Is everyone having a good weekend? Hope so. It’s a crisp, beautiful fall day here, and my mums are still resplendent. The kids are busy playing with stickers, and the house is basically in order. Time for some coffee and some blogging.
If you’ve been reading my posts lately, you’ll notice a common theme, namely, BHO’s apparent socialist agenda for the US of A. This has been thrust into overdrive the past week thanks to Joe Wurzelbacher’s excellent question to Obama, and Obama’s startlingly clear response. (Finally, some clarity from him.)
People are beginning to realize the dire implications of these Marxist objectives of Obama, and are finally starting to ask some questions. Well, it’s not too late. There are still 16 days left to come to terms with the danger that an Obama presidency would bring to the American way of life, and to cast your vote accordingly.
Really, though, I implore those of you seeking to understand these implications to read this article.
It’s important to remember that Obama’s brand of socialism is unlike other forms that have been around for awhile (i.e., federal income tax system, Social security, etc…) in that money paid in to the current systems is allocated for legitimate government services, and like it or not, they’re here to stay. Obama, however, is in favor of the redistribution of wealth. This basically tramples on the idea of freedom, liberty, and self-determination. It takes the power away from the individual and places it into the hands of the state. It takes from one to give to another, without the consent of either.
Here’s a great explanation:
“Liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can’t change it. And human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working wealthy, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we’re talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.
How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work? Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the axiom that people produce less when they aren’t allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie” (article linked above).
It’s readily apparent that the educational system has done a poor job of teaching students both basic economic principles and history, most notably the horrors that have resulted from nations with Communistic regimes. Communism, which employs these socialist principles, has never worked…ever. This is irrefutable. The only thing that Communist countries have succeeded in is oppressing their people, often to the point of mass murder. But it always starts small, and incrementally manifests itself, often starting by wresting control of the education system. And if you have been paying attention to Obama’s role in changing the educational instruction in Chicago pulic schools during his time on the Chicago Annenburg Challenge board, you’ll note that he worked closely with known, outspoken socialists like Saul Alinsky and William Ayers (also an unrepentant terrorist.) Ayers himself was in Cuba at an educational conference in 2007, and was lauded by Hugo Chavez, himself.
Fairness is an admirable goal. But Obama’s idea of “fairness” is arguably the antithesis of justice and freedom. To put it plainly: The thought of an Obama presidency scares me. We must not ignore Obama’s response to Joe. It is the most telling statement we’ve ever heard him say.