My good friend Gawfer and I were chatting on Yahoomessenger (and I will get my sound fixed, so I can enjoy the audibles, Gawf…) when he pointed me to this entry by Cap’n Ed.
Have you gone and read it yet?
If you haven’t, the following will make no sense, since I will be referring to it occasionally.
The point being made, and in a limited framework, is valid. Obama is a socialist-taught, -thinking, and -acting person. While the candidate Clinton(s) are trying desperately to make it appear that she has the all-around appeal for everyone AND the experience needed to be President (although Article 2 clearly does not layout any ‘requirements’ for ‘experience’ for the office of ‘President’), the Obamanation is clamoring to follow the Promising One to a land of Change – although he has never really stated what, exactly, he plans on changing.
His wife, Michelle, seems to have let slip that little secret – he’s planning on changing how we, as a nation, will operate. Under his command, of course. Because he knows best.
It really amazes me that all the proponents of socialism never take into consideration that there is not one nation under socialist rule that has successfully remained under socialist rule it’s entire existence.
If you read down into the comments, the liberals and leftists take the topic way the heck off into strawman land, but the comment from “Michael_Smith”, about the third one into the discussion, makes a very valid and sobering point: (my comments are in parentheses) (<--like these-->)
“Remember that the complete name of the Nazi party was the “National Socialist Worker’s Party of Germany”. Here is a portion of the Nazi party platform:
“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.” (this used to be called government interference with the free market, but I’m just a dumb ol’ cowboy, and what could I possible know?)
“The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests.” (can you say ‘political correctness carried to its logical conclusion?’ i knew you could…)
“We demand profit sharing in big business.” (i think Billary has proposed this too..)
“We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.” (*cough*socialized medicine*cough*)
“In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education ….“ (“And when everyone is super, then no one will be” – Syndrome)
“We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents.” (and this will be paid for by … ?)
“The government must undertake the improvement of public health—by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor…. by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.” (whatever happened to personal responsibility and self-accountability?)
“[We] combat the… materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.” (sounds religious, without any mention of God, since man is the highest power in this scenario)
Modern liberalism advocates all of this.
I think he said it just about as well as anything I’ve read lately.
Oh, I’m sorry – for the lefties reading this, a point was made – Modern Liberalism = Socialism.
Socialism is a failed economic theoretical model. (For my lurking economist reader, please bring proof that it works before you go spouting that I don’t know what I’m talking about on this subject. “Proof” would mean actual concrete evidence that a country can support a socialistic economy (what’s mine is everyone’s and what’s everyone’s is mine) for more than, let’s say, ten years. By that time, the people who have a work ethic are working harder than ever and getting less and less in return, because the people who DON’T have a work ethic have figured out that the government is going to take care of them whether they work or not.)
Less workers = less stuff produced = less stuff to share. (hey, libs – that’s another lesson. write that one down, it’ll be on the quiz later.)
All that to say this: The two-party system has screwed us, people. We have the unenviable position of choosing for President a liberal, socialist, career politician. None of these traits is admirable, in the context of a representative republic, and the second one could be the straw.
(think about it, libbies. you’ll get it sooner or later.)
Thank you for stopping by, God bless you all, Wear Red on Fridays, and support Warriors for Innocence!
