Socialism vs. Capitalism: Part V

Every presidential election year, some pundits—primarily Liberty-loving conservative commentators—proclaim that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Every presidential election year, countless grassroots, Liberty-loving patriots bemoan the fact that this is yet another choice between the lesser of two evils.

This series of articles has been about socialism and capitalism; but really, it has been about much more than that. Ultimately, this series is about tyranny vs. Liberty. Let’s take a look at the two concerns expressed above in the context of tyranny and Liberty. Please allow me to examine the second concept first.

This election is yet another choice between the lesser of two evils.

This has always been true. I have often lamented this sentiment over the past three decades. What truly drives this sentiment today? Ultimately, there are two things.

First, we all have our own unique worldview perspective. Many of us believe that our worldview is absolutely right—good, just, fair, etc.—and that anyone who doesn’t agree with us virtually 100% on every issue probably should not be president of the United States or hold elective office at any level of government. We demand near perfection in our elected “leaders.” We must realize that not one person in this world thinks exactly like we do. Not one person in this world is even anywhere near perfect.

Second, for better or for worse, the United States has developed and employed a two-party political system. Generally, the platforms of the two major parties, respectively, have coalesced around the two dominant worldview ideologies/philosophies. The Democratic Party platform embodies the modern liberal worldview, and the Republican Party platform embraces the American conservative worldview. Sadly, far too many Republican politicians are influenced/corrupted by “culture” (i.e., media, Hollywood, public education) by lobbyists and by outspoken voters. Far too often, they lack both the courage and the will to stand up for the fundamental principles and ideas of the conservative (American) worldview philosophy.

Nevertheless, the two-party system did not cause this phenomenon of forcing American voters to choose between the lesser of two evils. This phenomenon really began during the height of the “Progressive Era” and shortly thereafter; when powerful bankers were put in charge of America’s economy (Federal Reserve Act), and when “social (or, domestic) policy” was unconstitutionally placed under the jurisdiction of the federal government (FDR Administrations). In other words, it started when We, the People, generally began to abandon the basic principles of (especially, economic) Liberty and began accepting some of the tenets of socialism. It began to solidify the very moment that we, generally, started to see our representatives (politicians, including presidents) as “leaders” rather than as servants of the people and upholders of the constitution. Meanwhile, it gained a powerful foothold when “progressives” (and, ultimately, teachers’ unions) took virtually absolute control of public education in the largest and most concentrated districts throughout America.

When we—the rich and the poor—began to see that we could consistently get stuff (favors, benefits, supplemental “income,” education, etc., etc.) from the federal government, the “deal” (New Deal?) was sealed.

This is the most important election of our lifetime.

This, too, has always been true—at least since 1912. In my lifetime up until now, probably (arguably), it had never been more true than in the election of 1980. Does this mean that everyone who has made this claim since 1980 was merely crying wolf? Is it just a hyperbolic statement uttered for propaganda purposes? Not at all. This statement is rooted both in a thorough knowledge of history, strategies, tactics, aspirations, objectives, patience and perseverance of “progressives,” and in a genuine love of Liberty.

Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him, made a statement on his radio program a few months ago that went something like this:

“The United States of America can withstand and overcome four more years of Barack Obama as president. But it cannot and will not survive for long under an electorate that would consistently vote for people like him.”

Immediately, some on the “Left” feigned outrage:

“Aha! We all knew that Limbaugh is a racist! This just proves it! ‘People like him?’ Rush Limbaugh hates Black folks!”

Which of those two statements qualify as “bigoted?”

Rush Limbaugh is standing in the gap against the tyranny of modern “conventional wisdom”—the man behind the curtain. Rush knows that the poor and minorities are disproportionately susceptible to this tyranny. He sincerely desires Liberty and Justice for all. The “people like him” reference in Rush’s statement denotes “progressives”—modern “liberals,” socialists, Alinskyites, Marxists.

Having said all that, I tend to disagree with the first part of Limbaugh’s statement. I do not want to sound alarmist or hyperbolic, but I seriously doubt that Liberty and Justice—the American Ideal—can survive four more years of Barack Obama as president. I could cite many reasons for thinking this way, but here are three:

First, if Barack Obama is re-elected, the most egregious parts of ObamaCare that have not yet taken effect will be fully implemented. After that, it will be all but impossible to repeal ObamaCare. ObamaCare is the basic framework for nationalized healthcare. Nationalized healthcare has been a (if not the) primary goal of socialists everywhere since the turn of the last century. Once government has control over your healthcare, it has virtually absolute control over you.

Second, the power and control of the Federal government and its vast bureaucracies/agencies will be enhanced and strengthened. The already out-of-control EPA will have the “freedom” to double down on regulations that are even now crushing businesses large and small. HHS will use the vague regulations and authority given to it under ObamaCare to gain unfathomable degrees of power and control over the relationship between you and your doctor. Through programs such as SNAP and disability, to policies involving immigration, more and more voters and potential voters will become dependent upon federal largesse; further expanding an already substantial bloc of loyal Obama voters. The “’evil’ rich”—business owners, job creators; those who even now pay more than 40% of all income taxes in the U.S.—will be “asked” (forced) to pay “their ‘fair’ share.” How fair is “fair?” Is it 50%; 60%? Even God Himself only asks for 10%; and He does not force anyone to give that! [NOTE: The 40% figure expressed above represents the share of all federal income taxes that the top 1% of taxpayers sends to the federal government. It does not indicate a share of individual income. However, before you say that this statement is misleading, consider the fact that virtually everyone who pays federal income taxes gives at least 10% of their income if not substantially more. Also consider this: The top 10% of taxpayers pay about 90% of federal income taxes, and most of them are business owners.] Every $40,000.00 that the IRS takes from a business is a job that was never allowed to be created. Rather, it is $40,000.00 that goes to empower the tyranny of bureaucrats and to create dependency—and loyal voters!

Third, it is possible if not very likely, that one or two seats on the Supreme Court will be opened for replacement in the next four years. Under an Obama presidency, this will almost certainly tip the balance further away from Liberty and much more solidly toward tyranny for decades to come.

None of the three reasons above (again, just three of many that I could cite) even touch upon the most important role (and one of the very few limited and specific constitutional roles) of the federal government: national defense and foreign policy. The ability of the man behind the curtain to shield the childish naïveté and the gross incompetence of Barack Hussein Obama in this crucial role is both amazing and horrific. Four more years of President Obama could very well destroy virtually every vestige of American power and influence throughout the world.

Beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, 6 November 2012 does indeed represent the most important election of my lifetime. Jimmy Carter was a “progressive.” He was an incompetent commander in chief and was clueless about economic Liberty. Yet, Carter has nothing on Obama. Carter did not spend his formative years being mentored by Marxists such as Frank Marshall Davis. He did not spend almost 20 years in a “church” whose “pastor” regularly condemned “white” America. He was not steeped in the radical Marxist ideas, tactics and strategies of Saul Alinsky.

Barack Obama is not the old “progressive” in the mold of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ or Jimmy Carter. He is a Marxist, and he wants Marxism established immediately—not in small steps and pauses. A second term will give him the “mandate” to do just that. Because of Amendment XXII, he is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term. This means that he does not have to be careful about pleasing anyone. Moderates and independents, beware! He will double down on the implementation of his ideology. If the situation is “right,” he may even go so far as to declare Marshall Law and suspend elections near the end of a second term.

The election of 6 November is vital to the very survival of Liberty and Justice—of the American Ideal and of American Exceptionalism—on another level as well. Mitt Romney is far from perfect. For me to say that he ever even approached my idea of an ideal presidential candidate would be an outright lie. If the voters do choose him over Barack Hussein Obama to be the next president of the United States, what would Romney do to preserve and enhance Liberty and Justice? Does he even fully understand the concept and the Source of Liberty and Justice? This is why it is absolutely crucial that everyone who does not take Liberty for granted—everyone who reveres the Ultimate Source of Liberty and Justice—must vote at every level of government in this election!

If Obama wins a second term, the flame of Essential Liberty and True Justice may very well be quenched forever. If Romney wins, at least a dying ember will remain. One short-term breath of air may keep that ember glowing for a time. One long and steady wind will reignite and sustain the flame.

The breath of air

This election is crucial for the preservation of Liberty, Justice and American Exceptionalism. It is important at the presidential level. However, it is equally important at the congressional level. It is vitally important that We, the moral, educated and informed People, elect members of the U.S. House and Senate who will relentlessly hold the next president’s feet to the fire. We must have a Congress that will boldly and unremittingly stand up for Essential Liberty, True Justice, Rule of Law and American Exceptionalism, and against tyranny in every form and to every degree.

The long and steady wind

Moral, educated and informed people understand and profoundly appreciate Liberty and Justice. They abhor authoritarianism and socialism. What good is served by those who love Liberty and despise tyranny, but are not actively and passionately engaged in preserving Liberty & Justice and fighting against charlatans and wannabe tyrants?

As Americans, it is a duty of ours to vote for representatives who will work—and, if necessary, fight—to uphold Liberty & Justice and to crush the aspirations of every would-be tyrant. We elect members of Congress to check and balance the powers of the executive and judicial branches. Obviously, over the past many decades, this has not worked out well. Both We, the People, and our representatives in Congress have failed miserably in our duties. It is the duty of Congress to hold the feet of both the president and the federal courts to the fire. It is the duty of the people to hold Congress’ feet to the fire.

The one and only hope for preserving and sustaining Truth, Liberty and Justice rests in the millions of moral, educated and informed patriots becoming actively and passionately engaged in efforts toward that end. This hope is embodied in the Tea Parties. Tea Party patriots became politically and socially active—many for the first time in their lives—as a passionate rebellion against the tyranny (mostly economic) of the man behind the curtain. As their numbers grow and their ideas spread, modern “conventional wisdom” will begin to lose its grasp on the American people.

If Liberty is to survive, it is imperative that Barack Obama be defeated on 6 November. Just as crucial, if tyranny and the wiles of tyrants are to be kept in check, patriots must vote. More than that, however, patriots must work hard to keep all of their elected representatives honest and informed. Patriots must unite and form a great army to recapture the institutions—public education, media, bureaucracies and courts—that “progressives” have had near complete control over for decades.

Only then will the United States of America remain an exceptional nation.

Category: Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Part IV

In any free society, socialism begins when government is given the power and authority arbitrarily to redistribute wealth.

“But Weaver,” you may retort, “Have you not read the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?: ‘The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...’ Congress has the specific power to tax, and one of only three purposes named for laying and collecting taxes is to provide for the ‘general Welfare!’”

True; but first, please read the rest of that paragraph: “…but all Duties, Imposts and Excises (taxes) shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The graduated (or “progressive”) income tax violates both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution! It has given Congress, all-but carte blanche, the ability to spend unimaginable sums of the people’s money—at least until it all runs out. [I would argue that it has already run out. We are now borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend at the federal level from foreign countries. Is this “sustainable?!”]

Then, much more importantly, please see what the American Framers had to say about “general Welfare” and arbitrary redistribution of wealth! Begin here and here with James Madison, who has been called “the Chief Architect of the Constitution.” But, please, do not stop there! Further study Madison; study Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin! (See here, for starters.) Look at later great American statesmen such as David Crockett and Abraham Lincoln. [Be careful here. There are quotes on wealth redistribution that have been widely attributed to Lincoln that are almost certainly not his.]

“[C]ongress ‘shall have Power…’” Yes; necessary and specific power—not absolute, or arbitrary power!

The objective—the purpose—of the American Ideal was (is) religious, political, economic and scientific Liberty. Liberty means (demands) absolute independence from any and all forms of tyranny!

[I must apologize to my faithful readers. I realize that, to you, I sound like a broken record. I know from experience (emails) that most people stumble upon an article of mine and seldom read many others. I find myself almost obligated to define “Liberty” in virtually every article that I write. For the umpteenth time, here is the definition of Essential Liberty: Essential Liberty is the near absolute right of any and every human being to think, to say and to do anything and everything he wants as long as he does not violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Bonus in this article; the definition of True Justice: True Justice is what happens when anyone and everyone is held accountable under the Law for each and every violation of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. This is the essence of Rule of Law and of the American Ideal!]

A powerful sense of “capitalism” (economic Liberty) has been ingrained in the hearts and minds of most Americans since the experience of the Pilgrims during those dreadful winters of 1620-1622, and the experiment in economic Liberty that turned it all around for the good in 1623.

Modern “conventional wisdom” declares that Squanto, Massasoit and the Wampanoag (Indian) tribe turned everything around for the Pilgrims by teaching them how and where to hunt and fish and how to plant and cultivate corn and other vital crops. It also claims that the “First Thanksgiving” (in 1621) was in honor of the Native Americans, for the purpose of giving thanks to them by sharing in the bounty that they had enabled. Modern conventional wisdom always latches on to a handful of facts and expands it into a narrative. The narrative invariably assumes that “God is dead”—or, that He never existed; that “capitalism” is unfair if not totally evil; and that white men (especially those who believe in God and Absolute Truth) are inherently racist (bigoted and “judgmental”) above all other “people groups.” They can only survive by cunningly exploiting the knowledge and the resources of others. (Please see my 10-part series on “The Big Lie,” beginning here.)

The truth is this: Squanto, Samoset, Hobbamock and Massasoit were Godsends—literally, they were sent by God!—for the Pilgrims. They were indispensable. However, things did not truly begin to turn around (economically) for the Pilgrims until Governor Bradford abandoned (in 1623) the part of his sponsor’s (the London Company; later—after 1620—the Plymouth Council for New England) charter that required the communal ownership of property and the “equal” sharing of the fruits of labor. In other words, things began very significantly to improve the very moment that the Pilgrims renounced socialism and embraced economic Liberty/private property.

The false narrative of modern conventional wisdom concerning the “First Thanksgiving” only begins to unravel when these facts become known: The “First Thanksgiving” came from a long-established English (Judeo-Christian) tradition of giving thanks to God for a bountiful autumn harvest. The Pilgrims were thanking—and giving glory to—God, not the Indians! Of course, the Pilgrims were very spiritually aware. They knew that these natives were sent by God to help them. They glorified God and showed their profound appreciation for these outstanding native people by including them in the traditional ceremonial festivities. Yet, the harvest of 1621—not to mention 1622—was far from bountiful. In fact, it was less than “sustainable.” Many perished during each of those two harsh winters. The Pilgrims were expressing their thanks to God; but much more, they were proving their faith in Him! Their faith was rewarded in 1623 and far beyond.

From the very beginning of “recorded history,” economic Liberty was seldom if ever allowed even to approach its full potential. Kings, emperors, dictators and aristocrats ruled over men. Tyrants “owned” all property. Only via his “benevolent grace” did the tyrant “allow” his subjects to use “his” land. The first fruits of the land (and of the subjects’ hard labor) belonged not to the subject, but to the tyrant. Any degree of progress was the result of two things: 1) the tyrant found favor with a certain promising individual and granted him a great degree of economic and scientific freedom. The individual would be richly rewarded for any discovery that aided the tyrant and his realm. 2) Some person discovered a law or principle of Nature and of Nature’s God and practically applied that discovery toward a new invention or idea. Perhaps that new invention (or idea) was appreciated and accepted by so many people before the tyrant got wind of it, that the tyrant had no chance to suppress it and no choice other than to accept it. If he did accept it, the tyrant probably claimed the invention (or idea) as his own. He then either had the inventor executed, or he placed the inventor in a high office—with promises of wealth and property for any future accomplishments for the realm, and/or threats to life and liberty for any future failures.

Life always was, is and forever will be a miserable existence for man—especially the so-called “common man”—under tyranny. For some 5000 years of “recorded history,” the tyranny of man over man was the rule. Advancements in the human condition—“new” ideas in religious theology, political structure, economic philosophy and scientific/technological discoveries—were always relatively sporadic exceptions to the rule. They were by-and-large, accomplishments of men who dared to defy the tyrant.

Enter the Spirit of 1776. This spirit had been building in Europe—especially in Great Britain—since at least 15 June 1215. It was embodied, first, in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and ultimately in the U.S. Constitution. It was the idea of comprehensive (religious, political, economic and scientific) human Liberty. It looked forward to a time when every human being would be free from the shackles, chains and whips of the will and the rule of man. For the very first time in recorded history, even the “common man (and woman)” would be all but absolutely free to pursue and to attain his/her desires, dreams, ambitions and aspirations—provided those desires, dreams, etc., did not infringe upon the life, liberty, property, safety, dignity and morality of a fellow human being.

The Spirit of 1776—the American Ideal—is essential Liberty. Consider the unfathomable advance in human progress since about 1800. Today, even the poorest Americans live more comfortably than most kings and aristocrats did just 250 years ago. Again, I ask, is this mere coincidence, or is there something to this Liberty thing?

“But, Weaver, why can’t you understand that the poorest Americans live in relative comfort today for one reason and one reason only: the ‘progressive’ social contract—the framework of which was established by FDR some 75 years ago and enhanced by LBJ in the mid-1960’s; i.e., the federal ‘safety net?’”

I could write a book answering that one question. In the interest of time and space, please allow me just 3 points, and forgive me for omitting so many others.

First, the poorest Americans today live more comfortably than kings of yesterday because of things like air-conditioning & heating, supermarkets, advances in medical procedures & technologies, advances in transportation & communication and the availability of jobs/careers. “Progressive” social policy cannot produce these things; in fact, it hinders them. Government at any level had very little, if anything to do with any of this. These things came about via entrepreneurs exercising economic Liberty (”capitalism”).

Second, the Spirit of 1776—the American Ideal; American Liberty—demands that every individual should and must be “his brother’s keeper.” (Genesis 4:9) Liberty requires responsibility. An immediate responsibility—perhaps the primary civic duty—of every American is to help his brother and his neighbor in every way that he is able. Often, this responsibility—this duty—cannot be achieved alone (i.e., on a purely individual basis). It may very well require help from family, church, charitable/social organizations, or the community at large.

However, responsibility/accountability works both ways. If there is ever a moment that your brother/neighbor begins to take advantage of your good will/charity, that is the moment that his accountability takes over and your responsibility ends. It is the very moment that one of you becomes a slave. Either he is a slave to your good will, or you are a slave to his material desires. You would be wise to cut him off at that point. He has proven himself wily enough to make it on his own. You would be irresponsible if you were to fail to cut him off and to “force” (or to allow) him to make it on his own at that point.

[NOTE: Barack Hussein Obama has used the phrase from Genesis 4:9 concerning (his/your/my/our) brother’s keeper on countless occasions. He has several relatives—including a step-brother—in Kenya who are living in abject poverty. Is there any evidence that he has ever lifted a finger to help (or to keep) any of them? No, not at all! The biblical principles of which BHO is aware are few and far between and are not directed toward individuals. No, they are for the collective. Just more evidence, if you are wise and informed, that Obama is indeed, a socialist.]

Third, it has been said wisely and repeated often that the federal “safety net” has become a hammock. The vast bureaucracies of the federal government have been given the authority to administer this “safety net.” Bureaucrats at the federal level do not know—cannot possibly know—the individuals they are attempting to help (or to “keep”). Any “help” for people is not—cannot be—based upon individual need. Rather, it is based upon numbers, surveys and statistics, which are in turn interpreted through the perspective of assumptions; ideology (i.e., “conventional wisdom”). In other words, bureaucrats get to pick winners and losers.

A great number of individuals working in the various cabinets/departments and agencies of the federal government are Liberty-loving American patriots. Many of them have served responsibly and honorably for years—in some cases, for decades. Sadly, they are vastly outnumbered by “progressives”—socialists; modern “liberals,” adherents of contemporary “conventional wisdom.”

Very few federal bureaucrats know personally even one of the individuals that his department/agency is trying to help. Not one bureaucrat could possibly ascertain the point at which a single individual—much less every single recipient of his department/agency’s “charity”—chooses to exploit the “benevolent will” of the department/agency.

Worse, most bureaucrats want the recipients to reach that point! Who is the master and who becomes the slave?

Worse yet, the federal “safety net” was purposefully erected to create wards of the state—selected and targeted “victims” and groups/”classes” who would become both dependent upon (slaves to) these collectivist programs and loyal voters for those politicians who would preserve and enhance these programs.

Socialism both creates and demands dependence upon government. “Capitalism” (economic Liberty), on the other hand, unleashes the human potential. Capitalism is driven by competition and by the natural (selfish) desire of every man to be (or to do) better than everyone else.

Socialism is political and economic tyranny. It allows politicians, bureaucrats, powerful union bosses and super-wealthy industrialists/financiers to pick winners and losers. The “losers” (namely, small- and medium-sized business owners—the wealth-creators of this country) are tyrannized when their wealth is confiscated to “help” the “winners.” Sadly, the “winners” (the “poor,” the “disenfranchised,” the “victims of a ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘bigoted’ and ‘homophobic’ society”) are far from helped. Rather, they are exploited. Far too often, they become permanently dependent upon federal largesse and permanently beholden to those “masters” who keep that largesse coming. [NOTE: This is in no way a racist statement. There are more whites in the USA who are dependent upon some form of federal largesse than all other ethnic groups combined. Neither is it “classist.” Many are quite wealthy.]

Capitalism, on the other hand, is economic Liberty. It allows winners and losers to pick themselves. Those who follow the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, who work hard and develop the talent(s) that their Creator has given them and who overcome hardships and failures (with help from family, friends, church, community, etc.) are winners. Those who do not do these things are losers. Virtually any attempt at the state level of government—and, I dare say, every attempt at the federal level—to create a so-called “level playing field” is socialism pure and simple. These futile attempts place faith in man—or, the collective. They deny, or at least restrict, the Liberty of the individual.

Category: Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Part II

In Part I of this series, I stated the contemporary “conventional wisdom” definitions of socialism and Marxism. A brief attempt was then made to reveal the true meanings and the modern origins of socialism and communism, and to touch on some of the consequences that societies around the world—including the U.S.A.—have suffered and are suffering as a result of implementing socialism and/or communism. [Much more on this in Part III.]

In this article, I will state the “conventional wisdom” definition—a la Hegel (indirectly), Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, et al—of “capitalism.” Brief attempts will be made to provide the true meaning of “capitalism” (economic Liberty) and its Source (and sources).

After reading this article, some readers may come away with a better understanding of and appreciation for what “capitalism” is not. This could be a very good thing. However, my hope and prayer is that this article evokes a greater understanding of and appreciation for what “capitalism” is. Please, please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you think I have erred in anything that I have written in this article. I, too, desire a greater understanding of and appreciation for what “capitalism” is and is not! I value your input!

First, though, a clarification—not to mention a measure of perspective—is in order. [NOTE: Avid readers and dedicated seekers of Truth please click here, here, here and here. (Isn’t it amazing how much I have learned about social justice, collectivism and the difference between a column and an article since 2003?) If you scan the four links (here’s) above, you may skip the next 3 paragraphs and move forthrightly to the head of the class.]

A worldview is an individual’s comprehensive philosophy of life. There are about as many worldviews as there are human beings on the planet. However, there are four institutions that fundamentally shape every worldview: Religion, Politics, Economics and Science.

Culture is to a nation (or to a society or region) as worldview is to an individual. A nation is defined by and is united around its religious cosmology, ethic, principles, teachings and customs; its political structure/philosophy; its economic system and its language, arts, architecture, traditions and technologies (i.e., scientific/artistic approach/accomplishments).

In today’s America, there are two dominant and competing cultural worldview philosophies. Both have many names or “labels.” The first is the “Anglo-American,” the “Judeo-Christian,” the “Christian,” the “conservative,” the “classical liberal” or the “traditionalist” worldview. The second is the “Franco-German,” the “secular” (or “secular/atheist”), the “modern liberal” or the “Progressive” worldview. Capitalism is the economic system of the former. Socialism is the politico-economic system of the latter.

Modern “conventional wisdom” declares that capitalism is an unfair economic system under which the rich get increasingly wealthier and more politically and economically powerful, and the poor just get poorer and evermore politically and economically screwed. Let’s analyze just what makes this a dastardly diabolical lie.

The U.S. Constitution, as written and ratified by the Framers and the people, embodies the Anglo-American/Judeo-Christian worldview. During the height of the “Progressive Era,” several significant changes were made to the U.S. Constitution. At least two of the most important—and destructive—of these changes occurred in 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment gave us the “graduated” or “progressive” income tax—in violation of Article I, Section 8, paragraph i, clause ii. The Federal Reserve Act relinquished powers given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, paragraphs i-iv, to a small group of powerful and influential bankers. Crony “capitalism” was born. Not coincidentally, at about the same time, the myth of the robber barons began to be accepted far and wide. See here.

What is crony “capitalism”? It is a cozy relationship between industrialists and government. It enables the politically “plugged-in” and the rich and the powerful to get special favors and favorable legislation at the expense of their rivals and potential competitors. Crony “capitalists” are not true capitalists!! Any relationship whatsoever between business and government smacks of socialism!!

What is “capitalism?” Capitalism is economic Liberty. The United States of America was founded upon Religious Liberty, Political Liberty, Economic Liberty and Scientific Liberty.

What is Liberty? Liberty is the virtually absolute right of every human being to think, to say and to do anything and everything he wants as long as he does not violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The Rule of Law is Liberty. The will of man, imposed via fiat (as by a dictator or by some “enlightened” elite), via legislation (as to favor some interests over others) or by a majority (as in a “pure” democracy), is tyranny.

Capitalism (i.e., free-enterprise or economic Liberty) will never, ever reach its full potential in any society that refuses, at least generally, to embrace the Judeo-Christian ethic: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Any society that will not embrace the Judeo-Christian ethic will either accept the will and the rule of man, or will seek self-enrichment at the expense of others. Although, especially in the last five to ten years—largely because of crony “capitalism”—the myth may be more true now than ever; it is still a myth (if not an outright lie) that the rich are always getting richer and the poor are always getting poorer in the United States of America.

If you doubt this, please see here, here and here. Even if you are not an avid reader or a dedicated seeker of Truth, please read the above links and consider the data given therein. The preservation of Liberty requires—demands—vigilance, knowledge, wisdom, hard work and an understanding of Truth!

The Ultimate Source of capitalism is the Holy Bible. Please see, for just a few tiny examples, Exodus 20:15 & 17, Acts 4:32-5:11 and II Thessalonians 3:10. Read and profoundly contemplate the entire Bible and the words, speeches, letters and memoirs of America’s Founders and Framers. You will soon clearly see that the goal—the hope, the promise and the objective—is Liberty and Justice for all.

The modern roots of capitalism—as an organized economic philosophy—sprout from Adam Smith (circa 1723-1790), Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises (1881-1973), Freidrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), Ayn Rand (1905-1982), Milton Friedman (1912-2006) and others.

I admire all of those people and profoundly appreciate their great contributions to the fight for economic Liberty. Probably not one of the specific contributors to modern “capitalism” cited above was a Spirit-filled Christian. At least one (Ayn Rand) was an avowed Atheist. Yet each, in his/her own way, made powerful arguments for the moral superiority of “capitalism” (free-enterprise; economic freedom) over all other economic philosophies/systems.

Some of my more conservative and Spirit-filled Christian readers may be asking, “How could any sound and true moral argument possibly be made by any person who rejects God as man’s Creator and Author of Law?” Excellent question!

Smith, Mises, Hayek, Rand and Friedman were all Libertarians. They strongly believed in Rule of Law. They just shortened it from “The Rule of the Law(s) of Nature and of Nature’s God,” to “The Rule of the Laws of Nature.” Equally, if not more importantly, Libertarians by-and-large vehemently accept, abide by and preach the second part of the Judeo-Christian ethic: “[L]ove your neighbor as you love yourself.” [Please study Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. If you are anything like me, you will begin to believe that Rand utterly rejected the second part of the Judeo-Christian ethic about as powerfully as she despised the first part. Then, however, once you examine her “god” (i.e., Reasonher reason) and her worldview philosophy, you will understand profoundly that she passionately believed in the idea—“Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” It’s eerie; uncanny! Ayn Rand’s intellect was phenomenal. Yet she could not see the proverbial forest for the trees. She never realized, sadly, that her economic philosophy was mostly borrowed—stolen—from the very Source that she so reviled.]

Conservatives and Spirit-filled Christians can and should learn a great deal from Libertarians. Libertarians have exerted much blood, sweat, toil and tears into making a highly effective and legitimate (if not complete) “moral” argument for economic freedom. It is incomplete because it is an argument for economic freedom—not for economic Liberty. It is not completely moral because it is based upon human “wisdom” (or “reason”), not upon the Word and the Will of the Creator and Author of Law.

We conservatives must willfully and lovingly accept Libertarians into the fold, so to speak, and unite with them in making the moral argument for “capitalism,” and against socialism and communism. We must go farther! We should begin now to complete the moral argument for economic Liberty; and we must work relentlessly—with great effort, thought, resolve, prayer and revelation—to make and to promote our arguments for religious Liberty, political Liberty and scientific Liberty!

Libertarians have all but single-handedly kept us (the U.S.) from becoming a socialist—even a communist—nation up until now. If they are not with us on 6 November 2012 to elect a conservative/Libertarian U.S. Senate, to retain a conservative/Libertarian U.S. House of Representatives and to defeat Barack Obama, then, by 2016, the United States of America will be a socialist nation with little chance of ever turning back—barring a Third Great Awakening; a sovereign and powerful movement of God’s Holy Spirit.

Where have we conservatives been? If we do not begin right now to make and avidly to promote and propagate our moral arguments for religious, political, economic and scientific Liberty, we will very soon find ourselves a small minority—and whipping boys; scapegoats—in a totalitarian state that was once, not too long ago, the United States of America.

The Roots of “Capitalism”

Exodus 20:15 (“Thou shalt not steal.”) and 20:17 (“Thou shalt not covet…that which is thy neighbor’s.”) show conclusively that not only is private property God’s Will, but also that a man’s property must be respected in thought, word and deed. Acts 4:32-5:11 graphically shows that socialism/collectivism leads to disaster. Then there is II Thessalonians 3:10, Matthew 20:1-16, Matthew 25:14-30 and countless other verses, principles and ideas expressed in God’s Word. The roots of “capitalism” developed in the fertile ground of God’s Word and Will—the Holy Bible. Yet “capitalism” did not even become a sapling until the United States of America was established. It became a mighty tree when it was cultivated and nurtured with religious, political, economic and scientific Liberty—the American Ideal.

Was all of the progress over the past two hundred years mere coincidence? Did not comprehensive, individual human Liberty (the American Ideal) have something to do with this exponential boom of human progress? In 1776, with very few exceptions (mostly involving guns and gunpowder), virtually every human being on Earth lived all but exactly as he would have 2000—even 5000—years prior.

Even before it emerged from a sapling and into a great tree, there were those who wanted to cut it down, or even to destroy it from the roots. They are the adherents of Franco-German worldview philosophy; secularists, “philosophes,” atheists, modern “liberals”—“progressives.”

What “Capitalism” is NOT

Whenever materialism, collectivism, moral relativism, a sense of “entitlement” (greed) and/or dependence upon government—among the rich and the poor—become(s) prevalent in any society, economic Liberty (“capitalism”) is all but totally doomed.

If materialism and greed pervade a culture, “capitalism” cannot—will not—exist. It is true that the powerful engine of “capitalism” is individual self-interest: Someone wanting to provide a good or a service to his neighbor for profit. However, self-interest is different from purely selfish interest; and greed (i.e., covetousness) is another thing altogether.

In a truly “capitalistic” culture, the Judeo-Christian ethic must be the dominant cultural ethic. Then, and only then, avarice, greed and oppression will be held in check by competition and the bottom line—and by all the other Laws (and principles) of Nature and of Nature’s God.

“Capitalism” is the economic backbone of any free society. Creeping socialism (redistribution of wealth by an “enlightened” elite) destroys economic Liberty. In fact, socialism also undermines religious, political and scientific Liberty; and it nullifies true Justice.

Vital Links:

Katie Kieffer

R. J. Moeller

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams

James Arlandson

Category: Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Part III

Every election year, politicians run for office on their “bold, new ideas (plans).” Often, those politicians either rise or fall based upon the assessment of their ideas by talking heads in the media. If “conventional wisdom” declares those ideas to be truly striking and innovative, the candidate has a much better chance of winning (especially in the so-called “swing” states). If his ideas are ultimately deemed old and stale by the voters, the politician has little chance.

Worse yet (arguably), the candidate with the biggest “war chest” and the best strategy for winning those crucial swing states has an advantage over his opponent. He can spend millions of dollars in those critical states on ads making his ideas known and arguing the validity of his “plan” to the voters.

Question: Why, then, are those countless (millions of dollars worth of) excruciatingly annoying ads all but totally devoid of ideas—new or old—and chock-full of relentless attacks against the opponent?

Pay no attention to the man [i.e., men and women—talking heads in the mainstream media (MSM) and most political consultants] behind the curtain. He cares nothing whatsoever about you, the country as it was founded, or Truth. He cares only about himself, his candidate, and the narrative (spin; propaganda) that he can concoct to get his candidate elected and his ideology implemented.

Answer: There are no new, bold, striking and innovative ideas! Anything and everything that is presented as “new” has only been recycled, repackaged and updated from principles and ideas that have existed for millennia. [See Ecclesiastes 1:8-11.]

[Yes, I know that many “new” scientific discoveries have been made over the past 1000 years—and for thousands of years before that. I realize that human technology has increased almost exponentially over the past 200 years. I also know this: Every scientific discovery made 3000, 1000 or even just 5 years ago may have been new to the contemporary world-at-large. Yet it was merely the discovery by a human being of a certain scientific truth (physical—or practical—principle, aspect, or “idea” of Natural Law) that had existed since almost the very beginning of time. And this: The virtually exponential boom in technological progress over the past 200 years was the direct result of an unleashing of human Liberty—primarily by way of the comprehensive Anglo-American (Judeo-Christian) Ideal. And this: Certain physical (scientific) principles, truths, ideas and methods (knowledge of the Laws and principles of Nature and how practically to apply this knowledge for the glory of both God—or, “gods”—and man) were known to man more than 5000 years ago, but have been forgotten and have yet to be rediscovered. Witness, for just a few examples, the Pyramids of Egypt and South America, Stonehenge (England) and Puma Punku (Bolivia)! An in-depth study of Genesis (the first book of the Torah and of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible), even just at face value—even without any guidance/revelation from the Holy Spirit—explains all of this very effectively and quite comprehensively! No need for “Ancient Aliens!!”]

Please look closely, in full context, at Ecclesiastes 1:11. This verse was paraphrased, for all the right reasons, by Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Burke said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Burke himself was later paraphrased, for mostly the wrong reasons, by George Santayana (1863-1952) in the quote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

How quickly we forget history! Especially when we begin to take Liberty for granted and our focus becomes set upon materialism, greed, wealth-without-merit and immediate (self-) gratification!! Certainly, when we and our children become wards of a state-run education establishment that distorts and omits historical facts and truths for the purpose of creating dependent automatons—slavish subjects of a “beneficently” authoritarian state!!

Those who know history, and are intellectually honest, know without doubt that socialism has failed—usually with disastrous results—every time and in every place it has been implemented. Please study Governor William Bradford’s account.

No one needs to go as far back in history as the early 1600’s to understand the dire consequences of socialism. The entire 20th century tells us all we need to know. Let’s look at socialism in the 20th century.

First, however, some critical—but ironic—perspective (context) is necessary.

The purveyors of modern “conventional wisdom” (the men and women behind the curtain—pundits in the MSM and political consultants together with “educators” and administrators within the education establishment) work overtime (and are paid handsomely) in an attempt to convince you and me that American conservatives are a bunch of Nazis and fascists. The irony? The purveyors of modern “conventional wisdom” are “progressives” (modern “liberals”). Their immediate ideological ancestors are the Franco-German philosophers. [Please review Part I of this series.] Franco-German philosophers (e.g., Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and Nietzche) took the age-old idea of totalitarian socialism and refined and codified it into an “acceptable” politico-economic system for the modern age that would carry on into a “postmodern” future—a future without God. [Please see here and here!]

The truth: Every genuine American conservative considers every form and any degree of socialism an absolute abomination—be it national socialism (fascism or Nazism) or international/”global” socialism (communism or Marxism).

At some point during the early 1600’s, Europe (Western culture) became sharply divided between two worldview philosophies (i.e., Anglo-American philosophy vs. Franco-German ideology). Nothing illustrates this division better than a profound, intellectually honest study of the American and French revolutions—and the respective results and consequences of both.

At some point very near the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, Franco-German ideology itself began to cleave into two factions—national socialism (fascism, Nazism) and international socialism (communism, Marxism). Note the common word—the common idea—of both factions: socialism.

Mussolini and, especially Adolph Hitler were the human embodiments of national socialism. The very word “Nazi” comes from the German acronym for the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. Hitler believed that the German state (Reich) was the ultimate god. The German Reich—in Hitler’s demented, narcissistic, megalomaniacal mind—demanded a unified (socially and economically equal) collective of virtually “pure” German (Aryan) people.

Not only did Hitler work to purge (murder, incinerate, annihilate) all “undesirables” (Jews; Asians; Africans and the physically, mentally and emotionally “impaired”); he also embraced the new “science” of eugenics (see below) in an effort to first bring about, and later to secure his goal for Germany and, eventually, for all of Europe at-large. What was Hitler’s ultimate goal? It was to produce a race of supermen—genetically enhanced, “pure” German (Aryan) human beings, while weeding out all “undesirables.” He wanted everyone “faithfully” to worship the “Fatherland,” and to do his bidding (as Der Fuhrer of the Fatherland) without any hesitation.


Eugenics is a “progression” from the assumptions of Charles Darwin. Darwin argued that the many species of animals culminating in humans arrived via a long and complicated process of (purely) natural selection(s). Eugenics takes Darwin’s assumptions a step (or two) farther. “Because there is no god, there are no absolute standards of morality or ethics. Species evolve—humans evolve; and so, too, must moral and ethical standards. We humans have been selectively breeding dogs, sheep, cattle, etc. for millennia. Why can’t we—why shouldn’t we!—selectively breed human beings for the purpose of generating a superior, more enlightened race of human beings?”

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) fully embraced the “science” of eugenics. She is the founder of Planned Parenthood. What was her purpose? What was Planned Parenthood’s original objective? Was it merely “birth-control education?” Did it grow out of a deep and moral concern for the reproductive health and rights of women everywhere? Was it focused on the empowerment and liberation of women? This is the narrative that the man behind the curtain wants you to believe—especially if you are a woman!

I urge you to seek out and to study as many original statements, writings and speeches of Margaret Higgins Sanger as you can. If you are both thorough and intellectually honest, you will see that her purpose—the original purpose of Planned Parenthood which largely stands to this very day—was to weed out the “undesirables.” To her, that largely meant “Negroes;” the physically, mentally, and emotionally “disabled;” and the poverty-stricken.

Margaret Higgins Sanger probably did more to influence the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case of 1973 (just over 6 years after her death) than any other person. In no way whatsoever do I wish to diminish the Nazi-inspired Holocaust that European Jews experienced from the late 1930’s to the mid 1940’s! Yet, I dare to say, since 1973, abortion has become the United States of America’s holocaust. [Please Google “abortion statistics since 1973.” By virtually all honest and well-documented accounts, roughly 50 million of the most innocent and defenseless American lives have been snuffed out via the abortion “procedure” since 1973.]

Oh, how the man behind the curtain (“progressives”) loves to hate Hitler and all things Nazi or fascist! This is certainly understandable to anyone and everyone who loves life and Liberty and despises socialism. We all revile Hitler, Nazism and fascism! Yet these “progressives” refuse to face facts. They, either willfully or ignorantly, fail to see that their ideology has the very same roots as Hitler’s ideology. “God—along with Truth, Liberty and Justice—is dead. Enlightened man is ‘god.’ Truth is what ‘science’ (or a consensus of ‘enlightened’ scientists) says it is. Liberty is license. Justice is now ‘social (or collective) justice’ (i.e., not individual justice; but collective ‘equality.’)”

Hitler’s Nazi regime was directly responsible for the violent deaths of some 20 million people. Believe it or not, this is mere child’s play!

Count up the violent deaths from 1917 to 1987 that were the direct results of Marxist/communist regimes around the planet. From Stalin’s USSR, to Mao Tse-Tung’s China, to Kim Il-Sung’s Korea, to Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, to Castro’s Cuba, and through to several regimes in both Africa and South America; the bloody body count easily exceeds 170 million. Factor in the forced abortions under China’s “one child policy” and the number of souls (mostly female) snuffed out by Marxist/communist governments probably well surpasses the population (300 million +) of the USA today. (War on women?)

Also, consider the lack of Liberty, the grinding poverty, the fear, hopelessness and despair that all of those billions—other than the “leaders” and administrators—of denizens of these totalitarian/socialist states who were “lucky” enough to remain alive were forced to endure. The USSR (the old Soviet Union) was once considered a superpower that rivaled the United States and even threatened both the USA and Western Europe with nuclear annihilation. Yet the people of the USSR very often had to wait for long periods of time in endless lines just to get simple staples such as bread and toilet paper. If they owned their own home or a reliable vehicle, they were most likely fairly high up in the leadership of the ruling Communist Party.

[NOTE for the record: The Islamic fanatics (extremists) that the Western world is now reluctantly fighting (under the current administration, sadly, attempting to appease) are not as grounded in the political (ethical) and economic (fiscal) teachings of Islam as they are rooted the tenets of Nazism and fascism. Please Google “Nazism and radical Islam!” Someone please tell Barack Obama that we are not at war with Muslims. But we darned sure should be fighting Islamo-fascists! Would you like to see a genuine war on women? I certainly hope not; but, ladies and gentlemen, you will see one if you take a good look at these guys!]

Whenever God (the Creator of man and the Author of Law) is declared “dead” by man and assumed to be non-existent by the general populace of any society, only bad things can and absolutely will happen to that society. Selfish man is now all but totally in charge. He now has power and control over you. Truth is what he says it is. Liberty (freedom) is what he says it is. Justice is what he says it is. Beware the man behind the curtain!!

Since at least Woodrow Wilson (1913), “progressives” have been gradually nudging the United States of America toward socialism. If the American Ideal of religious (moral), political (ethical), economic (fiscal) and scientific (practical) Liberty is to survive for your children and grandchildren, we must stop this “progressive” nudging dead in its tracks! We must reverse the trend. We must fully embrace God and His Truth and reject with all dispatch the “wisdom” of man!

Vital Link:

Walter E. Williams [A must read!!]

Category: Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism vs. Capitalism: Part I

Many commentators—including one prominent “conservative” (i.e., traditionalist) pundit—chastise those on the “far right” who dare to call President Obama a socialist. Make even the slightest hint that you believe our president might harbor Marxist persuasions, and you are quickly branded an intolerant, bigoted zealot unworthy of participation in a free and open society by many of these commentators. If you cannot see it now, I hope that before the end of this article, you will see the irony in this.

These proselytizing pundits proclaim that there is one and only one definition of socialism; and one and only one definition of Marxism. “Socialism,” they insist, “is an economic system under which all means of the production and distribution of goods and services are owned collectively and all goods and services are shared equally among all members of society. Marxism is a step beyond socialism that calls for a violent revolution by the lower and middle classes against the upper class to end all ownership of private property and all distinctions among economic/social/ethnic classes and political influence/power. Barack Obama has never publicly expressed, either by word or by deed, any desire for socialism or Marxism. To claim or even to hint that he has is the height of ‘judgmentalism’ and/or ‘right-wing’ paranoia.”

The myopic mavens saying this are the same ones who are always telling you and me that nothing is ever black and white. There are only gray areas—“nuances.” “If you want to know the real truth,” they plead, “look at the gray areas; hear both sides of every argument and study all the facts.” Of course, whenever the facts begin to expose their lies, they proceed to distort, or even to manufacture the facts (or, the “facts”).

Speaking of facts, let’s examine a few of them.

Karl Marx, drawing from Hegel’s dialectic philosophy (although thoughtfully critical of some portions of it), argued that socialism is an “antithesis” of capitalism; and that socialism is an “intermediate, yet inevitable stage” from capitalism preceding pure communism. Marx believed, and preached, that once socialism came to fruition in any given society, a “synthesis” would occur. According to Marx, this “synthesis” would necessarily require a violent overthrow by the “masses” against the rich and the powerful—against property owners, wealth generators and all influential movers and shakers.

Several factual—reasonable, thoughtful, logical and truthful—observations must be made here. However, an explanation of the above paragraph—a closer look at Hegel’s philosophy of dialectic, and of Marx’s interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy—must first be provided.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy of dialectic (or, dialectics) goes something like this: Any idea or event (thesis) generates its opposite (antithesis), leading to a reconciliation of opposites (synthesis). [NOTE: These terms have been translated into English from the original German. “Thesis” has also been translated and/or defined as “beginning” or “universal.” “Antithesis” means “advance” or “particular.” “Synthesis” also means “contradiction” or “resolution.” In a tighter, forensic sense, the terms can also mean “proposal,” “debate” and “compromise.” Yes, it’s very complicated. Hegel was an evil genius!] According to Hegel, this was the inevitable process—and “progress”—of human civilization. Hegel’s philosophy quickly became very popular and influential among European thought.

Karl Marx ran wild with this philosophy. Marx was a poor man who desperately desired to be rich. He was a failure and a loser. His dialectic “thesis” (starting point; beginning) was “capitalism.” He coined that term as a pejorative against free-enterprise. Following Hegel’s popular philosophy, Marx hoped, and preached, that socialism would be the “antithesis” of (movement away; or advance, from) free-enterprise (i.e., economic Liberty). Marx hoped, and preached, that socialism would eventually lead to a “synthesis” (compromise; resolution)—communism. He was convinced, though, that his “synthesis” (communism) would never be achieved without a sudden and violent revolution.


Near the turn of the 19th century, the Fabian Socialists emerged in England. Already mesmerized by Hegel and Franco-German ideology, Fabian socialists absorbed and adhered to Marx’s ideas like a sponge covered on one half of one side in Super Glue. But they were nice, “moral” people! The one half of one side of that sponge could not soak up Marx’s idea of a sudden, violent rebellion. They abhorred violence; and, they were rich! [Yes, I am aware that the first link in this paragraph describes them as “mostly middle-class intellectuals.” However, the leaders of the movement were very wealthy and had great influence in the popular culture of the day.] They wanted no part of any sudden and violent revolution that would divest them of their wealth and property; or, of their influence as powerful movers and shakers!

Nevertheless, they did see merit in Marx’s ideas. Fabian socialists desired the “synthesis” of communism, where there are no “classes”—no divisions among sexes, “races,” religions, haves and have-nots. All property, power, influence, knowledge, goods, services, etc. & etc. should be owned and shared collectively; they “reasoned.” Everyone should be equal. Glorious utopia! As long as they set the rules and generally controlled that “utopia!”

Fabian socialists endeavored to bring this dialectic “progression” from “capitalism,” through socialism, and into communism incrementally—gradually; not via violent revolution. “Progressives” such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, Harold Ordway Rugg and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are among the American sons and daughters of the Fabian socialists. Virtually all modern American Democrat politicians and, sadly, far too many Republican (a/k/a—RINO) politicians are the grandsons and granddaughters of the Fabians. Whether they realize it or not, they are working to destroy the very things that made the United States of America a truly great and exceptional nation.

Because he failed to reach his personal goals and aspirations, and he witnessed others surpassing theirs, Karl Marx deemed “capitalism” a flawed and unfair economic system. Ironic, isn’t it (The Lord works in mysterious ways!) that he became one of the most influential and renowned men of the 19th and 20th centuries?! How did he do it? He had an idea. He co-authored a book. His book sold very well—CAPITALISM!


Marx’s version (interpretation) of Hegel’s dialectic process actually happened in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and several other places around the world. How has that worked out? [Of course, China’s leadership has recently seen the grave error of Mao’s—via Marx and Lenin—ways. China is adopting the principles of economic Liberty about as fast as we are forsaking them here in the United States of America!]


Fabian socialist influence is rapidly coming to fruition in most of Western Europe today. How is that working out for the people of Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and, very soon, France?


“Progressives” in the United States of America have been working, gradually and incrementally, to implement socialism here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, since at least the very early 1900’s. We’ll take a slightly closer look at these three facts in Part III of this series.


Socialism is an “intermediate stage,” a fundamental change or transformation, from “capitalism” (economic Liberty) to communism (religious, political, economic and scientific tyranny). Given the will—or lack thereof—of the people, this stage may be very, or relatively quick and sudden; or it may take years—even decades—of incremental steps and pauses.

Crucial Fact:

A socialist is anyone who would desire, or, especially, would work toward the implementation of socialism. In other words, anyone who harbors and/or expresses a desire for, and/or works toward the transformation of his society from free-enterprise—no matter how sudden, gradually or incrementally—into socialism is a socialist.


Please read Barack Obama’s two auto-biographical books, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance and The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Note that the latter was inspired—according to the author himself—by one of his pastor’s (Jeremiah Wright) sermons. Note also that Wright’s “theology” is rooted in “Black Liberation Theology,” and that Black liberation theology (a la James H. Cone) is fundamentally set upon Marxism with racist (anti-white) overtones. Obama spent roughly 18 years in Jeremiah Wright’s “church.”

Observe in his own writings that Barack Obama boldly claimed inspiration, guidance and motivation from avowed Marxists, socialists and “anti-colonialists.” [Somehow, he seems to have equated colonialism with “capitalism.” Perhaps he was (is) oblivious to the fact that colonialism was the result of mercantilism and the unrestricted (by Rule of Law) cravings for wealth and power of European monarchs and aristocrats. Except under the administrations of proto-“progressive” presidents (such as Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk, both Democrats!) and truly “progressive” presidents (such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson), the U.S.A. neither desired nor had any part of colonialism.]

Take a close look at transcripts of (or watch/listen to on YouTube) Obama’s speeches and statements, especially those off-teleprompter moments. From his vows to fundamentally transform the United States of America, to his off-the-cuff remark to Joe the Plumber, to his incessant class warfare rhetoric, to his constant implications that (“capitalism,” or) “’Republican policies’ got us into this mess in the first place,” to his countless utterances that Republicans just expect everyone to “fend for themselves” and through to his most recent diatribe against entrepreneurs, the truth is now crystal-clear to every moral, educated and informed American.

Our president is a socialist and he has communist leanings and aspirations. It pains me to no end to say this! Before you call me a liar, a bigot and/or a wing nut, please study the facts. Go far beyond the iota of facts and opinions that I have presented in this article. If you still want to silence or to ridicule me, then the moral, educated and informed people of this world will know beyond any shadow of doubt who the real intolerant bigot—charlatan/tyrant—is!

Another vital fact:

An essential tenet of socialism is collectivism. Collectivists despise the opinions, aspirations, achievements, etc. of Liberty-loving individuals. A (perhaps, the) fundamental principle of the United States of America is individual human Liberty. [More on this in Part II.] Read carefully President Obama’s fundraising speech of 13 July 2012 and you can plainly see where he stands on collectivism!

The final, imperative fact(s):

Please study the history of socialism/socialists over the past 130 years or so all over the world. You will clearly see both a common theme and a number of objectives. The common theme is that God is dead; man is in charge now. The three most important of these objectives are: 1) control of (public) education, 2) control of media and 3) control of health care. Study, especially European history over the past 100+ years and you will soon clearly realize that once the latter is finally achieved, free-enterprise (virtually all hope of economic Liberty) is vanquished all but forever and socialism has been achieved! It is all happening here in the good old U.S.A., thanks to Obama & Co.—“progressives” past and present.

Final thoughts:

Is socialism biblical? Read Acts 4:32-37. If you have not read and studied any other part of the Bible, you will say, “Oh, yes! This passage shows conclusively that socialism is entirely biblical!” Hold your horses!! Read Acts 5:1-11!

Acts 4:32-37 portrays a completely voluntary—not coerced or required—situation in which spiritually-minded persons sold large portions of their assets from time to time to help others who were genuinely in need. Acts 5:1-11 graphically shows what happens when just two people (a married couple—Ananias and Sapphira) see their duty to help the poor as a material obligation, rather than a spiritual one. They were obeying men (the Apostles, or, the collective) to the extent they deemed necessary and proper. They were not obeying God or following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everything went to hell after that!

What is the purpose (lesson) of Acts 4:32-5:11? Why would these passages appear in the Bible (the Word of God) if they were not meant to rebuke collectivism and socialism?

Realize, also, that one of the two most memorable and quoted phrases of Marx is, “…[R]eligion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul (or ‘spirit’) of soulless conditions (or ‘a spiritless situation’). It is the opium of the people.” It is usually shortened and translated as “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

For perspective, please study and profoundly contemplate this whole recent Chick-fil-A “controversy!”

Socialism violates Liberty, Justice and the Word & Will of God. It is everything that America is not.

Favorite links:

Katie Kieffer

Katie Kieffer

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Guy Benson

Lloyd Marcus

Category: Socialism vs Capitalism