Skip to comments.Obama's Politics Are More Insidious Than Socialism
Posted on 06/11/2012 4:04:54 PM PDT by Hojczyk
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist."
He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
And when things go wrong, that is used as an excuse for more statism and government interventionism in the economy.
It is called Fascism.
On the other side of all these policies that are designed to make the practice of capitalism difficult if not impossible, is something that stands like a spectre even more menacing than worldwide Communism - the worldwide Caliphate, which adds the veneer of religious authority to the command economy.
Militant Islam is every bit as repressive as the worst of Stalin’s regime, then they add the goad of superstition to that, in their obeisance to a brutal diety. “Allah gonna gitcha for that, boy!”
Making way for the worldwide Caliphate just sweeps aside all concern for the niceties of diplomacy and nuanced negotiations. Convert, surrender and become our servant, or kneel to be decapitated. “None of the above” is not accepted as an alternative.
Look up the term - NATIONAL SOCIALISM
The American people need to wake up and smell the killing fields that inhabit the imaginations of those who currently occupy the White House. They are eliminationist monsters.
The Muttburger Plan.....
All the great leaders of the last century, and now Obama, are just foreshadows of the one to come. I would like to presume that most on FR would be able to tell and resist him, but most people in the world won’t.
Thomas Sowell makes a basic logical error. Socialism is not static, based on 19th Century philosophies, but pragmatically, over time will embrace some variations on its basic principles.
For example, after the unmitigated disasters of socialism in Lenin’s Russia, Lenin discarded several of socialism’s theories, like “free love”, John Dewey’s educational ideas, collective farms, abolishing the Russian bureaucracy, etc., and went back to traditional systems that worked.
However, his hardcore successor, Stalin was not so pragmatic and insisted on the rightness of socialism’s theories no matter how often they failed, or who was hurt in the process.
In the US, early 20th Century “progressivism”, was somewhat like “Menshevik”, or “soft” socialism. In those days, the extremists were anarchists. However, the progressives kept an eye on the Soviet Union to see how they *might* do things in the future.
The United States Constitution is pre-modern,
cumbersome, and open to corruption. It prevents
the government from meeting the country’s needs
by enumerating rights that the government may
not infringe. — President Woodrow Wilson
They liked Lenin, and learned from him. And except for the fanatics, however, they did not like Stalin.
So by the time “Ol’ Frank” Roosevelt came around, what Sowell would call socialism was somewhat exhausted as a theory. But, as luck would have it, there was a new, trendy philosophy that looked ever so promising.
National socialism. On the surface, it seemed to be “socialism v2.0”, an upgrade of the ideas, and based on Fascist propaganda, parts of it seemed to work very well.
“What we were doing in this country were some of
the things that were being done in Russia and even
some of the things that were being done under
Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an
— President Franklin D. Roosevelt
And even today, we still have some “Fascist economics” organizations about, like most American agribusiness. In other activities it is often called “public-private partnerships”.
After the war, with National Socialist ideas somewhat out of fashion, socialist theorists tried a new approach, that of “socialist democracy” and “internationalism”.
Obama is filled to the brim with SD and internationalist ideas. And a dangerous aspect of it is that he is not alone. It is not exclusively Democrat, either. Many of the RINO Republicans endorse much of this utter crapola, at the expense of the American nation and constitution.
Often these are the most vapid and downright stupid ideas imaginable, such as a New World Order and One World Government, run by the monkey house of the United Nations, for heaven’s sake!
Other bizarre internationalist and SD ideas include the eventual elimination of national borders, adoption of regional currencies, governments of unelected elite bureaucrats and technocrats, and the creation of the nanny state, managing every detail of people’s lives.
It is utterly farcical, but it is the modern version of socialism. A laughable religion of petty and self important individuals that use gradualism to get what they want.
In a way it is like a very slow growing cancer that has also metastasized. It is killing the body, because it wants to kill the body, on the belief that when it does so it will become a happy angel living in heaven.
If there are enough sensible people left, perhaps we can excise it and the body will survive, but it will be a continual struggle, because the cancer is so very determined to get what it wants.
“Look up the term - NATIONAL SOCIALISM”
Hitler was a “National Socialist” and you can see where that led.
Don’t tell that to the Romney haters.
They equate a RINO to an evil communist.
I like Sowell, but he’s using the classic, old definition of socialism, not the modern one.
Love Thomas Sowell; another great piece bump!
My first thought was of National Socialism that came from the leader of the National Socialist Workers Party rather than Mussolini.
Perfect example of how socialism and fascism are just two proximate stops along the road to serfdom.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM = NaZi
Note these statements from Samuel Adams:
"The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." - Essay in the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771
"When designs are form'd to raze the very foundation of a free government, whose few who are to erect their grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is forever the fore-runner of slavery." - Article signed "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, December 9, 1771"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." - As Candidus in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave... These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." - Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772
"Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." - Letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men." - Letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775