Socialist, Nazi, Progressive - Pick Your Left-Wing Poison

Socialism - the abolishment of private property - sometimes advances at the point of a gun. At other times, it advances by co-opting the language of freedom.

In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, President Obama paid homage to the free market and families while driving home his central point that government knows best.
He began and ended with stories of individuals doing great things. He even said families are important and called for a five-year freeze on domestic spending. In between, he promoted more spending under the guise of “investment,” boasted of government takeovers of health care and student loans, blamed George W. Bush for the economic mess (“a legacy of deficit spending that began almost a decade ago”), took nasty shots at the oil and health insurance industries, and engaged in class warfare:
“Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success.”

Mr. Obama also said he would begin to consider protecting the border, something he is under oath to do now but is not doing. There was a sprinkling of pseudo-Reaganesque rhetoric, such as: “America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom and justice and dignity.”

But Reagan had a reliable moral compass. Mr. Obama is making it up as he goes along, slappinga moral sticker on anything that advances his left-wing agenda, however immoral it may be. This would include the lame-duck Congress‘ imposition of lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender military law, which will homosexualize the armed forces and require “training” of hundreds of thousands of servicemen that will violate their faiths and consciences.

Tough cheese, Mr. Obama says. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.” This is socialist talk for “Resistance is futile. America’s plunge into depravity and moral confusion cannot be reversed. We won’t let it.” As with his economic policies, this will take plenty of coercion, which is the progressive coin of the realm.

A free society with free people and free markets runs on incentives. Socialism always depends on coercion. That’s because it is anti-God to the core and sheds the restraints of religious teaching. Socialism seizes and perverts the biblical notion of charity, turning it into an excuse to empower the state. Because it can advance only at the expense of existing institutions and because it so violates human nature and natural human relations rooted in the family, socialism is at war with normalcy itself. Hence the Obama administration’s warm embrace of abortion, homosexuality and confiscatory taxation, all enemies of the family.

Men do not naturally place the needs of strangers ahead of the needs of their own families. In fact, the Bible warns that it’s a sin not to provide for one’s own. Charity happens after that primary duty, and it is best realized on a personal level, where the giver’s sacrifice is voluntary and the giver is aware of the impact of his charity.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species.” Ironically, although it would appear to militate against natural equality among men, Darwin‘s theory of evolution hastened the rise of socialism because it undermined man’s belief in the Bible as God’s inspired word. Darwin‘s reliance on “natural selection” helped usher in materialism, the belief that only the physical elements as perceived by man’s five senses are real - or matter. This fit the new doctrine of Marxism, in which man’s soul was subordinated to strictly material, economic concerns. It also fits today’s “progressive” agenda.
Marx himself told his colleague Friedrich Engels, “Darwin‘s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

Both the Nazi-fascist version of socialism and the Communist Party version emphasized the primacy of the state over the individual, the family and the church; ultimate control of property; the crushing of dissent; and control of the press. They were two sides of the same coin, even though they bitterly hated each other, with national socialism vying with international socialism (communism) for domination.

A common myth perpetuated in academia and the media is that a straight-line axis would put the Nazis on the far right and the communists on the far left, with America somewhere in between. But the communists and Nazis are both, in fact, on the far left of the axis. On the far right would be anarchists, who believe in no government. America, with its limited government and guarantees of individual liberty, would be somewhere in between.

Socialism, while masquerading as a sort of compassionate megacharity, is really a confiscatory system that ultimately requires force. Peter is robbed to pay Paul. This ensures the support of a growing number of Pauls, who develop an entitlement attitude and dependence mentality. It also ensures that the Peters are disconnected from the supposed charity done in their name with their taxed income. This breeds indifference to genuine suffering because it is assumed that the government will take care of everyone’s needs.

In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama talked a good game about America’s free-market economy, but he couldn’t resist giving government the lion’s share of credit:
“Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you feel the impact.”

It got a laugh, but it’s a reminder that for Mr. Obama and other progressives (i.e., socialists) government spending - not freedom - is the engine of progress.

Robert Knight is senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and co-author of “Ten Truths About Socialism” (Coralridge.org, 2010).

As printed in The Washington Post

More Powerful Government = Less Freedom for People

Egypt seems to be melting down before the world's eyes.  But over the past few months there have been similar outbreaks of civil unrest in Greece, Tunisia, Albania, and many other countries.  Is the world coming to an end?  Possibly.  But the more probable cause is a geopolitical vacuum that started building before the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States.



It began when candidate Obama spoke to adoring throngs of people at a rally in Germany.  Many people in the U.S. questioned why a presidential candidate in the U.S. would hold a rally in a foreign country?  German citizens aren't allowed a vote in the U.S., after all.  But the appearance of having such international charisma (serving to allow people to believe someone with no foreign affairs experience would be able to charm the world into peace) was just too good an opportunity for the campaign to pass up. 

Soon after the election, photographs of Obama bowing to every foreign leader he encountered adorned the covers of  magazines the world over.  Obama spoke to the masses in Egypt, in the arrogant belief his charm and charisma would serve to let Islamists know that this was a New America.  Islamoterrorism would have nothing to fear from the new world order, because the Progressives "understood" the situation.   That if the U.S. were just nicer to Hamas, Al Queda, Chavez, Castro, Greenpeace, etc. they would cease acts of terrorism and murder.  And who better to bring the world together?  After all, Obama had a Nobel Peace prize! 

Fast forward to today...  Rioters have ripped the heads off of ancient mummies in the National Museum.  Hundreds of Egyptians have been killed in the rioting so far.  The Muslim Brotherhood is applauding the violence in Egypt, proclaiming this to be the natural outcome of regimes that support the U.S., and promising more violence in other Arab nations. 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110129/D9L25G0G1.html

What should be clearly understood by everyone, however, is something every previous President knew inherently; that a weak global superpower creates a vacuum.  Something will always fill the imbalance created.  So far that something has been comprised solely of despots, dictators, terrorists and thugs.  It's the natural order of things. 

The Obama administration believes that there will be peace when the U.S. is de-developed and third-world countries have a higher standard of living.  Trotsky, Marx, Lenin and Stalin all wrote similar naive platitudes.  And what, beyond the 80 million people killed in communist purges, do they have to show for it?

The arrogant ignorance of today's Progressives are to blame for much of the world's current chaos and violence.  These unfortunate people rioting in the streets continue to be victimized by the people and governments that "know best" how to manage things.  And as long as these elitists keep the masses poor and hungry, the masses will willingly accept any change proposed to them.  Just ask Adolph Hitler...

Has Obama seen the light, or just the polls?

In the State of the Union address, Obama tried to sound like many of his famous predecessors.  But the problem with trying to sound like Reagan, Kennedy, and every other past President with a potential sound byte worthy of a "cut-and-paste", is that he ended up sounding like a schizophrenic.  In his desire to be like popular past Presidents (loved, or at least respected) he neglected to consider that the only thing these legendary leaders had in common was...they were loved or respected. 

It's tough to sound like a "big government solves everything" Wilson, while simultaneously trying to sound like a "big government IS the problem" Reagan.  That might explain the concurrent calls for reducing spending and increasing "investment" in the same speech.  And it also explains why he sounded like someone suffering from a multiple personality disorder. 

Alvin Felzenberg of US NEWS and World Report wrote:

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obama’s second state of the union address contained enough recycled ideas and lines lifted from speeches of others to make historians wince. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.
Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the president’s best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. After quoting Robert Kennedy early on, Obama tried to have his listeners believe that everything else he said that we might remember were his or his writers’ creations. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obama’s listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed “the rest of the story.”

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/alvin-felzenberg/2011/01/26/obamas-state-of-the-union-was-tantamount-to-plagiarism

It seems President Obama is only committed to telling people what he believes they want to hear.  His unbridled arrogance is so boundless that he expects the American people will believe anything he chooses to tell them. 

Should someone this pathologically unethical be entrusted with the highest office in the land again?  2012 will tell.