Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Final Lesson

Before I tackle some more of that fun comment left by a Western European who knows oh so much more than any American, (it shows because Europe has been doing so well for so long...) I would like to reiterate that the post I left about socialism was focused upon the hypocrisy of those that promote it as a viable and moral direction. The comment made no rebuttal to this point, so I assume we are in agreement: socialists, and by extension, President Obama and his cohort are all hypocrites. I will however continue to explain a few things to you before I move on (I will not be able to take so much time in the future to respond to individual comments, but hopefully these issues will be laid to rest, much like the socialist ideology.)

Alrighty! I've got my gloves back on; let's get down to business.

I love it when people say to me, "Obviously you don't know" something, as though I make pernicious claims just for the fun of it. I know it is hard for you to believe, but many, many conservatives are extremely well educated in economics, history, humanities, social sciences, mathematics, science, etc. Unlike the millions of American students who are imprisoned within the public school system, over which the government holds a monopoly, I was introduced to great thinkers and philosophers, and of course, to an accurate historical record of the world. These introductions obviously occurred outside of my revisionist, narrow-minded public school curriculum. Through these independent studies, I was (and still am) able to learn and think about various issues within a historical context as well as a topical context. This is commonly referred to analysis. So let's be done with this aspect: I know stuff, ok?

However, much to your dismay, we again agree on something. I concur when you posit that communist societies possess these characteristics: "freedom of speech and press are abolished, and opponents are exiled or imprisoned." Now, obviously you forgot to mention a couple of other important attributes of communism. FYI, nudge, nudge, communism is also, via Wikipedia:

a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

There is a "socioeconomic structure" in place with communism. It involves much more than just a couple of characteristics. And lest I am accused of not going to the source, here is a statement from website of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA):

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

Huh. I'm confused... don't lefties always try to say that socialism has nothing to do with communism, and that connecting the two is a right-wing conspiracy to scare people away from socialism? Here is another excerpt from Wikipedia:

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism
Soooo... what we have here is an explicit connection between communism and socialism. Socialism is the preferred economic system of communists. And now remember, our dear Western European friend, you are the one that told us of the harsh realities that exist inside a communist society; a place where "freedom of speech and press are abolished, and opponents are exiled or imprisoned." Your words, not mine.

Ask yourself this question, because it is obvious that you have not: why is it that a form of government that requires everyone to be the same, uses an economic structure that redistributes wealth from earners to non-earners, and punishes any sort of success whether that be economic, personal, physical, etc. is ALSO the same government that oppresses free speech, free press, and exiles, imprisons, or murders its opponents?

Answer: the government can only coerce people to live according to its will through the use of force and oppression to make is citizens comply.

Now, how does this relate to President Obama? Lucky for me, Randall Hoven at American Thinker just yesterday published an article on this very topic, saving me a lot of time. To summarize the article - which you must read in its entirety on your own - he simply lists the CPUSA's platform, line by line, and applies that list to Obama's actions to date. Guess what he found? You'll never guess, I'm sure.
Of 44 items on the CPUSA's list, 22 are already enacted, 21 are in work, 1 is being violated.

In conclusion, I would like to say:

Yes, Obama and the Democrat party leaders, Pelosi and Reid, are moving us towards socialism at warp speed.

Yes, I believe that the evidence to date (i.e. Obama's own statements, his background teaching and working in radical socialist/communist organizations, and his radical associations) and the historical precedent of socialism and communism gives us a clear picture about the precarious position of our individual freedoms and liberties in relation to Obama's policies.

Yes, I think it is obvious that your precious Western European nations are losing their freedoms and their liberty as each generation is infected with a larger sense of entitlement than the previous generation. Those countries are going bankrupt trying to keep up with all of the social programming that has been implemented over the years. (As an aside, wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money Europe could spend on these social programs of which they are so proud, and about which they feel so superior to us, if the USA were not completely funding their defenses, and have been since World War II? Just a thought...)

Yes, the open road to prosperity is congested for the citizens of Europe because of overregulation and the disincentives to produce that occur as a result of the high taxation that exists to support the immoral wealth redistributionist policies enacted by the socialist governments.

Finally, because I know you are concerned, after some yoga, meditation, and a shot of wheatgrass, I am finally at peace with the words that I chose to use... Wait, just kidding. After a lot of study, reading, investigation, analysis, and critical thinking on my part, I know I used, and continue to use, correct terminologies. If this still baffles you, then my advice to you is, try being a little more "choosy" about where you get your information from, after all, I wouldn't want people to question your credibility.


  1. According to the WHO, world health organization, the american health system is worse than that of Costarica and only a bit better than the slovenian one. Have a look here
    You'll appreciate the fact that 17 of the first 20 countries listed, are european.

    No wonder then, that americans life expectancy, is lower than that of the inhabitants of Bosnia Herzegovina. See for yourself
    Here again, amid the first 20 ountries, 17 are european.

    Contrary to what you think, the measure of a nation' s degree of progress is given by how its sick and poor citizens are treated, not by the number of cell phones or circulating Suvs.
    In order to provide a minum of education, health care and a decent job to the less fortunate members of the society, all classes ought to concur, by means of taxation according to their income, in a progressive way.
    It's called solidarity and its what makes the difference between a community and a jungle. Solidarity between classes eliminates those crass social injustices so common in America and the violence they help to create. And that is precisely one of the reasons why we europeans don' t have to walk around with a gun in our pocket to protect ourselves.
    And what do american conservatives propose to solve the social injustices in their country?
    Compassionate capitalism, in other words charity.
    No thanks. To have to depend on charity, offends human dignity.
    And besides, perhaps you haven't noticed, but we are not in dickensian England.


  2. Nice try. Next time read the whole post before you reply. Cheers.

  3. I know what communism looks like and how it works, thanks. I travelled to, and lived fo a short period, in communist countries (Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia) years ago, on bussiness.
    But I' m sure that a lover of politics such as you, can see the difference between the socialdemocrats (in England they are called laborites in America liberals) that are in power now in Spain, Australia and UK, among other countries, and cuban or northkoreans communists.
    Now, do you honestly think, or perhaps heard from a friend who just came back from one of those countries, that the government there punishes any sort of success whether economic, personal, physical etc or coerces its citizens to be the same?

    America has had democratic (liberals) presidents before: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton to name a few. Some were good some bad, like they republican counterparts. But I haven' t heard that they abolished private property or exiled opponents, have you?
    Accusing a liberaldemocrat to be a communist or a friend of terrorists (John Kerry was accused of being one, and if I'm not wrong Obama as well) is the favourite propagandistic line of the bosses of the american right.
    They know very well it' s a lie, but it helps to scare the common people in the street and obtain their votes. And most of the times it works (as in Bush reelection), because it's something known the world over that the american John Doe is not particularly "informed", let's call him like that.

    P.S. My previous comment was in response to your previous article :))

  4. gianni guelfi says "To have to depend on charity, offends human dignity.
    And besides, perhaps you haven't noticed, but we are not in dickensian England."

    I would think having to depend on anyone but yourself and especially depending on your government to give you what you believe you are "entitled" to would be much more offensive to human dignity as a whole than allowing your fellow man to choose who they donate to. There are a lot of very worthwhile charities out there that if I were struggling and in need, I would feel much more comfortable going to those types of programs than to the government programs. At least with a charity I know that people have CHOSEN to help me by donating THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY rather than taking from a government program where people are FORCED to hand over their cash for programs they may be 100% against. What a ridiculous comment.

    Liberty Belle, I heard you on the Laura Ingram show a few weeks ago and have been following your blog since then. It is very inspring to see that conservative morals and ideas are not yet gone. My only hope is that this country will open its eyes to the injustices that our very own President is thrusting down our throats before its too late.

  5. There's one thing I forgot to ask our kind host, if she doesn't find a contradiction in her wanting to redistribute knowledge and her dislike for the public school system.
    To whom do you want to redistribute knowledge if not to those who need it most, children of the lower classes attending public schools, Liberty: to the venusians?

    To Frank.
    Charity is a commendable activity, if done with a pure heart. Because in most cases, it' s just a quick way for the donors to clean their conscience, before reverting to their bad habits.
    Furthermore one can not count on charity, because one day you get it and the next you don' t.
    I can understand your disagreement with certain programs funded with your money as well, Frank. But let me remind you that a government, any goverment, is elected by a majority of citizens. By funding those programs you don' t like, Obama is only doing the will of the majority of your fellow americans who elected him. And in a democracy it's the will of the majority that counts.
    I can hear the objection: so in invading Irak, Bush was only executing the will of the majority!
    No, because in his electoral program he dind' t mention the will of attacking Irak or any other country.

  6. Good question Gianni. I chose "redistributing knowledge" mostly as a play on words, trying to say that knowledge can be taken from individuals and shared with others, resulting in a positive gain. Regarding schools, I feel the public school system has not been distributing knowledge, but rather dumbing kids down and feeding them ideologies. It is time to completely scrap that model and try something new. One does not need the current model of public schools to give all students, whether poor or rich, knowledge.

    In fact, if we look at the D.C. school choice voucher program, we see a highly successful program which takes kids out of failing schools and allows them to go elsewhere. If the teacher's unions were not dictating every decision in regards to the education system, and communities were allowed to implement a voucher system, I think we would see a dramatic increase in the success rate of all students.

    Public schools are poorly run monopolies and I wish there was a way to break them up using anti-trust laws. :)

  7. I'm an immigrant from an ex-communist country!I can say"been there,done that"! Communism is the worst thing ever happend ,and socialism is right after! You want more details ?Just ask me!

  8. Redistributing knowledge is a very commendable thing and a precise duty that the older generations owe to the young ones.
    I' ve heard that the quality of public schools in America is very low, but cutting their funds will worsen the situation, not ameliorate it.
    The conservative government now in power here in Italy, is tryng to do the same thing, reducing funds to public schools and at the same time introducing the voucher system (paid with taxpayers money) so parents can send their children to a private institution. I' ve nothing against private schools, but the problem here is that 95% of them are catholic. So, even if the quality of teaching is very high, nonetheless it's a religious education. And families who are protestant or jewish, or simply laic, what should they do?
    That's why we need good public schools, because only the State can guarantee an education respectful of ALL religions.
    One last observation about your defining public schools a monopoly: if the State allows privates to compete with him on a certain field, he cannot be accused to have a monopoly.
    As far as I know, the only activity in America where the State has a monopoly, where private entrepreneurs aren' t allowed to compete, is money minting.

  9. You' ve got it all right, Anonymous. Except I' m not an immigrant, but an italian living in Italy.


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.