Provided courtesy of SayNOtoSocialism.comWith America Headed Towards Socialism, Most Care Not Enough to Resist
Canada Free Press
The relentless encroachment of socialism upon America’s economic, cultural and governmental landscape is like a bad dream to most red-blooded Americans. When society changes it can seem like the ineluctable drift of evolution or chance. But in the case of America’s ongoing continued expansion of government powers, spiking taxes, and shrinking military, it’s all part of a planned elitist push into socialism. And one need not believe in secret conspiracies when contemplating this shift. In fact, for those paying attention, it was all outlined long ago by the Fabian Socialist society, and other groups such as the Frankfurt School, as explained below. I. Basic Socialism: History & Dogma
Socialism is a European phenomenon, beginning after the French Revolution with writers from Paris and London forming the core. The definition of socialism is: “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” While most believe Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the father of socialism, he wrote very few specifics on the topic. In fact, one of Marx’s most signal shortcoming was his failure to describe his own working economic system. Instead, it was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), first leader of the new USSR who developed the theory in situ
, according to the Library of Economics & Liberty
. Lenin’s attempts at creating a profit-free economy was a spectacular failure, only bettered by Joseph Stalin’s larger failure. A. Vladimir Lenin’s ad hoc Socialism
The Library lists Vlad’s four critical factors
he believed necessary for economic success:
Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”
The four laws were apparently insufficient to drive en economy towards productivity:
In fact, Soviet economic life under these first four rules was so disheveled within four years of the 1917 revolution, productivity fell to 14% of its pre-revolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism ended in 1927 after Stalin instituted forced collectivization meant to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.
Suffice it to say that no version of socialism has ever provided longterm economic growth or security anywhere in the world, because it lacks a cohesive economic theory. B. Karl Marx’s Vision: Revolution
Karl Marx claimed to have discovered a “science” of economics that proved his ideas true. In fact, according to author Paul Johnson in Intellectuals
, Marx was a moralizing journalist, with the faculty of a poet, masquerading as a science-minded intellectual. Writes Johnson
But in a deeper sense he was not really a scholar and not a scientist at all. He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it. There were three strands in Marx: the poet, the journalist and the moralist. Each was important. Together, and in combination with his enormous will, they made him a formidable writer and seer. But there was nothing scientific about him; indeed, in all that matters he was anti-scientific.
Further, according to Marx’s writing partner, lifelong benefactor and friend, Frederick Engels, Marx should be remembered as a revolutionary. He said grave-side at Marx’s burial
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being…
So Marx’s main interest in writing was to foment revolution, because without the collapse of capitalism, the promised paradise of total government control would never have room to occur. Knowing this, American leftists have long done whatever they could, in small and large ways to help birth the revolution upon American soil. The following is a partial history of that struggle. II. Congressional Record January 10, 1963
On January 10, 1963, Florida US Representative Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr
gave a speech outlining what he believed to be the 45 methods communists
were using to take over America. Ponder the staggering number of these goals already achieved, much to our mortal damage.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Control schools. Use them to transmit socialist & Marxist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Infiltrate teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Discredit American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. Promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate churches. Replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit Bible & emphasize need for intellectual maturity, rejecting a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit US Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle American culture & discourage teaching of American history because it’s only part of the “big picture.”
32. Support any socialist movement to centralize control over any part of the culture: education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. III. Frankfurt School
The Frankfurt School were a group of German intellectual Marxists who established the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. This became known as the “Frankfurt School.” After Hitler came to power, these Marxist professors fled to the West to preserve their lives. Setting up shop in Columbia University, they decided to launch a mission to convert America to Marxism via a soft war. According to one source
they did certain things to aid this:
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the Frankfurt School recommended (among other things):
- The creation of racism offenses.
- Continual change to create confusion
- The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
- The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
- Huge immigration to destroy identity.
- The promotion of excessive drinking
- Emptying of churches
- An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
- Dependency on the state or state benefits
- Control and dumbing down of media
- Encouraging the breakdown of the family
A main idea of the Frankfurt School was exploiting Freud’s ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
- attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
- abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
- abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
- declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’ IV. Fabian Society: Slow Conquering Socialism
The Fabian Society of Britain was named after Roman general Fabius Maximus
, famed for a warfare style that eked out victories via patience and attrition. Fabian socialists likewise seek to take over their host countries by slowly changing standards until the dumbed-down populace no longer has the wit to notice or care. A sociological analogy might be—how predators groom their victims, often waiting years for a chance to exploit their prey. An author sums up their strategy
Like their namesake, today’s Fabians avoid open confrontation with the forces of freedom and, subsequently, tend to shield their true agenda from the light of day.
The creed of the Society, written in 1887, was as follows:
“It (The Fabian Society) therefore aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership…The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land.
The Fabian plan was to infiltrate America by targeting our legal system. Fabian convert Felix Cohen, a law professor at Yale, wrote the following:
“It is possible to attempt the overthrow of capitalism as an economic system without at the same time attacking the substance of capitalist law…Socialists can learn from their adversaries that it is always possible to attack existing law, in the name of democracy, justice, and liberty, in the name of the great ideals of the American Constitution, and in the name of law itself.
Fabians sought to overthrow our system by changing the meaning of our stated legal concepts, and to codify those changes with cases brought by Fabian lawyers before Fabian Judges. The effect of this has been that while the technical wording of American law hasn’t changed much, the implementation has been transferred from the citizen and his elected representatives, to appointed bureaucrats. The Fabians have, diabolically, used our own laws to change the law. Freedom is the victim of these Socialist manipulations. Conclusion America is infiltrated by Marxists active so long in undermining our institutions and ideals that socialism is now in our collective DNA. They seek an end to private property, representative democracy and rule of law. But once America has turned over leadership to committed liberals, who will be left to protect the world from takeover by globalists intent on universal tyranny?
Unfortunately, the question answers itself.
Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio
Sundays at 4 pm (EST). Kelly O’Connell
is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at: email@example.comArticle published here in full by the kind permission of the author.
You can't even casually surf the Internet on any given day without numerous reminders of just how radical [Alleged] President Obama is -- and this is during an election year, when it should be in his political interest to mask his radicalism.
Minding my own business, I happened on an article by Jacob Laksin on FrontPageMag.com, titled "Obama's Pick for World Bank Hates Capitalism." I'd heard a bit about this before but hadn't yet studied it. I'm so used to Obama's extremism that such revelations hardly move me, much less surprise me. I know where he stands; I just wish everyone else did.
Obama has nominated Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank. In 2000, Kim edited a collection of studies under the title "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor."
The "book's radical central premise," writes Laksin, is that "capitalism and economic growth (are) bad for the poor across the world." Kim co-wrote the introduction, which includes the claim that the book shows "that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men." It says that even in those instances in which free trade and free markets have led to economic growth, they've done so without benefiting "those living in 'dire poverty,' one-fourth of the world's population." Can't you just hear Obama himself in those words?
One thing that helps the plight of the very poor, according to one chapter, is a socialized health care system, such as the one in Communist Cuba. The chapter's author touts that system because of the Cuban government's "commitment not only to health in the narrow sense but to social equality and social justice." As we opponents of Obamacare have said repeatedly, Obamacare is hardly just about making health care more affordable or more accessible, neither of which it will do in the end, but is a stealth vehicle to greatly expand governmental control over limitless aspects of our lives to enable the leftist central planners to effectuate "social equality and social justice" under the innocuous guise of providing health care.
As with so many of its ideas, the left is wrong about the record of free markets on the poor, notes Laksin, who points to "overwhelming evidence" that economic growth raises income levels and reduces global poverty. But again, leftist ideologues aren't motivated by a desire to improve the lot of the downtrodden, domestically or globally, but by a burning passion for statism.
This book is right out of Obama's playbook. Can you not see the common thread running through these alleged glories of the Cuban system and Obama's approach to health care and his war on oil, coal and gas, along with his corresponding commitment to green energy and his various stimulus bills, all of which increase our national deficits, debt and unemployment but greatly increase governmental control?
Obama's nomination of Kim should be no surprise to anyone, considering his consistent record of radical associations and appointments, from Van Jones to transnationalist Harold Koh. For Obama, one's radicalism is not a deterrent to one's resume, but an enhancement. His appointment of Van Jones was not a mistake owing to the administration's failure to vet him as Obama's defenders later claimed once Jones' radicalism was exposed. Obama appointed Jones precisely because his administration was intimately familiar with Jones' views; indeed, the White House carved out a new position -- green energy czar -- specifically tailored for his worldview and then happily placed him in it.
Tearing myself away from this uplifting article, I next encountered one detailing Obama's ongoing fulfillment of his promise to bankrupt the coal industry -- with his Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of new proposed rules on carbon emissions, which will please the goddess Gaia but won't do much for the production of energy, economic growth, jobs or the poor, for that matter. This was after watching a report on Fox News earlier that morning highlighting Obama's obstruction of oil shale production based on other dubious environmental doom-saying.
Next, I saw John Fund's piece on National Review Online outlining Obama's background in the sordid community organizing tactics of famed leftist radical Saul Alinsky and Obama's close ties with the now fallen ACORN. According to New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor -- in her new book on Obama -- Obama still thought of himself as a community organizer when he was senator. He still does today, and, Fund warns, conservatives should be prepared for his Alinsky tactics in the 2012 campaign.
Maybe this all wouldn't be so exasperating if Obama didn't hold himself out as a uniter, but he is the furthest thing from it, as he, if anything, is doubling down on his polarizing radicalism and his unswerving commitment to a statist agenda for America.
Provided courtesy of SayNOtoSocialism! Sultan Knish
The only real lesson of the ObamaCare defense is that if you define the macro broadly enough, you are entitled to completely control every aspect of the micro. Everyone can be compelled to buy health insurance because health care is no longer a service bought from a doctor, it is a national market which everyone by definition participates in. The market is then divided between good consumers who buy health insurance and the parasites who don't. Alternative possibilities such as people who pay as you go, choose alternative health care or reject medicine entirely for religious or political reasons don't figure into a macro equation which sees people in the macro, not as individuals.
Defenders of the Mandate insist that you couldn't similarly force people to buy Broccoli or a Chevy Volt but why not? You might not be able to individually force people to buy a specific product, but once you define a transportation market or an edibles market, you can force people to participate in that market on the terms set by the government and its allied businesses.
So there wouldn't be a mandate to buy a Chevy Volt. That would be a crude abuse of power. Instead we can define a transportation market in which everyone is presumed to participate in. Since everyone at some point in their lives has to buy a car, ride in a car or take a bus or a plane somewhere, we can include everyone as a participant in the business of going places. And once everyone has been included in the transportation market, a mandate can then define the terms on which they can participate in that market.
Buy a Chevy Volt? No. Buy an electric car or alternative means of transportation which meets a target carbon footprint, or participate in a collective ride sharing system that meets the same requirements. Absolutely yes. And if rather few non-Volt vehicles meet those requirements, that's just incentive for more companies to make their own Volts. Or for you to buy a Volt.
Compel you to eat broccoli? That's easy as pie. Everyone already buys food which makes them participants in an edibles market. Since their consumption also affects their health care which now directly interacts with the government, the only way to provide them with affordable health care is to control their diet.
Here's one easy way to do it. Compel health insurance companies not to sell plans to anyone who does not commit to follow nutritional guidelines. Then fine them for not having health insurance. Allow them to buy health insurance again only after they agree to regular sessions with a nutritional counselor.
But the broccoli mandate is easy enough too. Since everyone buys food, everyone is a participant in the edibles market. To provide good affordable and nutritious food, which is now a right, to all Americans, and safeguard affordable healthcare, everyone is now mandated to participate in the Federal Annual Nutritional Purchase Program which would offer discounted produce, with a subsidy for farmers, on an installment plan that everyone would be compelled to pay into.
To deflect public criticism, the FANPP would be mandatory only for families with children under thirteen. There would be a variety of alternatives, but at the end of the day you would be compelled to buy broccoli and arugula and anything else that the brilliant busybodies decide is good for you.
Could anyone actually compel you to actually eat it? There's no need to go too 1984, but it's worth bearing in mind that there are sensors that monitor whether a homeowner has taken out their recycling the appropriate number of times, complete with fines for those who haven't, or for those whose labors haven't registered on the sensor. Within a decade it will be child's play to track every item of food in the supermarket and your refrigerator and your trash with edible RFID tags, plug all that into a database and then crunch the numbers and see if you really are eating your vegetables.
There is no limit to the controlling antics of the nanny state under the leadership of men and women who are certain that they know best and that only by taking complete control of everyone's lives will their pet projects for making the world a better place work out. It won't work of course, but that just means they will try harder.
The real message of the Mandate is that socialism interfaces closely with crony capitalism and that government solutions depend on forcibly enlisting everyone into their ranks because otherwise the program isn't even workable enough to get started.
The failures of ObamaCare will necessitate a constant campaign of scapegoating, blaming companies and ordinary Americans for not doing what needs to be done for everything to run smoothly. And that scapegoating will necessitate new solutions, new programs and new regimes. Companies will be nationalized, patients will be regimented and like the NHS, the coverage will veer from treating it as the only thing keeping us from dying in the gutter to warning that it is constantly on the edge of the abyss. There will be constant talk of reforms, whispers of privatization, and the misery will go on.
That is what the Mandate really means, the power to impose a total system on everyone. As the system becomes more dysfunctional, it will lose its vestige of private care and become a total government monopoly for its own good and ours. But of course it doesn't end there. It never does. Read this story at sultanknish.blogspot.com ...
"Does anyone truly believe that we can socialize the doctor without socializing the patient?"
-- Ronald Reagan, speech to Young Americans for Freedom; July 20, 1974: San Francisco, pg 11.
*Thanks to Guy Stevenson for uncovering this great quote!
In addition to the 15 Catholic bishops
scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.
The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.
The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.
Continue reading ...
U.S. Clarifies Policy on Birth Control for Religious GroupsNew York Times
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took another step on Friday to enforce a federal mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, announcing how the new requirement would apply to the many Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies that insure themselves.
In such cases, the administration said, female employees and students will still have access to free coverage of contraceptives.
The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators” — or by “some other independent entity,” it said.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the government would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.”
The new proposal escalates the election-year fight over the administration’s birth control policy.
President Obama had previously announced what he described as an “accommodation” for religiously affiliated organizations that buy commercial insurance but object, for religious reasons, to covering contraceptives and sterilization procedures. In these cases, the White House said, the insurer “will be required to provide contraception coverage to women free of charge.”
On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services went a step further and said it would propose a similar requirement for group health plans sponsored by religious organizations that insure themselves.
The new proposal did not mollify Republicans in Congress.
“It’s a Washington accounting gimmick,” Representative Jeff Fortenberry, Republican of Nebraska, said Friday in an interview. “The administration is twisting itself in all directions to expand the ‘accommodation’ for faith-based institutions. Why is it the government’s role to decide who gets an accommodation? The White House is creating an unnecessary political firestorm.”
Mr. Fortenberry has introduced a bill to let certain employers and insurers opt out of the mandate for contraceptive coverage. More than 220 House members have signed on as co-sponsors.Read this story at nytimes.com ...
America's Party Endorsed Independent Projects -> Free the First Amendment CommitteeHHS tells religious believers to go to hell. The public notices.
Wall Street Journal
The political furor over [Alleged] President Obama's birth-control mandate continues to grow, even among those for whom contraception poses no moral qualms, and one needn't be a theologian to understand why. The country is being exposed to the raw political control that is the core of the Obama health-care plan, and Americans are seeing clearly for the first time how this will violate pluralism and liberty.
***In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill. The decision came after passionate lobbying by religious groups and liberals from the likes of Planned Parenthood, amid government promises of compromise.
In the end, Planned Parenthood won. HHS chose to draw the rule's conscience exceptions for "religious employers" so narrowly that they will not be extended to religious charities, universities, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions that oppose contraception as a matter of religious belief.
The Affordable Care Act itself is ambiguous about what counts as a religious organization that deserves conscience protection. Like so much else in the rushed bill, this was left to administrative discretion. What the law does cement is the principle that the government will decide for everyone what "health care" must mean. The entire thrust of ObamaCare is to standardize benefits and how they must be paid for and provided, regardless of individual choices or ethical convictions.
To take a small example: The HHS rule prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control, simply because Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's regulators believe no woman should have to pay anything for it. To take a larger example: The Obama Administration's legal defense of the mandate to buy insurance or else pay a penalty is that the mere fact of being alive gives the government the right to regulate all Americans at every point in their lives. Practicing this kind of compulsion is routine and noncontroversial within Ms. Sebelius's ministry. That may explain why her staff didn't notice that the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom. Then again, maybe HHS thought the public had become inured to such edicts, which have arrived every few weeks since the Affordable Care Act passed.
Bad call. The decision has roused the Catholic bishops from their health-care naivete, but they've been joined by people of all faiths and even no faith, as it becomes clear that their own deepest moral beliefs may be thrown over eventually. Read this story at wsj.com ...
-- Winston Churchill
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
America's Party Principles In Public Policy -> Committee for Tax, Monetary & Spending Reform
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have already cost US taxpayers over $200 billion. If Obama gets his way on mortgage writedowns, the GSEs estimate it would take another $100 billion.
Since such estimates are always overly-optimistic by a factor of 3 to 10, I estimate the cost to taxpayers would be $300 billion minimum.
Please consider Fannie, Freddie writedowns too costly: regulator The regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac told lawmakers that forcing the two mortgage firms to write down loan principal would require more than $100 billion in fresh taxpayer funds.
In a letter sent on Friday to the Republican and Democratic leaders of a House of Representatives government oversight panel, the Federal Housing Finance Agency explained why it has long opposed principal reductions for borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.
It said it had determined that such reductions would be more costly for the two firms than allowing those troubled borrowers to default.
"Principal reduction never serves the long-term interest of the taxpayer when compared to foreclosure," FHFA's acting director, Edward DeMarco, wrote in the letter to lawmakers dated January 20.
About 22 percent of U.S. homes have negative equity totaling about $750 billion, according to CoreLogic.
"Given that any money spent on this endeavor would ultimately come from taxpayers and given that our analysis does not indicate a preservation of assets for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac substantial enough to offset costs, an expenditure of this nature at this time would, in my judgment, require congressional action," DeMarco said in the letter.
Another barrier to principal writedowns, aside from pushing losses at the two firms even further, DeMarco said, was the costs associated with new technology and training to servicers that would be needed to launch a program that offers principal forgiveness.
The Federal Reserve, in a white paper to Congress earlier this month, said write-downs "had the potential to decrease the probability of default" and "improve migration between labor markets."
However, the Fed stopped short of endorsing such an initiative and noted concern that writing down loan balances would create a moral hazard -- the concept that rescue efforts breed further behavior that exacerbates the existing problem -- and could prompt other borrowers to stop making timely loan payments. Calculating the Maximum Cost
At least we know an approximate maximum cap. Negative equity totals $750 billion. Add in cost on implementing the program, graft, fraud, etc. and the cap (right now) is a conservative $760 billion or so. Factor in declining property values and a conservative cap is $800 billion or so. Obama Seeks Vote-Buying Opportunity
Notice the ridiculous comment by the Fed: write-downs "had the potential to decrease the probability of default
". Of course they do.
Write off the entire loan and there would be no chance of default. That does not mean it's a smart thing to do. Unless of course you are [Alleged] President Obama seeking to buy votes in November.