.2

    AND...


    September 15, 2008
    The 10 Poorest Cities
    10 Poorest Cities in the USA

    What do these top ten cities with the highest proverty rate all have in common?


    Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn ' t elected a Republican mayor since - 1961;

    Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn ' t elected one since 1954;

    Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

    Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

    Miami, FL (5th) has never had
    a Republican mayor;

    St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

    Elpaso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

    Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

    Philadephia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

    Newark, NJ (10th) ... since 1907.

    Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results."

    It is the disadvantaged who elect Democrats -- yet are still disadvantaged....

    A letter from Chicago;
    Chicago War Zone Information


    Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago, 221 killed in Iraq.

    Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley...our leadership in Illinois...all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago (a lot of good gun control does, huh?). Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!

    State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country.

    This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.

    He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Arkansas (My Home State) and Mississippi were always in a race for last place in nearly every meaningful category.

    Until the last decade or so they were both solidly Democratic after Reconstruction.

    We always hear that "Rich States" are Republican and "Poor States" Democratic. I believe the parties are the reason for that set of circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To clarify my previous post -- I should have pointed out that I am not a Republican! I see the two parties as "Two Wings of the same Vulture"!

    ReplyDelete
  6. And I am a conservative. Neither Republican or Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A petition for those that do not want the government to destroy the best health care system in the world. (ours) Though it is not perfect, nothing is. The government will really mess it up. Many of the problems with our health care is because of our congress and senate passing all kinds of laws and regulations, goofing everything up.
    Many optoions should be explored, such as some tort reform. maybe personal health accounts, catastrophic coverage, etc. If the gov't gets control of it like what they have in the ever changing bill they are putting forth, there will be rationing, euthanasia. public funding of abortion, etc. Picture some of the news clips of people lined up on the sidewalks to get their daily, weekly shopping rations in some of them communist countries. Damn if it would not be the same here when we wanted to go to the Doctor's office for treatment. This is America, and that kind of crap is contrary to all this country is founded and built on.
    There is 3/4 million signatures so far, and they say at 1 million signatures it will carry some weight!
    http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tom -- I signed the petition but I believe it would be more effective posted with it's own subject line and that would also move it to the top of the list.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have heard of patients being abused here in America. Just like in every walk of life we have people that are mean, or criminal or just plain lazy.
    I would think that if health care was in the control of the gov't, these abuses would increase, because there is a disconnect between the health care worker and the one that issues their paycheck. Less accountability, than if there was a Doctor around that was the one that paid the workers salary. Following is a link to Great Britain and it's remarkable health care system.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

    So we want our health care to be like this? If we have obama's health care system, there will be rationing as in other countries with socialized medicine. It can be no other way. Whatever wait time we have now will increase because we are adding millions of people, some who could buy health care but do not want to spend their money on it.

    Another example;
    BIRTHS outside maternity units soared to nearly 4,000 last year, sparking fears about NHS care.
    Some tots were delivered in hospital corridors, lifts and even TOILETS.

    The number of mums having babies outside labour wards shot up 15 PER CENT from 3,420 in 2007 to 3,948 last year.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2606712/4000-babies-born-outside-maternity-wards.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the post. Tom -- many of the Brits are very unhappy with their Socialized Medicine experiment and with good cause. Like experiments in socialism everywhere it has failed to deliver on it's promises. Like all bureaucracies it just keeps getting bigger, too! The Health service there is the third largest employer on earth -- and it is not a very big country!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with the substance of the argument about socialism succeeding in the sense that it provides a convenient argument for a small minority of folks with delusions of grandeur (or baser motives) to garner and maintain power.

    This is not different from the situation a personal injury lawyer encounters: the lawyer looks for an argument that will support the objective of turning deep pockets inside out with the lawyer picking up the lion's share of the funds that fall on the floor. The personal injury lawyer paints the enterprise as a selfless quest for justice, when in reality the lawyer is simply doing what gold prospectors did in times past.

    The difference is that the gold prospector's success wasn't contingent upon beggaring other people.

    Beware people trying to tell you they are going to do you a wonderful favor by levelling the playing field with those awful rich folk. Such people eventually run out of victims and you pop up on the dinner menu.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WalkingHorse -- you are exactly right! It is about helping no-one but themselves! (Welcome to "Talkin' Freedom!)

    ReplyDelete