God forbid the Democrats make it impossible for America to live up to its greatness.
God forbid the Republicans likewise. 
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I agree. Socialism is a fungus on the global landscape. Look what it did for the former Soviet Union.
Prager bump!
The Pope's German? Hillary's a corrupt Marxist? 1+1 = 10 (there are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and the rest)?
Actually, your accidental typo ('socialosm') offers an idea. I would suggest 'socialasm', to describe the crowd who 'get off' on socialism -- well, at least until that doctrine is formally applied to their own lives.
Wonderful article and one I will remember in conversation with my flaming liberal friends.
BTW... France isn't the only country with the socialist problem over here... trust me. They're just getting it "in their face" at the moment.
Did socialism make the French what they are, or were they drawn to it because it matched their predisposition?
They have been socialists for so long that the tailspin appears to be irreversible.
God forbid the Democrats make it impossible for America to live up to its greatness.
God forbid the Republicans likewise.
Like Prager says, Americans might sound off against the French and their socialistic ideas but this country is tilting more and more toward a socialistic society. Diane Alden, in her column, stated that the majority of job gains was due to employment in government. Does that sound like a stable democratic society? I don't think so.
And yes, I'm grateful that Tony Blair stood by our side in the WOT. I don't consider him a full fledged Socialist, just a politician who happens to cavort with them.
Private and communal farming (1623)
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
Yes they reap what they have sown. Their citizens are Pavlovian (sp?) in response to any "Anglo" type solution.
I have no reason to disbelieve this and my gut tells me it is probably true, but I sure wish Prager had cited a source for this assertion. I would love to beat my liberal friends over the head with it when they scream that we conservatives have no "compassion".
No matter how pure their motives, t The Left makes America and its citizens less noble people, just like the spoiled French students.
Can't be stated too many times, and also true for liberals.
One more point. Isn't these same narcissitic lazy people that the Democrats and the world keept insisting are wise allies who America should respect and emmulate and whose counsel we should follow?
I wouldn't count on these lazy pukes to help with a church social much less fight any real enemies.
Socialism is founded on the notion there is "only one pie" (zero sum game)
Capitalism is founded on the idea we can make more pies. (inginuity triumphs)
Placemark for later read.