Recently, I had a short dialogue on Facebook with a young man who challenged me with the question, “Where has socialism failed? In most European countries it has thrived…“
His very question clearly demonstrates the historically inaccurate or dishonest education he has received — if we can assume he is a fair representation of the millennial generation. When in disbelief and shock I asked him if he had ever heard of the Soviet Union, he replied, “The Soviet Union was communism, and communism is not socialism/.”
Now we are at the apex of our nation’s deception with this confusion of terms. In the end, I don’t know how intelligent this kid may or may not be, but one thing is for sure — he’s been fed a lot of disinformation that will forever doom him to wrong conclusions unless he can climb out of it…
Can he climb out? I doubt it. When I challenged his stand, his response was belligerent — “you don’t deserve my respect“ and emotional — he retreated to his left-wing safe place and blocked my social account. God forbid that he be forced to listen to historical truth that doesn’t agree with his preconceived ideas. But more sadly — I doubt he has the intellectual stamina to read the right books to clear away his deception. ReadingThe Road to Serfdom would set him straight, but I doubt he could handle the challenge. He lacks the education necessary to set himself free.
Socialism is the economic theory behind the governmental theory of communism. They are related only so much as government and economy are related. The end goal and design of socialism is to create communism. The problem is that socialism always fails and always has failed — even at the peak of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) the actual card carrying members of the communist party were a minority in the population. Socialism failed to bring about it’s end goal — and it devastated untold millions of innocent lives through a failed economy. We didn’t destroy the Soviet Union, President Reagan (an economics major) saw that socialism would do the job for us.
It’s interesting that the very economic that Reagan saw would destroy the Soviet Union is the very thing that Obama, Clinton and Sanders propose. It’s also the very thing that they try to hide by redefining the terms and dancing around the issues.
When a man says he is a socialist he is talking about economics, not government. If he says he is a socialist democrat he is talking about both, as Bernie Sanders is bold to do. The fact remains that no one can define or draw any line of distinction between Bernie’s democracy and communism. When communism was declared illegal in Russia in 1993, they changed their name to Democrats. I ask you, where does Bernie Sanders differ with Stalin in his belief about government? One could hope that Bernie would not agree with the violent aspects of Stalin’s career — but I can say with great confidence that Stalin would NOT disagree with any of Bernie’s positions. Free healthcare and free education at the university level was Lenin’s first step to carve out his new government.
Observe that in the eight years of Obama’s administration, this leaning towards socialist theory is endeavoring to force major changes in the government of our Republic. The United States as a system of government is a Republic (not a democracy, by the way), and the founding fathers to the man were Capitalists in their economic theory. This battle and shift of economic theory from capitalism to socialism creates the pressure to change how we are governed. It’s inevitable and unavoidable. You cannot have one without the other. Our republic is in danger.
A Republic is a government that is based on law. Obama has done everything — including promoting the minority groups and issues of sexual deviants until it brings pressure on how law is made — and more specifically on the very idea of where law originates. The United States was founded upon the principle that law is derived from natural law and nature’s God. Obama and Clinton and Sanders are actively using minority positions to push the foundation of law off of an absolute moral center until law is seen as springing from the will of the people. They believe laws are whatever the people say laws are.
There are two great dangers here:first/, in throwing off God’s laws for the will of the people — anything is possible, and the perverse is not only becoming legal, it is being promoted;second/, rights are being surrendered for privileges. ObamaCare is a prime example. I’ve argued from the beginning that ObamaCare has nothing to do with health care. ObamaCare is first a destruction of the capitalist system to make way for socialism, and second it is the loss of individual rights, surrendered to the State (i.e., communism).
This same young man wrote to me and said,ObamaCare doesn’t take away rights, it gives people rights/. What was he talking about? He has confused rights with privilege. He would say everyone has a right to healthcare. That’s like a teenager saying he has a right to drive a car: No, he does not, he has the privilege. To say the 120 MILLION people living in the USA who currently do not work and who are given free food every week have a RIGHT to FREE healthcare is economic insanity. It simply cannot be done and cannot be sustained. Now, unless we are going to call President Obama stupid (which you have the right to do as he still continues to conceal his university transcripts) we must assume he knows this will not and cannot work economically. Healthcare is not and has not been his goal. The destructive use of socialism to bring change to the governmental systems is at the root. Communism is on its way.
At the center of this ObamaCare debacle we have been forced to surrender one of our rights. I’ve never had healthcare, never needed it, and do not want it. Neither do I feel it is right to ask me to pay for the medical bills of someone who has lived an immoral lifestyle and are now reaping the consequences. I don’t drink or smoke, but somehow I am obligated to pay for the immoral person who has destroyed his physical body by doing the same? According to Obama, I have no right in the matter.
Here me clearly. ObamaCare is not about healthcare — it is about stripping away the rights of the individual. The entire problem could have been solved by reforming the insurance industry for those who want or need to purchase it. I have now been told to buy something I do not need and do not want, and to do even more — to pay for the other guys mistakes as well. The idea at the center of this is collectivism — the nation is more important than the individual. At risk are the basic property rights fundamental to our Republic (money is your property) but those rights have been usurped by the current administration.
The precedent has been made. The government can tell you what to buy. What will they tell you to buy next? They now have that right, and you do not.
Benjamin Franklin said an interesting thing when he commented on a chair where George Washington sat during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The chair was engraved with a beautiful image of the sun. Franklin said, “I have often looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now I… know that it is a rising…sun/.”
If we evaluate the current administration and the Democratic party in light of the writings of our forefathers, what can we say? This is why — and there is no debate here — Obama, Clinton, or Sanders all mean the end of America as a Republic. It may become the setting sun in our generation.
I pray not.
