[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Socialism: It's Not What You've Been Told (Socialism is COMMUNISM) The common phrase I hear from well-meaning, idealistic liberals is this: “The world would be so much nicer if we’d all just share.” They believe that corporations and their evil CEO’s are “greedy.” Those who have acquired wealth are “greedy.” Those who put themselves through years of school and then work hard to earn a nice life for themselves are “greedy.” Those who win the lottery and proceed to buy themselves a new house and a new car are not greedy, they are simply fortunate. It brings up memories of Barack Obama’s little “chat” with Joe the Plumber- the one where he told Joe that it’s just better for everyone “if we spread the wealth around a little.” Let’s be clear. Socialism is not sharing. Socialism is not volunteerism. Socialism is not giving charity or giving money to your desired cause. Socialism is communism, plain and simple. Just ask Vladamir Lenin, a guy who knows a thing or two about socialism: “The goal of socialism is communism.” End of story. Both socialism and communism are denoted by the government stealing from one group of people under the guise of giving it to the less fortunate and ultimately giving it to themselves. You see, in the ultimate end-game of socialism, only those in the highest levels of the government get rich. Those who work get poorer. Those who started out poor will either die or wish they had. Milton Freidman once challenged Teddy Kennedy at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting about the failure of socialism around the world and Kennedy shot back: “Socialism hasn’t worked in 6,000 years of recorded history because it didn’t have me to run it.“ Gosh, Teddy, I was in Hyannis Port once and drove by your compound. I didn’t see anyone outside redistributing your money. I wasn’t offered a ride on your yacht and you certainly didn’t invite me in for a hot meal. I thought sharing the wealth was the right thing to do. The “progressive” liberals in congress are all in line with Kennedy’s assumption. They believe that communism and socialism would be ideal if they were just run the correct way. Obama seems to think that he’s the guy to finally get the “socialism thing” right. He thinks he’s the guy who Americans will trust to take their hard-earned paychecks and give them to those more deserving. He’s the guy who we’ll trust with our healthcare, our education, our energy, our auto industry, and our housing. If the recent elections are any indication, I’d say that most folks aren’t buying what he’s selling. In true communist form, Obama doesn’t care what “the minions” think. Neither does Pelosi or Reid. During this Lame Duck session of Congress, they’re continuing to push legislation that will redistribute wealth. They are bound and determined to forge ahead with the Dream Act, an amnesty bill wrapped in a camouflage of helping children of illegals go to college. The Senate just voted for the Pigford Settlement, another redistribution of the wealth, but this time to black, repressed farmers. The only problem is that many who will be collecting from this $1.15 Bilion Pigford claim include those who were never repressed. As Rep. King from Iowa stated: This settlement boils down to “paying people for their skin color.” Martin Luther King would be so proud. Where will this “entitlement” society eventually lead us? Well, let’s look at history. As Freidman told Kennedy, there is not a single case of socialism throughout the world that has worked. In every case, a socialist/communist society has ended with a collapse of the society and the death of millions of people. It’s beginning to happen in the EU, isn’t it? First we saw the fall of Greece. Now we see that Ireland needs a bailout. The next to go will be Portugal, followed by Spain. Eventually, the entire EU will collapse. Socialism is unsustainable. Unsustainable. Why would America be any different? Because of Obama? Really? Do you trust a man who cannot even give a simple speech without a teleprompter to keep our country afloat? Do you trust a man who has surrounded himself with Marxists and socialists to take care of you and your family? Oh, but there is good news. We won’t need Michelle Obama’s food police if we achieve Obama’s utopic, Marxist form of government. You see, poor folks aren’t fat in a socialist society. They don’t need Michelle Obama lobbying McDonalds to take toys from their happy meals so children won’t ask for greasy fries. They don’t serve free lunch in schools, and certainly don’t serve breakfast and dinner. In socialist countries like Russia, people starve. To death. During the years of Stalin and Breshnev, these folks waited in long lines for simple loaves of bread and potatoes. Farmers were non-existent because most had been rounded up and thrown in jail. There were no vegetables, little meat, and few dairy products. Don’t even start with the “food pyramid” – folks who live in communism simply want food. Except for the government leaders. They were both fat and happy. And powerful. Our government is doing its best to make folks dependent. They hand out welfare, hand out food stamps, hand out lunch programs, hand out social security, hand out health care, hand out free energy, hand out free cell phones and free cars and free furnaces. It all comes at a cost. The cost is a loss of freedom- for all of us, not just those who accept the freebies. Socialism isn’t charity. It isn’t volunteerism. It isn’t helping your neighbor. It’s a loss of power, a loss of choice, a loss of control. It’s a death sentence to a country. Game is tied. We’re up. Bottom of the ninth. 2 out. The American people are at the plate……and the rest of the world is watching.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
I thought it was fascism? Really, how can anyone this dumb be given a platform to write? Oh, it's a blog. He has no understanding of communism, which is based on having no central government.
He most certainly has an understanding of Communism as it has been practiced, and will always be practiced if allowed to exist.
I guess you don't understand it either.
There are no replies to Comment # 5. End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|