Saturday, June 27, 2009

None Dare Call It Socialism! (Part 1)

50 Years Ago, Cartoon Predicts the Future
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill
The Dead Road of Socialism
The government centralized approach cannot be defended on the grounds of efficiency, fairness, financial savings
By Daniel Greenfield
Thursday, February 25, 2010
It is no news to anyone that the world can often be unfair, that families lack the things they need and that people suffer and die unnecessarily in ways that could be avoided. The fundamental question is do we respond to such situations by working together on an individual and social level, giving donations to, participating in, and creating organizations that can help—or do we try to solve the problem with the white elephant government programs approach of socialism?
The government centralized approach cannot be defended on the grounds of efficiency, because government programs are notoriously inefficient. They cannot be defended on the grounds of fairness, as a single giant program is far more likely to marginalize recipients with no other recourse than a diverse variety of programs. They cannot be defended on financial grounds, as government programs are more likely to run out of money, and less likely to have a real plan for dealing with resource shortfalls. And ultimately government programs draw their funding from the very same people who fund independent programs. Yet they cannot use that money better or more efficiently.
The only defense for government programs is that they are comprehensive and mandatory. People can choose whether to contribute to charity, but they cannot choose to pay their taxes. This brings the element of wealth redistribution to the table, transforming voluntary contributions into mandatory entitlements. (Which this might seem like a way to maintaining funding sources, this only works until the government itself runs out of money, which Federal social spending programs are set to do.) But the real appeal of socialism is its supposed comprehensiveness. Socialism for the public is supposed to be a Fire and Forget sort of charity. Pay more taxes and the social problems are gone… the only problem is that they are not actually gone.
Excessive taxation and government intervention break the cycle, leading to diminished resource generation and weaker economies
Regardless of whether government agencies or private charities are in the works, resources are still a finite quantity. And wealth redistribution has historically been a surefire way to kill resource generation. Breaking the cycle of economic growth and trying to artificially control it, produces much the same results as overfishing or hunting the wildlife in a region too widely to allow for a natural balance. Human endeavor, like any other natural process, renews itself through economic processes. Excessive taxation and government intervention break the cycle, leading to diminished resource generation and weaker economies.
The lure of socialism is that of the golden Utopia, a promised land in which the sun always shines, there are never any rainy days and there’s enough of everything for everyone. In real life it doesn’t work that way. Economies, like any other natural system, have upturns and downturns. There are losses and gains. Resources are finite and are generated through wise trade and reinvestment. In the rhetoric of the socialist utopian though, it never has to rain, all the days can be sunny, wealth is endless and only greed prevents it from being distributed equally by the wise and all-knowing government bureaucracy.
The problem is that a government bureaucracy is not any better at making decisions or distributing resources than individuals or organizational bureaucracies. Lack of self-interest does not lead to better decision making. Often it leads to worse decision making, because the average employee is not going to be a philanthropist. Government bureaucracy quickly turns into the art of sitting in a chair and occasionally dealing with people based on regulations drawn up by people too high up the bureaucratic food chain to actually deal with people. The goal of those higher up on the food chain is to either dispense a lot of services or to ration as few services as possible, depending on the available resources. The goal of those sitting in the chair is to get through the day with as little work as possible. The results are rarely pretty or very efficient.
The premise of socialism is bad because it assumes that the people on the bureaucratic food chain are better at making decisions for you, than you can for yourself. It is also bad because it uses rhetoric that pretends that it can treat finite resources as infinite, only to come up against the cold hard reality that resources are finite after all. Which is when the rationing finally kicks in.
To take in the current health care debate, medical resources are finite, because they are
1.) Highly in demand
2.) Highly expensive and difficult to produce
When you have resources that are both very much in demand and difficult to produce, demand will always exceed supply. Doctors and nurses, technicians, research scientists and pharmacists take time and money to educate and train. Not to mention the staggering scale of medical equipment and manufacturing facilities. All these involve a staggering outlay of resources that cannot simply be made infinite with a few flow charts. Nor is it possible to significantly change the amount of resources required to produce them without also diminishing the quality of the final product, resulting in the kind of medicine you see in Communist and Third World Marxist dictatorships.
You cannot significantly increase available medical resources, without also diminishing their quality. You also cannot significantly alter the distribution of those resources without draining the overall pool of available resources because centralization of resources employs them and consumes them far less efficiently. What you can do is empower people to help others. What you cannot do is disempower people without decreasing resources.
Socialist programs do not create resources, they only exploit them
Socialism promises something for nothing, but that just means there’s a bigger bill due at the end. Socialist programs do not create resources, they only exploit them. And despite all the rhetoric, they are still only playing with limited resources, resources that they are far better at destroying than creating. The greater their control becomes, the more resources they demand and the less resources there are available.
Suppose that we set sail and arrive at a new continent. Food becomes the issue of most immediate concern. The wild game is quickly hunted out and very soon, the food supply grows short. There are two options then, to centralize remaining food supplies under the hands of the government, which will also control agriculture. Or to let people keep their food, and advise them to use it carefully, share with the less fortunate and plant wisely. The scenario is not hypothetical. The residents of the first permanent English settlement in America, Jamestown, faced that dilemma. Only by abandoning centralization and embracing the free market did Jamestown come to prosper. And the case of Jamestown was not unique. Early Americans repeatedly faced the choice between centralization and the free market, and repeatedly chose the free market, which is what made America a great and prosperous nation.
America prospered because it trusted the choices that individuals make, more than the choices that elites make. This premise was behind the American system of government, the American economy and the American way of life… or was. By the 20th century the assumption had become that most people were stupid, ignorant and too weak to resist their worst urges. The social advocates pushed everything from eugenics to prohibitionism as the solution. The Depression opened the door to true large scale government control, and it has never been shut since.
And since then the deficit has grown out of control, government has repeatedly demonstrated that it lacked the fiscal planning abilities of a not particularly bright five year old, America’s industrial infrastructure came and went, and about the only growth industries remaining involve customer service for products made in China. As government spending continues to swallow individual income, eventually whatever remains will be sucked into the whirlwind as well. After all, rising government spending and decreasing job growth collide in fairly predictable ways. Or to put it another way, you can get credit out of a stone, but you can’t get blood out of a stone. And eventually the credit runs out, and all you have left is the stone.
Individual initiative is the wellspring of democracy
The reason for this is that individual initiative repeatedly trumps government bureaucracy when it comes to using and generation resources better. Advocates of government centralization by contrast presume that most people are not very good at making use of their resources, requiring instead that they render it up to the government which will do a better job of it for them. This form of involuntary investment repeatedly produces negative results and it springs from the wholly irrational and elitist notion that people’s wealth and choices should be administered not by them, but only by those who have been specially trained to administer them.
Individual initiative is the wellspring of democracy. It is also the most effective means to achieve prosperity while helping others. Rejecting individual initiative in favor of centralization also rejects democracy.
Social Science is Dead
Erica Carle
November 28, 2009
Let's get practical. Anyone can complain about the government and the abuse we are made to suffer, but complaining accomplishes nothing. A complaint is little more than a plea for sympathy. Many people may say, "Yes, we are abused. That's really sad."
But, so what? The abuse continues. Before we can make major corrections we have to center our efforts on those who are really responsible for the many abusive government intrusions. Elected officials? Not really. These days they are just mechanisms who put their final sanction on whatever legislation they are instructed to support in order to replace the Constitution with a WORld Management System (WORMS). Very few, if any, politicians write the legislation that gives away our freedom and our sovereignty. In fact, very few even read the legislation.
Most of the oppressive legislation is written by those associated with universities, think tanks, foundations and non-governmental organizations. Congress and legislatures merely put their sanction on legislation written by those who call themselves, 'social scientists.'
Actually, there are no social sciences. The terms, 'social science' and 'sociology' were concocted by Auguste Comte, a crazy Frenchman who died more than 150 years ago. His successors still have not established a truly scientific foundation for any of the social, economic, political, or psychological manipulations, strategies, and technologies which some like to refer to as being 'scientific' exercises and experiments.
The scientific claim of the social 'scientists' is based on the idea of choosing goals and achieving them. The primary goal of the social 'sciences' is a world united under a single world government.
Comte envisioned all humanity united under this single system. Then humanity was to be worshipped as a goddess. Yes, it's a crazy idea, but that's not the whole story. The crazy Frenchman also wanted what he called social 'science' or 'sociology' to be the ruler science over all the natural sciences, and arbiter of ever changing rules of behavior.
Freedom and social 'science' are mutually exclusive concepts. If you believe in moral principles, self-control, personal responsibility, and the existence of individual will and personality you cannot consider yourself to be the willing subject of social experimentation and manipulation by a superior group who call themselves social 'scientists.'
If you believe in government answerable to the people you might call those who are involved in social manipulation: social technicians, social strategists, social opportunists, social organizers, social meddlers, social ignoramuses, social destroyers, social criminals, social systematizers, etc., but NEVER social SCIENTISTS. Social 'SCIENCE' is dead because it never was brought to life. There never was a social 'science.' However, there is plenty of social technology and manipulation. It is this social technology and manipulation that we need to understand if we want to preserve our individuality and our country.
It is important for us to know how the social technologists and manipulators work and cooperate with each other. We will include in our discussion all of the sociologists, economists, political technologists, and social psychologists who believe in the possibility and necessity of setting up a WORld Management System to replace national governments, independent organizations, and thinking individuals.
The first thing social technicians need to begin their march toward control in any area is a social problem. Making up, discovering or manufacturing the problems that can be used for control is one of the functions of the sociologists. Once a problem is discovered, invented, or caused it can be used to kindle strife. This is possible because the so-called social problems cannot be solved by applying moral principles or by attempting to do the right thing. Social technology does not recognize the existence of right and wrong. There is only success or failure in reaching the goals.
After a problem is chosen, the social psychologists go to work convincing people that the problem demands a social solution. The political meddlers write and promote legislation that they claim will solve the problem. However, social problems are not subject to intelligent solution. The rule is that the emotions must rule over the intellect. The solution must have emotional, not intellectual approval.
Initially Congress and legislatures often refuse to pass the social legislation. Something is missing. What is it? After an argumentative performance in Congress certain changes are made. The economists and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce have figured out a way that businesses and the Chamber of Commerce can profit. When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Chamber of Commerce and their supporters find a way to get their share of the action, the legislation is almost assured of passage. (See: "Chamber Of Commerce – Blanket Over The World.")
Chambers of Commerce were among the groups that profited from revenue sharing funds. Rent subsidies increased profits to developers and property owners. Food stamps brought increased prices for groceries and profits to food suppliers. Commercialized medical practice of Medicare resulted in higher prices for drugs, hospitalization, physicians, emergency treatment, etc. For the average patient everything became less affordable. And now we have the stimulus package. Chambers of Commerce all over the country and the world are in on the action. While conservatives are howling about Acorn receiving stimulus funds, few look to the Chamber of Commerce that was a most important active promoter of stimulus legislation and a big beneficiary.
Social meddlers like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have a tremendous advantage over We the People because for more than 50 years public schools have taught 'social studies' rather than history, geography, civics, Constitutional government, etc. . The schools have taught Comte's sociological or positive religion. Millions upon millions of students are influenced to believe in otherism, atheism, sexual perversion, moral relativism, group dynamics, socialism, and internationalism. Before they have control of their own situations, students are taught they should be world changers, and that they should join groups claiming to attack social problems.
Call a macro economist an economic technician, economic strategist, economic opportunist, economic genius, economic organizer, economic meddler, economic ignoramus, economic destroyer, economic criminal, economic vandal, economic adviser, etc.; but NEVER SCIENTIST.
Politics is not a science. There are political technicians, political strategists, political advisers, political opportunists, political organizers, political meddlers, political ignoramuses, political destroyers, political criminals, etc.-- but NOT POLITICAL SCIENTISTS.
In psychology there are knowledgeable scientists who have researched and understand human anatomy and physiology, comparative anatomy, brain physiology, human behavior, etc. Their goal is to promote healthy mind in a healthy body. They promote self-control, not social control. If this is what they do, they are scientists.
Social psychologists are not scientists. They may be called psychological controllers, psychological technicians, psychological strategists, psychological organizers, psychological opportunists, psychological meddlers, psychological ignoramuses, psychological destroyers, psychological vandals, psychological criminals; but NEVER SCIENTISTS.
Comte wanted to use his social technology to turn all humans into obedient biological machines. His technology was successful with some, but recent violent events and economic disasters prove that there is not, and never was a social science. Social science as God and as a scientific system is DEAD. Sociology is DEAD. The Positive Religion is DEAD . Thank GOD!
To All You Fuzzy Socialists Out There
By Joel Turtel
October 29, 2009
Excuse Me, I Mean LIBERALS
Fuzzy, socialist-liberals — What useful idiots you are for the Obama's of this world. You always accuse free-market advocates like me of being "mean," or not having any Christian ideals. Well, let's see. What would a good Christian want for his fellow man? — for people to live happy, productive lives, to not be slaves of any dictatorial government, to have the chance to fulfill their hopes and dreams, to not have to live in poverty and misery, to be charitable to their fellow man, right?
Now lets compare the vicious liberal/socialist system you so love to the "evil" capitalist system that you knee-jerk denigrate:
1 — The socialist/communist/fascist countries of Nazi Germany that ruled in the 20th century and today were responsible for the murder of over 100 million people, and the torture, slow starvation, political enslavement, and violation of basic human rights for the vast majority of the citizen/slaves living under these anti-human regimes (Remember, the NAZI party letters stood for 'National SOCIALIST party', for those who know little history, and claim I confuse socialism with fascism. Mussolini was the first fascist dictator prior to World War II, but his party was the Socialist party of Italy).
2 — Capitalism, even though not perfect because no economic system created by human beings can be perfect, in every country in which it flourished, dramatically raised the standard of living for the hundreds of millions of people living under a capitalist or semi-capitalist system. Of course, America is the prime example of this. In the course of 150 years, capitalism in America raised the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Americas to levels undreamed of by humankind for the past 5000 years. It gave average Americans the right and the chance to live a prosperous, decent life, to fulfill their potential and dreams, to see their children constantly do better than they did, to have personal liberty that no country on Earth in the last 5000 years ever gave its citizens. America was a miracle of liberty and prosperity, not for the governing power elite, but for the average man and woman.
3 — Let's look at Hong Kong and China as examples of what liberalism/socialism/Marxism does to people's lives vs. capitalism. Hong Kong is mostly a barren rock off the southern Coast of China. The British ruled it for over 100 years. The British allowed Hong Kong to establish the closest example we'll ever see to true free-market capitalism. What was the result? A stinking little island off the Coast of China that had withered in the backwaters of history for thousands of years, suddenly became a productive powerhouse. Remember, this little island has few natural resources of it's own. But the British gave the citizens of Hong Kong economic and political liberty. They stopped (until recently) the tyrannical rule of the Chinese Communists over Hong Kong. The result? Where most of the Chinese on Hong Kong were living in miserable poverty before they got their liberty and free-market by the British, after they got their political and economic liberty (which is what a free market means), the economy exploded in productivity, giving millions of Hong Kong Chinese the chance to have a prosperous, productive, happy life.
In contrast, Communist China, before the free-market reforms were enacted 20 years ago, was like Cuba today. A miserable socialist hell-hole, where the vast majority of one billion Chinese were enslaved to the vicious socialist/Marxist agenda of Mao, and lived miserable, destitute lives. Then look what happened after the Communist Party instituted free-market (or close to free-market) reforms. China, the same China that was sunk in misery and poverty, exploded it's productivity and standard of living for the vast majority of it's people, so that now a billion Chinese have the chance to live a prosperous, happy lives. What was the crucial difference between China 20 years ago and today? Very simple.
Ironically, the Chinese COMMUNISTS realized that they would have to give their citizens the benefits of an economic free market, meaning the economic freedom of capitalism, if they wanted to stay in power. I'm almost sad to say that Communist China is more pro free-market and capitalist today than is Obama's America that is moving in the exact opposite direction — towards the socialist/marxist/fascist misery that China was 20 years ago.
So when we compare socialism, or any variation of socialism such as liberalism, communism, marxism, fascism, vs. capitalism, we see that the socialist ideology and its practice over the last 100 years, have been an abomination for millions of people who have died, been tortured, starved, or deprived of their liberty because of this vicious political ideology. In contrast, even though the free-market is not "perfect," and a miniscule percentage of people don't "make it" in a free-market society because of their own lack of ambition, intelligence, or perseverance, or sometimes bad luck, for the vast majority of people living in a free-market, capitalist society, their standard of living and prosperity are constantly improving.
Yet you liberal/socialists blabber that a free-market capitalist like me does not have "a single Christian ideal." I am not a religious person. But I am a fierce advocate for an economic and political system that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, that allows the greatest number of people to lead happy, productive lives. You liberal-socialists, either because you have been brainwashed with socialist ideas, or you have a simpleton, knee-jerk mind, or you hate the free-market and capitalism because you're a government worker (are you?), or because you hate those who are more successful than you, or for some other psychological malady it is hard for me to fathom, will continue to advocate socialism/fascism as the political ideology that allegedly values the "Christian" morality.
As for your notion that government controls and entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are good programs that only governments could create, like all socialists (excuse me, LIBERALS), you find it hard to think beyond the point of your noise. Have you ever heard the expression from the Broadway song, "anything you can do, I can do better!"? Well, that applies to your beloved socialist government programs like Social Security and Medicare. Any function that these programs are supposed to accomplish can be, and have been accomplished far better in free-market economies.
For example, did you know that Chile (and a few other countries) have had a PRIVATE social security system now for over 30 years? Yes, I said private. Every Chile worker can choose to place his savings into one of twelve (I believe) private pension, stock, bond, etc. funds, as he so chooses. The money he puts into any of these funds is HIS, not the government's to disburse as and when the government sees fit. It is the Chilean citizen's own money, much like an annuity that many Americans now buy. At retirement age, the entire amount of money, plus accumulated interest, the Chilean citizen saved is his to do with as he pleases. This system is beloved by the vast majority of Chilean citizens, and has been a smashing success. There is no reason whatsoever that we could not have a similar system here is America.
And if you're going to argue that gee, some people might be too stupid or lazy to save for their own retirement and then will have no savings when they retire, then you are right that some people will do this to themselves. But shouldn't a person suffer the consequences of their own stupidity or lack of foresight to save for their own retirement? Moreover, why should you or I have to pay taxes to support other people who did not save for their retirement, which is what the American Social Security system is all about. Is it "Christian" to rob hard-working taxpayers of their money to pay for the small minority of irresponsible people who did not have the foresight to save for their own retirement?
The same applies to Medicare, which, by the way, even Marxist Obama claims is going bankrupt. If government allowed real competition in the health care, and health insurance field, and removed all it's strangling regulations from the health-care industry, then the cost of health insurance would dramatically drop because of fierce competition, just as insurance rates drop from fierce competition for car insurance and home insurance (ever see the Geico car insurance ads?).
For example, there are hundreds of health insurance companies in this country, but most states have regulations that forbid most of these out-of-state insurance companies from doing business in their state. Another example is the FDA control of the drug industry. Because of their strangling regulations, it takes a drug company an average of 10 years to get an approval for a new drug, and the company has to spend on average over 100 million dollars to do so. What do these strangling regulations do? — they naturally sharply increase the price of drugs for millions of Americans. These are just a few examples of how strangling government regulations are the CAUSE of escalating health care costs that put decent health care beyond the means of over 30 million low-income Americans.
If you fuzzy socialists (excuse me, I mean LIBERALS) really are do-gooders who want to help your fellow man, then why would you advocate vicious socialism, which is the blood brother to communism, which is blood brother to fascism? Perhaps you are not the lovers of your fellow man that you make yourselves out to be. Perhaps you hate the free market and capitalism for the same reason that so many liberals do — you are either envious of those who succeed more than you do, who make more money than you, or who have more initiative than you do in a free-market. So you transfer your personal self-hatred or sense of failure onto the free-market "system" that you pretend is the cause of your personal failures in life.
But buck up, where's there life, there's hope (I mean this sincerely). You can be whatever you want to be in a free market if you have the gumption and perseverance to do so. Use your intelligence to be more successful and reach your highest potential. If and when you do so, very quickly you will become less of a socialist, and more of an ardent admirer of the free market that gave you a chance to make a better life for yourself. I believe in you, my fuzzy socialists (excuse me, I mean LIBERALS). Be all that you can be.
Obama wants a Sea of Socialist Brown Shirts
By Dr. Laurie Roth
September 4, 2009
Obama is planning to speak with our kiddies live from the White House Sept. 8th at 12:00 Eastern time. Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to School Principals announcing the 20-minute speech by the President and offering questions and suggestions for discussion. All of us can apparently watch this socialist, manipulative speech to our children. The address will be streamed live.
The Dept. of Education is expecting our kids to read books on Barack Obama and his special life. This is supposed to happen before the speech. One of these books is Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope. Let’s have a moment of silence. In reading excerpts from this book you would think you were reading about Abraham or Jesus Christ. It is the story of a disenfranchised, almost hopeless black man who miraculously rose up through the ranks with the motto “Yes! We can!” You can read a few of the Messiah set up excerpts at the PUMA site taken from the official publisher.
Ever since Barack Obama was young, Hope has lived inside him. From he beaches of Hawaii to the streets of Chicago, from the jungles of Indonesia to the plains of Kenya, he has held on to Hope. Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.
His mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink…
He was there in Chicago because he cared about these people. They were his family. People in Kenya were his family. Indonesians were his family. And no matter where he was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: loveable. Let us catch them young, inspire them to support the underdog, struggling minority who made it to the top with hope and dreams. Never mind that Obama, though not raised in a traditional family, went to the finest and private schools and high end Universities, has owned million dollar homes for years, made tons of money for years and has millions in the bank. What a suffering horror show that reflects most of America!
Of course Obama will plant dreams in the children of internationalism, globalism, hope against all odds and he of course will be the messiah and encourager of all that. No doubt he will urge them to work hard in school, dream big and give back some to Uncle Sam/Obama in exchange for future college tuition. Naturally, he will determine where they serve, what pittance they get paid and what freedoms they give up while doing that service for the king and Messiah. Could this service eventually include turning friends and family in for disagreeing with the messiah?
This is classically what we saw in Germany by Hitler. He created his brown shirts throwing out dreams, hopes and promises in exchange for loyalty. He got it all right! The youth thought they were doing their duty, securing their future and serving their brave and honorable President. Obama assume the position. Oh yes, the suffering servant already has and is acting like a dictator but the poles continue to show ground being lost with the American people SO let us go for the kiddies.
I predict a series of talks to our children from the President in the months ahead. I called my children’s schools today and our Superintendent’s office to find out their exact plans and announce that I would be in their class that day listening in and taking notes. I highly suggest you either pull your kids out of class that day or show up with them and discuss the speech with them thoroughly.
We must vote this Dictator out of office as soon as possible and repair the damage. Stand up for the real America.
Socialism’s Losing Bet
Humans are at their very basic nature, capitalists.
By Daniel Greenfield Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Humans are at their very basic nature, capitalists. We buy and we sell, and when we do that we try to sell at the highest price and buy at the lowest price. Underlying every economic system, from laissez faire capitalism to communism is the reality that the underlying human nature of the people within that system will not change, they will only adapt those same tactics to function within that system. Economic systems may come and go, but people do not change.
When socialism is applied, it does not transform human nature, it is overlaid over human nature. When a socialist system attempts to artificially control the price of a commodity or access to a resource, a black market in that commodity or resource is created. With medical care it can take the form of Canada’s illegal health care clinics at one end of the spectrum or the “bribe economy” that is common throughout Communist countries in which people are expected to bribe doctors, nurses and just about everyone within the system to receive even basics such as a change of sheets. In Israel it can take the form of doctors who work in both the public system and see patients privately, doing their best to push patients into paying to see them privately. There are numerous examples throughout the world, but what matters is that all of them represent profiteering behaviors that have adapted to a government health care system. Because once again, people don’t change.
The Soviet Union took away land and private businesses. It drastically limited employee salaries and collective workers’ access to produce. It drastically centralized the economy and removed individual freedom. What it created as a result was a “Black” economic system in which most of the production and even office resources such as pens and paper, were stolen and sold or bartered on the black market. Soviet diplomats and Olympic athletes returned home with massive amounts of items bought in the West, to be resold on the black market. Decades of executions and gulags, campaigns that worked to convince schoolchildren to inform on their parents, made no dent at all in the problem. Everyone stole, and the reason they stole was that it was the only form of individual economic initiative that was available to them.
Communism is the most extreme example of government nationalization and centralization, and yet it could not control the free market operating within itself. Having made legitimate economic transactions illegal, its entire economy became illegal. The promoters of Communism boasted that it would insure that everyone would have equal access to the same goods and services. Instead goods and services still went to those who could pay for them, through bribes and black market activities, only those activities were no longer taxable. What happens to a government whose economy that is mostly illegal and untaxable? Within two generations the Soviet Union had become dependent on imports for everything down to food and clothing. By contrast China revised Communist dogma to legalize profit seeking behavior, resulting in a massive economic boom.
Socialsim: Government controls actually drive spending into an untaxable and uncontrollable black market
Socialism is commonly implemented with promises that it will be fairer and make resources available to more people. Yet the two-fold problem with socialism, is that socialist systems actually consume resources inefficiently, thereby limiting the resources that are available, and that government controls actually drive spending into an untaxable and uncontrollable black market.
Setting a price ceiling results in shortages, as numerous socialist systems have demonstrated for us, most recently Chavez’s Venezuela. Price controls decrease production incentive and push more goods into the black market, while sharply decreasing the quality of goods available on the legal market.
Attempting to cut costs routinely bypasses the actual “fat” within the system, namely unions, bureaucrats and over regulation, all of which are key parts of a socialist machine, instead targeting producers and consumers. Targeting producers reduces quality and availability. Targeting consumers results in rationing. Either way the end results lead to shortages of vital goods and services.
Socialist solutions promise to extend services, but they can only do so at the cost of cutting quality and creating shortages. Rather than addressing the reality of this, they instead trot out propaganda blaming producers for the high cost of services, resulting in crackdowns that worsen shortages and the quality of the services being provided. The follow-up “Soak the Rich” arguments push for higher taxes, but government spending on social problems will sooner or later outpace even the most aggressive punitive tax revenues, because unlike legitimate income, government spending has natural stopping point except absolute insolvency, and because raising taxes drives out the very people and businesses who are supposed to pay for the programs, killing the golden goose of capitalism, only to find that its socialist parasite can’t live without it.
Who actually needs socialism
And at the bottom of the whole pile of problems, is the question of who actually needs socialism. Its proponents are usually upper class or upper middle class, who want it to be available for the poor. They want public housing they wouldn’t live in. They want health programs they wouldn’t use themselves. Public schools they don’t want to send their own kids to. And free food they wouldn’t eat themselves. Naturally they don’t want to pay for the whole thing either. They want the “other rich” people to do it. The bad rich who don’t care about poor people, the way they themselves do.
For the upper classes, economic or ecological morality hold the same role that sexual morality does for hypocritical clergy, it’s very well and good, and they’re happy to sign on to it… for other people. So you’ll find the same entertainers demanding higher taxes to feed the poor and clothe the hungry, have their money tied up in complex ways overseas and out of reach. Because they mean for someone else’s money to do all those things. Not their own wealth. This makes them hypocrites, but it’s also a reminder that human nature doesn’t change. Scratch the long-haired musician calling for everyone to give up their money for Africa, and you’ll still find a capitalist inside.
On the other hand what the people socialism is meant to serve want is a social safety net, but without compromising social mobility. Because while the upper classes may toss down a few crumbs, what most people on the lower part of the ladder want is to climb up. Because after all they’re capitalists too. They want their children to be better off than they were, not simply through social safety nets, but through hard work and effort. And those who don’t want to climb up, have been severely damaged by living under a socialist system, to the point that the only thing they want is to live in a box and be taken care of by the government, generating a self-perpetuating social problem for government bureaucracies to gleefully cackle over.
The more government centralization there is, the less opportunities for social mobility remain. Climbing the ladder only has meaning, if there is a ladder. The more small businesses become unfeasible, the less room for social mobility there is. The sons and daughters of hardworking fathers and mothers are instead directed to take exams and climb into the echoing steel womb of the government bureaucracy, where they can look forward to pushing paper around a desk for most of their lives, and possibly earn a little extra on the side, if the situation has become extreme enough for a bribe economy to develop.
Each step toward greater government control creates a culture of greater illegality opposing it
Because human nature does not change. Even within a system that bars people from pursuing their own goals, people will find ways to pursue those goals. If the system does not provide legal and socially positive ways to pursue those goals, they will pursue those goals, illegally and with socially negative consequences. Every attempt to control how people behave, creates an equal and opposite reaction. Each step toward greater government control creates a culture of greater illegality opposing it. Not out of some rebellious political statement, but as an inevitable human consequence.
Philosophers and courtiers have spent a long time dreaming of the perfect state, only to generally conclude that it cannot exist. Because people are not perfect. The great socialist dream of a state that will care for everyone and do everything only functions on paper. When it is implemented in real life, the realities of running a large system ripe with bribery, corruption and inefficiency quickly make a mockery of all the paper plans. And the more the system squeezes people, the more it begins working against the people, putting in motion the very social and economic forces that will finally destroy it. There are few inevitable things in life, but human nature is one of them. And if you bet against human nature, you will lose. And socialism, which insists on betting on human nature, will continue to lose.
The Great Patriotic RevoltMadame Pelosi, the swastika belongs you, and symbolizes yet another of your bloody social engineering disastersJim O'Neill
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Did you hear Nancy Pelosi say that the “astro-turf” mobs at the town hall meetings were wearing swastikas? I understand the reference to astro-turf—because we are tough, resilient, and tenacious—but swastikas? Please.
Hopefully, you have educated yourselves regarding fascism, and are aware that fascism is a doctrine that is embraced only by the Left.
Communist Russia, and Fascist Germany, were not the ideological polar-opposites that the Left has propagandized them as being for generations. Fascism and Communism are similar collectivist doctrines. .
For example, check out the official name of old communist Russia—Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR). Now compare that to Hitler’s political party—National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party (the German acronym is NAZI). Hello? Notice any similarities?
So you can take your swastika, and stick it, House Madame Pelosi. Stick it on your forehead, as a warning to others. The swastika belongs you, and symbolizes yet another of your bloody social engineering disasters.
The people on the Left should really stop checking under their bed for fascists, and instead, just go to the nearest mirror, post-haste .
The paranoid Left will find that this “E-Z left-wing fascist-finding technique” will save them a lot of time, stress, and effort. There’s no need to thank me.
As amusing as it may be to play “You are. No, you are,” with left-wing fascists, I have more important things to discuss in this article.
Take a deep breath, grab yourself a “s’more,” sit down by the camp-fire, and hum Kumbaya with the others while I make the following points:
Often I will paint the Left with a broad brush in order to make a point, or simply to facilitate flow in my articles (gasp!).
If I were to constantly insert caveats excluding certain portions of the Left from my ire, I would hopelessly dilute the points that I’m trying to get across, and confuse and lose my readers.
With this in mind, permit me to say that there are actually a substantial number of liberals who are quite sane—well, relatively sane. (Oops, sorry—it just slipped out. Please go back to humming Kumbaya).
The term “sane liberal” is not the oxymoron that it might appear to be at first glance. There are actually many on the Left who are just as outraged by the Obama Administration, and our corrupt lobby-whoring Congress, as anyone on the Right.
It’s good to keep in mind that, if it were not for the “Blue Dog” Democrats, the Obama Administration would have already shoved its odious Obama-Care bill down America’s throat.
And lest we forget, there are a number of Republican politicos who are as worthy of being given the boot, as any corrupt and/or far-left Democrat.
The people who are fed-up with “politics as usual” are not limited to one side of the political spectrum, one race, or one demographic.
“Battle lines” are being drawn for the coming confrontation“Battle lines” are being drawn for the coming confrontation, and it is important to know who is, and isn’t, on “our side,” and what exactly “our side” is.
I would say that our cause is, quite simply, patriotism. Patriotism is the cause celebre, the unifying principle around which we can all rally.
Patriotism is, of course, love for America—but what does that mean?
Patriotism and the love of AmericaBeing patriotic means, among other things, that we value, and hold in high esteem our dearly bought rights as individuals, our status as a free republic, the inviolable status of the Constitution, and our sacred duty to keep God alive in our national character.
Founding Father John Adams made this astute observation: “We have no government… capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge...would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
As Billy Graham has said, “The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” Amen to that.
This means that I consider it to be an un-patriotic process, to take away my freedom as an individual, change my republic into a collectivist parody of America, expunge God from my culture, and dismantle the Constitution.
It makes no difference whether the oligarchy that is currently trying to take over the U.S. is motivated by greed, ideology, or hate. Their mission is the same; to destroy the United States as a free world power.
So for the duration of the coming engagement, we need to drop the partisan politics, the “identity politics,” etc., and unite in a common patriotic effort to protect our rights as individuals, restore the U.S. Republic as the “shining city on the hill”—under God’s grace—and safeguard the Constitution.
Rather than the enforced Orwellian conformity of the fascist Left, I’m talking about an American unity born of common purpose, courage, and love of freedom. A patriotic unity.
In Abraham Lincoln’s words—Together “we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
Well, let me move on. Stop humming that dumb song, pick up your musket, and let’s get back to the business at hand.
Let me mention in passing something that one of my readers brought to my attention.
You might want to check out H.J. Res. (House Joint Resolution) #5, introduced by Jose Serrano, D-NY. It proposes an amendment to the Constitution that will repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits Presidents to serving only two terms.
I consider Serrano’s proposal to be nothing more that a “stalking horse” to test the waters, but we’re going to keep an eye on it anyway, aren’t we?
A more pressing issue that I want to discuss is the disdain, disregard, and dismissive attitude displayed toward the elderly by the current Administration.
If you’ve seen some of the videos of our town hall meetings, then you’ve noticed that there are a number of senior citizens attending. They’re concerned, and well they should be.
Obama-Care, Euthanasia, ‘Counselling the elderly’There are a number of deeply troubling elements in Obama-Care, and some are aimed directly at the elderly. Euthanasia is an especially dangerous element embedded within the Obama-Care package.
Obama-Care would marginalize the old, due to the fact that such citizens are considered a wasteful drain on society’s resources—i.e. their negative impact on “the collective,” outweighs their production value.
Yes, I realize that the Obama-Care only mentions “counseling” the old. But no doubt, this counseling will include talk of euthanasia—voluntary suicide, ("It’s for the good of the collective—you understand, don’t you dear?")
If you look into the fascist Left’s long-held, perverted interest in euthanasia, and the current Administration’s tie-ins with various groups promoting euthanasia, I believe that you’ll come to the same conclusions that I have.
Obama-Care will ultimately result in the culling of the elderly, (and an explosion of abortion clinics across the country. They’ll get us coming and going).
Some tribes of Eskimos practiced senilicide (the practice of killing the elderly), and purportedly placed the aged on ice floes, and then let them drift away.
The Eskimo old, after all, were using up food and other materials, more productively utilized by the younger members of the tribe. (Did I mention that tribalism is another variant of collectivism?)
The American elderly that Obama wants to “counsel” are largely members of, what Tom Brokaw justifiably dubbed, “The Greatest Generation.”
‘The Greatest Generation’A reader gave me a heads-up concerning a website that lists some of the qualities found in The Greatest Generation—qualities sadly lacking in the population today. You should check them out.
The Greatest Generation are the people who sweated, bled, and died around the world, protecting America’s freedom during WWII.
One of the things that they fought to eradicate, were Hitler’s vile Nazi eugenics theories and practices. The same theories and practices that the Obama Administration is trying to foist on the American public (under a different guise, of course).
They will attempt to do so in the manner used so successfully by the Left in the past. They will introduce them step by step, and stage by stage.
At a time when The Greatest Generation has been whittled down by illness and death, the Obama Administration is poised to subject them to the very evils that they fought so bravely against in their youth.
This is how we repay the Americans who bestirred themselves as one, and defended America’s freedom from all who tried to take it away.
This is how we repay the people who saved our freedom, and entrusted its care to us, their descendants.
This is how we repay them?
I think not.
The problem with Obama is…When the eloquent Obama pitches his socialist snake-oil, the alleged cure sounds reasonableBy Henry Lamb
Sunday, August 2, 2009
It is accurate, but not enough, to say that Obama is transforming the United States of America into a socialist nation. The term “socialist” no longer carries the fear-and-trembling reaction it evoked during the cold war years. Since the “boomer” generation, the term has lost its meaning - and when the eloquent Obama pitches his socialist snake-oil, the alleged cure sounds reasonable.
It sounds reasonable, for example, to take the profit out of the college loan program. The government subsidizes and guarantees student loans already. Why not just make government loans directly to the students, cut out the middle-man – and the profits they make – and save all that money now going to the greedy shareholders.
Think about it. In order to get the money needed to lend, private lenders ask ordinary citizens to invest in their company with a promise to the investor to pay a profitable return on his investment. On the other hand, government gets its money to lend by taking money from everyone in the form of taxes. A student may inquire among hundreds of lenders to find the best possible rate and repayment terms. If there is only one source for student loans, the lender may set the rate and the terms with no concern that a competing lender might provide a better deal.
Private lenders couldn’t care less what subjects a student might pursue; timely repayment is the only concern. Not so when the government is the only lender. At any time, the government could decide that there are enough nuclear engineers in the world, and provide no loans to nuclear engineering applicants. The government could decide that there are not enough teachers, and choose to fund loans for teachers only. When the government controls the source of a commodity, the commodity users become little more than slaves.
Moreover, when government controls the source of a commodity, there is absolutely no incentive to make efficient use of the commodity, but there is a strong incentive for bureaucratic corruption. When bureaucrats, who have no skin in the game, can dispense goodies – such as loans – with no risk to their own well-being, fraud, waste, and abuse flourish. A private banker, whose paycheck literally depends upon making and collecting good loans, is sure to be much more vigilant in his decision-making.
Private lenders who make good loan decisions and earn a profit for their shareholders provide employment and incentive for more investment from their investors. Government lenders require tax dollars to pay employees, and to fund loans, and the inevitable fraud, waste, and abuse that accompanies every government program.
Obama’s student loan takeover is only a drop in the bucket, compared to his takeover of the entire health care system. The principle is the same, however: take the profit out of health care and let government run the program.
Health care in the United States is currently the best in the world. It has become the best in the world precisely because it has been a private system. Entrepreneurs have attracted private investment to develop machines, procedures, and medicines unmatched by any socialist system run by any government.
If the truth could be fully known, it would reveal that the problems within the health care industry are mostly caused and exacerbated by government’s increasing involvement. The very thought of turning over the entire health care system to the government should cause fear and trembling in every person. Aside from saddling society with the incredible costs, the more frightening thought is the realization that government bureaucrats would be making the life or death decisions that affect every family.
Some people will recall the HMO rage of a few years back, where costs would be reduced by pooling services in what then was called “managed health care.” No one will ever know how many people suffered or died because some corporate bureaucrat, sitting in a top-floor office somewhere, refused to allow a patient the critical service needed at the moment it was required.
Imagine, if you dare, a nation-wide HMO run by the government.
Recall, if you dare, what it takes to get a building permit that requires an environmental impact statement and approval by the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and on, and on.
Now imagine, if you dare, that you have a new, strange, pain on the left side of your head – and you are 68 years old, and the MRI costs $2,000, and if it is a tumor, treatment could cost tens of thousands of dollars. Who will decide whether you get treatment or not? The decision will be made by a federal bureaucrat; not you, not your doctor, not your family.
This is how socialized, government-run health care works.
The problem with Obama is that he is a socialist, regardless of how much he denies it.
Are We Still Free on this 4th of July?By Dr. Laurie Roth
July 3, 2009
July 4th, 1776, we made it official and signed our Declaration of Independence from the British. The founding fathers signed it that day with other signatures to follow. It was a miracle.
Americans wanted freedom from control and tyranny so badly they risked everything, lives, wealth and safety to have it. So, after a sea of blood and sacrifice our Declaration of Independence was born and a country that would change history in the world, a nation committed to every kind of freedom under God.
As we approach the 4th again and celebrate with friends, let us pause and remember that the firecrackers we may see blowing up around us aren’t just exploding toys but reflective of the real bombs that burst in air to pave the bloody way for a free country to appear and thrive.
Freedom cost more then we can imagine and more than some of us will ever understand.
Do we still have our cherished freedoms?
Yes we do BUT our freedom was not launched into a vacuum and world with no evil. Our miraculous and God given freedom has pierced through the literal darkness of tyranny’s and dictatorships that believe that Government is ONLY controlled by a force and power. Socialism and communism must happen. Capitalism and freedom is in the way.
Even with our own brief history over the last several hundred years we have seen evil forces like communism challenge our laws, congress, schools and very way of life. How could we forget the McCarthy era. The response and feelings against potential communist takeovers in the US weren’t just paranoia and hallucinations back in the 50s. Certainly we saw over reaction but this was born out of real fear and danger.
We saw concern over the risk of communist takeovers clear back to the Truman Doctrine of 1947 and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). These groups were charged with identifying “pro-communist” activities or “anti-American” activities. What happens when the un-American activities are happening from the executive branch and congress? Who will watch and correct our Government leaders when they over reach into the private sector, such as with the banking and automotive industry. Who will watch and correct when our Government re assigns the wealth of millions into others hands?
Since the 40s and 50s we have seen the term communism turn practically into a fossil and disappear from our radar of concern? Instead now, we see socialism, globalism and environmentalism assuming the position, spirit and strategies of communism, only pie squared.
For those who have forgotten the dangers of communism (called globalism, socialism, environmentalism and internationalism now) here is a list of communist goals: Recognize anything?
* Capture one or both of the political parties in the US.* Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.* Infiltrate the press.* Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed, religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”* Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”* Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”* Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of “the big picture.”* Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government, with its own independent armed forces.
The above are just a few of the dozens of goals in communism that is now socialism taking over our country as we speak.
Let us continue to celebrate the 4th of July, our Declaration of Independence and freedom!
Equality: Recipe for TyrannyErica Carle
June 27, 2009
Freedom and enforced equality are irreconcilable opposites. Efforts to force economic and social equality serve only to restrict freedom, thought, intelligence and productive capability.
EQUALITY as a goal or dogma is a crippler and a killer.
EQUALITY is the ceiling above which one dare not rise; the mental block that holds one back from superior accomplishment.
EQUALITY is hate for your superiors and contempt for your inferiors.
EQUALITY is the yoke that binds us to the failures, degenerates and primitives of the world, and the wedge that separates us from the inspiration of the hard working, successful, and morally pure.
EQUALITY is the sociologists’ supreme value.
EQUALITY is the source of guilt for material abundance; the excuse for oppression; the promise, which because it cannot be kept, enslaves its believers.
EQUALITY is the denial of nature, the rallying cry of the willfully blind, the source of poetic inspiration for men without dreams; the ever-gushing source of tear-stained rhetoric for hypocritical politicians who seek power.
EQUALITY is morality for the morally bankrupt.
EQUALITY is the carrot and the stick – the sociologists’ goal for all who are not sociologists; and the sociologists’ justification for the whip to punish those who dare achieve beyond sociologically prescribed limits.
EQUALITY is the narrow room where sociologists cast all the world’s people, then crank the walls closer.
EQUALITY is death of spirit, choice denied.
EQUALITY is never saying, “Look where I came from. See where I am!”
EQUALITY is waking up every day of your life with no place to go.
EQUALITY is thinking always about other people – about whether they have more than you, or you have more than they.
EQUALITY is judging everyone the same, loving everyone the same HATING everyone the same.
EQUALITY is no mountains to climb, no barriers to leap, no dreams to make real.
EQUALITY is spying on other people to be sure they have not become unequal.
EQUALITY is dragging down the ones who climb too high.
EQUALITY is taking away from those who have too much.
EQUALITY is seeing yourself no better than the most corrupt and no less than the most virtuous.
EQUALITY is wanting no more and no less than anyone on earth, achieving no more and no less than anyone; giving no more and no less than anyone; hoping no more and no less than anyone.
EQUALITY is having no more joy than anyone and as much sorrow as everyone.
EQUALITY as an ideal shuts out reason, closes doors, denies nature and reality.
EQUALITY as a demand can turn potentially kind considerate charitable people into aggressive snarling beasts.
EQUALITY as a value replaces individual virtues of love, kindness, honesty, industry, truth, freedom, morality, faith, hope and charity.
EQUALITY is a zombie, head lowered, never daring to look up, ahead, or to the side – marching at measured pace with all who deny individuality and self.
EQUALITY, if the sociologists have their way, is what we will bequeath to our children.
Politically the word ‘EQUALITY’ has worked like a voodoo charm. All a politician needs to do is shout ‘EQUALITY’ and the opposition crumbles to whatever new plan for the consolidation of sociological power is being pushed.
Why must we accept sociological control over medical care? EQUALITY
Why must we suffer sociological economic manipulation? EQUALITY
Why have sociologists been granted control over education?EQUALITY
Why should our possessions and hard-earned income be given away to primitives and strangers all over the world without our consent? EQUALITY
Why should youngsters be forcibly transported to schools many miles from home against their parents’ wishes and away from their supervision?EQUALITY
Why should academic standards be lowered for dumbed down education?EQUALITY
Why should entrants to the professions no longer be chosen on the basis of intellectual achievement, good character and willingness to invest in their own future?EQUALITY
Why should productive people be compelled to do more for the unproductive than they are willing to do for themselves?EQUALITY
EQUALITY is the ever-handy justification for usurpation.
Who supervises all this EQUALITY and determines what laws should be passed to punish INEQUALITY?
By now, I believe you know.
National Socialism II- Only the names have been changedNazi German plenipotentiary or Obama's CzarBy John Burtis
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
As President Obama routinely exceeds the US Constitution and carves a new country out of the wreckage he’s already wrought, he’s brought twenty or so new men and women into this heady mix. They have never been used before and their jobs exist way outside the three branches of government we learned in school - the legislative, executive, and judicial.
These are the new Czars, like the Car Czar, the Intergovernmental Czar, or even the new Great Lakes Czar, though what some of these folks actually do is as murky as Lake Michigan in March or an expansive Obama speech in support of the little folks in Iran who are trying to crack open a window of freedom.
But as one wag pointed out to me, maybe they’re Tsars. After all, their actual titles have never been officially been spelled out and remain as open to interpretation as their duties. Unlike the Tsars, however, they report only to President Obama, their supreme leader, or, in German, their Fuehrer.
But looking back in time so we don’t repeat what’s already happened before and by doing so we find out we really did do, let’s look at Germany in 1938 and cast a brief look at an excellent new book by Adam Tooze, titled, ”The Wages of Destruction” (Penguin Group, NY, NY, 2006), which describes a topsy-turvy world of economics dangerously close to the one we’re living in.
Being fervidly anti-communist and anti-Russian in general, the Nazi administration refused to use the word Czar, Tsar, or Zar (German), and instead used the common German word Bevollmachtiger, or plenipotentiary. And man, in the Nazi hierarchy, there were a whole lot of plenipotentiaries and Bevollmachtigers running around and bumping into each other; for labor, armaments, construction, aircraft manufacture, etc.
And being a Nazi plenipotentiary had its perks, too. The big Mercedes. The brown uniforms with the outlandishly large eagles on the caps and the red and gold gizmos running up the sleeves, set off by the big brass buttons. Big, highly polished, chrome leather riding boots, and maybe a whip or two. And if you were lucky enough to be seconded to the Allgemeine SS, you could do it all up in black and silver with a few Death’s Heads here and there, with one on your peaked cap.
Today, being a Democrat Czar may not be as flashy, but you’ve got the power, the White House pass, the platinum AmEx card, maybe a turbo Carrera, arm candy from Elliot’s escort service, with your hopes set on a Ferrari California if Barack can hold on for 8 years, unless he becomes president for life and you can grab that real plenipotentiary title and the black uniform, peaked cap, and perhaps a bully Death’s head cuff band and cap piece, because by then he’s made it, you’ve made it, and it won’t matter a whit what kind of togs you roll on in the morning. But I digress.
So, Mr. Tooze explains that Nazi Germany in 1938 featured the following happenings on just page 291:
//... Goering announced that the entire population was to be registered in a national card index administered by SS Police Chief Kurt Daluege. This was to allow the labour offices to allocate every man and woman to their most productive location in the national economy.
‘The great building projects of the Fuehrer would be carried through because of their importance for morale and psychology.’
All manufacturing plants would be subject to inspection to establish whether they were using labor efficiently.
The automotive industry was to be taken in hand by a special plenipotentiary…
The national railway system… creaking under the strain… was to benefit from a multi-billion Reichsmark investment programme.
Goering raised the possibility that the entire German population would be asked to make a ‘Thanksgiving Sacrifice’ in the form of a surrender of wealth.
On 15 November Colonel Adolf von Schell was appointed General Plenipotentiary for motor vehicles.
You know, if you change some names, and toss out plenipotentiary and toss in czar, the 1938 headlines in the Berliner Tageblatt can pretty much mirror those in today’s Wall Street Journal. Of course the Grey Lady, the New York Times, most likely damned the economic program from 1938 because it smacked of state sponsored ‘fascism’; while today this same left liberal newspaper praises our current strong man with seemingly endless syrupy encomiums and obsequious blandishments on a scale never before printed, because President Obama is well on the way toward completing a similar, if not the exact, state controlled economic program today. And if you substitute the cherubic faces, toothy grins, and blank stares of Dick Turban, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid for similarly red nosed, rosy cheeked, and dull stares of the paladins who always voted yes for President Hermann Goering in the Reichstag, you’ll find that similar “yes-man” mind-set. The utter disdain for each one’s constitution is the same. The only differences are the Brown Shirts, ties, slacks, daggers on the Sam Browne belts, and polished boots v. the Brooks Brothers suit ensembles with the rep ties that are all the rage today.
Only the names have been changed.
The Socialization of America
By Dr. David Noebel
March 27, 2009 In retrospect, we might discover that 1883 was a most significant year. We’re familiar with 1848 giving us The Communist Manifesto and 1859 giving us The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. But 1883 gave us three portentous happenings. These seemingly unrelated happenings turned history toward socialism.
1. Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883, and was buried in Highgate Cemetery in London, England. The assumption that Communism died with him was logical since only six people attended his funeral. But the truth is that it had not yet begun its murderous journey through the 20th century.
2. John Maynard Keynes was born on June 5, 1883, in Cambridge, England. His political, economic, and moral influence continues to affect every American.
3. The Fabian Socialist Society was an offshoot of The Fellowship of the New Life, which was born in October 1883 in London, England.
Today’s financial events illustrate that America is not exempt from being led toward socialism. Predictions differ, depending on one’s perspective, as to whether this will be a socialistic paradise or a socialistic hell. Time will tell. In the meantime, we’d do well to listen to warnings from the past.
Russian thinker and author Fyodor Dostoyevsky offered the following take on socialism: “The future kingdom of socialism will be a terrible Tyranny of criminals and murderers. It will throw humanity into a true hell of spiritual suffering and poverty.”
Socialist George Bernard Shaw added: “You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner.”
That’s probably why Margaret Thatcher added that the “problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Today, we can link the U. S. House of Representatives—and its radical, progressive, socialistic societies and caucuses— directly to Karl Marx through Keynes and the Fabians.
Before identifying many of the House members caught up in the socialist web, however, let’s first identify the major economic dogma of the early socialists.
Socialism is the economic system of both the Marxist-Leninist worldview and the Fabian Society worldview. John Maynard Keynes was a member of the British Fabian Society, whose American counterparts were the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and the League for Industrial Democracy. Their American voices were centered in the ideas of Norman Thomas and John Dewey among others. Dewey, you may remember, was an early signatory of The Humanist Manifesto (1933) and its atheistic, socialist gospel.
Socialists are united in their desire to see capitalism destroyed, either forcefully or gradually, and most would rejoice if Christianity were destroyed along with it. Socialists and liberals generally see in Christians “an infallible marker of mental retardation.” (Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2008/09, p. 6)
The Christian worldview endorses sound or hard money, fiscal responsibility, saving for a rainy day, deferred gratification, paying off monthly credit card bills, living within one’s means, etc. Keynesian economics, by contrast, argues for consumption, extravagance, and not providing for the future, arguing that “the great vice is saving, thrift, and financial prudence.” (Keynes At Harvard, p. 63) Keynesians love huge national spending, debt, and high inflation—anathema to Christians and conservatives.
Socialists see capitalism as an evil economic system founded on the concepts of profit, individualism, private property, private business, freedom to buy and sell products and services, etc. Indeed, a working definition of capitalism is “the peaceful and free exchange of goods and services without theft, fraud, and breech of contract.” Capitalism is tailored to individual initiative rather than groupthink or community initiative. Nearly all inventions that have furthered the capitalistic enterprise and blessed humanity in the process have been the result of individual initiative rather than committee, group, or government activity.
Marx advanced the socialist cause by calling for social or public ownership of property and the abolition of private property. He believed that people were best suited to work on state farms, public parks, nationalized banks, or the government bureaucracy rather than for private employers, who would certainly take advantage of their employees, causing them both social and economic harm. Marx was an economic leech on fellow communist Engels, who supported him with his capitalistic father’s monies.
George Bernard Shaw represented the Fabian point of view by calling for “the socialization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” to bring about an equal distribution of goods and services to all members of society and to make the State “the ALL of social well-being.” The State “subsumes all economic life of the nation.”
In other words, socialism is an economic system that downplays the individual in favor of the group, social order, or the State. It is a system in which the State directs the economic activity of the social order through central planning and by placing economic activity under the jurisdiction of the State. Socialism is also known as collectivism or Statism and, to Marx, Communism.
Today, we call this economic system “interventionism” or Keynesism. Interventionism is a kind of socialism or communism, but without the destruction of the bourgeoisie (which were slaughtered by the millions by Soviet and Chinese communists). Today’s Fabians/Progressives/ Radicals allow their capitalist enemies to create wealth, but acquire it by taxing them instead of slaughtering them (Marx’s “reign of terrorism on the bourgeoisie”). They are then free to distribute the wealth among the economically disadvantaged, the intellectual elites, and the superior governing classes.
Such (re)distribution of wealth ensures the favorable vote of the masses being fed, entertained, housed (with sub-prime loans) and doctored. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and socialism fit hand-in-glove just as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fit Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd to a “T.”
Most Americans are totally unaware that the U.S. House of Representatives crawls with a large, well-organized assembly of socialist organizations. These organizations are dedicated to (a) bringing about the destruction of the capitalist economic system (portrayed as greedy, conservative, religious, and/or filthy rich) and (b) slowly but surely bringing production, education, food, and health care under the complete control and regulation of the federal government.
A prime example of this governmental takeover is the carbon tax currently under discussion. It would punish business and industry’s use of gas and oil products (which according to Al Gore will warm the planet by one degree over the next 100 years) by “allowing] the federal government to ‘control every aspect of our economy,’ according to Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute” (The Weekly Standard, March 16, 2009, p. 17).
The legislators involved in this socialistic undertaking belong to one or more radical House organizations: the Progressive Democrats of America (6 House members), the Congressional Progressive Caucus (74 House members), the Congressional Black Caucus (43 House members), and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Incidentally, the Democratic Socialists of America do not identify their House members since they consider all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus part of their membership due to the fact that “they both shared operative social democratic politics.” The most prominent national member of DSA is AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, who could well be the most powerful influence in the House of Representatives. And for the record, the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus is Congressional Progressive Caucus member Barbara Lee (CA-9). The interconnections between all these socialist-based organizations is staggering.
These organizations and their members quite literally comprise a Socialist Red Army within the very contours of the House of Representatives. According to the Wikipedia article on the organization, “The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the single largest partisan caucus in the United States House of Representatives and works together to advance progressive [socialist] issues and causes. The CPC was founded in 1991 by independent [socialist] Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who remains a member as Senator. [The CPC] represents about a third of the House Democratic Caucus. Of the twenty standing committees of the House, eleven are chaired by members of the CPC.”
When the CPC claimed 64 members in 2006 (now 74 and gaining), the leftist publication The Nation boasted, “The largest ideological caucus in the new House Democratic majority will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a membership that includes New York’s Charles Rangel, Michigan’s John Conyers, Massachusetts’s Barney Frank and at least half the incoming chairs of House standing committees” (The Nation, November 12,2006).
These current eleven chairs are CPC members:
George Miller (CA-9)—Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee;
Henry Waxman (CA-30)—Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce;
Bob Filner (CA-51)—Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee;
Barney Frank (MA-4)—Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee;
John Conyers (MI-14)—Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee;
Bennie Thompson (MS-2)—Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee;
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)—Chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee;
Charles Rangel (NY-15)—Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee;
Louise Slaughter (N Y-28)—Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee;
Bob Brady (PA-1)—Chairman of the House Administration Committee; and
Edward J. Markey (MA-7)—Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
As of February 20,2009, the Co-Chairs of the CPC are Raul M. Grijalva (AZ-7) and Lynn Woolsey (CA-6). The Vice Chairs are Diane Watson (CA-33), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18), Mazie Hirono (HI-2), and Dennis Kucinich (OH-10). Incidentally, the CPC website was “hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America” until 1999, a group affiliated with the Socialist International which was founded by Karl Marx, Saint-Simon, and Fourier!
The Commission for a Sustainable World Society is one of the Socialist International’s sub-organizations. Until President Obama picked Carol M. Browner as his global warming czar, Browner was a member in good standing of the Socialist International. Upon her appointment, her name and biography were removed from its website “though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available” (The Washington Times, January 12,2009, p. 1). We can expect Browner to manipulate and push for every piece of socialist legislation to advance the defeat of capitalism and the imposition of more government on the American people. Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy represent capitalism, and we can expect Congressional socialists to do everything in their legislative power to thwart their discovery, drilling, usage, and distribution. Socialists promote wind(mill) power because they know it alone cannot meet the energy needs of a capitalist economy and will, therefore, hasten the death of capitalism.
Browner will enjoy a great deal of support from the newly appointed Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, who is also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And when Browner needs further help, she can rely on the committee chairs, co-chairs, and vice chairs listed above to assist her in using the global warming/climate change scare to bring the United States of America into a socialistic world governing body. She can also count on former CPC member Nancy Pelosi (who is already manifesting dictatorial tendencies) to drive the socialist agenda as fast as humanly possible. Pelosi’s San Francisco district (CA-8) is synonymous with socialism/ progressivism/ collectivism/statism/leftism/radicalism that in turn are synonymous with scientific socialism/communism/ Marxism/Leninism/Maoism.
We have yet to address the ideological role played by John Maynard Keynes in the demise of American capitalism and Christian influence. Anyone with a Christian, conservative bent fears the reality that the United States is falling headlong off the cliff into socialism and all that this will entail. It is no secret that the radical left is both anti-capitalist and anti-Christian. Marx would be, no doubt ecstatic, realizing that his life’s work of dethroning God and destroying capitalism are about to be accomplished.
Zygmund Dobbs conducted the research for Keynes at Harvard ( and summarizes the political, moral, and economic slant of Keynes and his friends at Cambridge University: “Singing the Red Flag, the highborn sons of the British upper-class lay on the carpeted floor spinning out socialist schemes in homosexual intermissions….The attitude in such gatherings was anti-establishmentarian. To them the older generation was horribly out of date, even superfluous. The capitalist system was declared obsolete and revolution was proclaimed as the only solution. Christianity was pronounced an enemy force, and the worst sort of depravities were eulogized as ‘that love which passes all Christian understanding.’ Chief of this ring of homosexual revolutionaries was John Maynard Keynes…Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, as ‘a liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.’ His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys.”
Keynes, like Marx, had a fixation that should have been a clue to his character. Marx practiced phrenology (the study of bumps on one’s head), and Keynes practiced chirognomy (the study of people’s hands). After studying the hands of Charles Darwin’s brother, Sir George, Keynes remarked, “His hands certainly looked as if they might be descended from an ape.”
Overall, Keynes despised free or private enterprise, considered homosexuality superior to heterosexuality, sought to replace the gold standard with fiat paper money which was more easily produced by government printing presses, did not believe in the family unit, despised “savings” as a stumbling block against the march of socialism, called on the state to control the number of children per family.
The Keynesian economic formula fits all totalitarianisms, including Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. Sir Oswald Mosley, for example, was a Fascist leader and a member of the Fabian Society. Lauchlin Currie, a prominent Keynesian advocate, was a Soviet spy and an economic aide to F.D.R. Joan Robinson, a Marxist economist, assisted Keynes in some of his economic writings, arguing, “the differences between Marx and Keynes are only verbal.” (Keynes At Harvard, p. 68; also see Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics, p. 433)
Keynes also had a strong relationship with the notorious Soviet spy Harry Dexter White. Keynes considered White to be “the central figure in the Keynesian manipulations in the United States.” Harry Dexter White just happened to be the Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Even after White was exposed as a Soviet spy, Keynesians to this day “see nothing wrong in White’s Soviet role,” a “typical . . . attitude of Fabian socialist elements toward the whole coterie of spies and Fifth Amendment communists in the United States” (Keynes At Harvard, p. 83).
It was Keynes himself who admitted that by “a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but confiscate arbitrarily: and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some [e.g., Al Gore]. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.”
Thus it is astounding that Larry Summers, head of President Obama’s National Economic Council and former president of Harvard University, when asked by Charlie Rose “what idea, what person has most influenced your thinking on how to deal with this [financial] mess?” without hesitation answered “Keynes.”
Following the economic advice of Keynes (huge government spending, debt, and inflation) is kissing the American capitalist system goodnight! His advice is what every socialist would give, even though clear-thinking, common sense Americans know that excessive debt and excessive spending are the main ingredients that created this current financial mess (with the help of Congressional Progressives like Barney Frank hatching socialist schemes in the House of Representatives).
When Whittaker Chambers took up his sling and aimed his rock at Communism, he admitted that he hit “something else.” What he hit “was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades.”
That inching is fast becoming a rout with national and international socialists alike thinking their best opportunity to strike a deathblow to the greatest, freest economic system in all of human history is now.
Because capitalism has raised more human beings out of poverty than all other economic systems combined, we should remember the wisdom of Robert Heilbroner, a former Marxist economist who changed his position before the fall of the Berlin Wall: “The Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe have given us the clearest possible proof that capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism: that however inequitably or irresponsibly the marketplace may distribute goods, it does so better than the queues of a planned economy; however mindless the culture of commercialism, it is more attractive than state moralism; and however deceptive the ideology of a business civilization, it is more believable than that of a socialist one.”
Little wonder that Winston Churchill painted socialism as a philosophy of failure, a creed of ignorance, and a gospel of envy whose inherent virtue “is the equal sharing of misery.”
About the author:
Dr. David Noebel is founder and president of Summit Ministries and a best-selling author. He is recognized as an expert on worldview analysis and the decline of morality and spirituality in Western Civilization.
The Messiah’s reincarnation of Roosevelt Depression politicsDrinking Kool-Aid from Depression Pond:By Judi McLeod
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Just in the nick of time for tomorrow’s massive Tea Party response to the out-of-line Obama administration, the resurrection of this authentic 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon.

`Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?’, the cartoon title, is the same question millions of Americans are asking 65 years later in 2009.
Figures of the day, giddy with power, are driving the horse pulling a wagon to ground. “Depleting the Resources of the Soundest Government in The World”, are the words emblazoned on the bag of the wagon.
These figures of the day include Rexford Tugwell, who in 1933 was appointed to work in Roosevelt’s administration, working in the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1934, he was promoted to the undersecretary position of the department, then became the head of the Resettlement Administration, a federal agency that relocated the urban poor to the suburbs and impoverished farmers to new rural communities. In 1936, when the RA came under political fire for being overly utopian and socialistic, he resigned from his position in the administration.
“Overly utopian and socialistic” has returned to haunt Americans in 2009.
In 1933, Roosevelt appointed Henry A. Wallace United States Secretary of Agriculture in his Cabinet, a post his father, Henry Cantwell Wallace, had occupied from 1921 to 1924. Wallace had been a liberal Republican, but he supported Roosevelt’s New Deal and soon switched to the Democratic Party. During his stay as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture he had to order a very unpopular strategy of slaughtering pigs and plowing up cotton fields in rural America to drive the price of these commodities back up in order to improve American farmers financial situation.
Harold L. Ickes served simultaneously in several major roles for Roosevelt. Although he was the Secretary of the Interior, he was better known to the public for other roles in which he served simultaneously. He was the director of the Public Works Administration. Here he directed billions of dollars of projects designed to lure private investment and provide employment at the depth of the Great Depression.. Ickes’ support of PWA power plants put increased financial pressure on private power companies during the Great Depression.
Donald Richberg was Head of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) from 1934 - 1935. The NRA, symbolized by the blue eagle, was popular with workers. Businesses that supported the NRA put the symbol in their shop windows and on their packages. Though membership to the NRA was voluntary, businesses that did not display the eagle were very often boycotted–making it seem to many mandatory for survival.
The words on the cartoon’s artist palette: “SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! Under the guise of recovery-bust the government-blame the capitalists for the failure-junk the Constitution and declare a dictatorship.”
Sound all too chillingly familiar?
Notice the figure of Stalin off to the side, stating “How red the sunrise is getting” and the words “It worked in Russia!”
In 1934, it was the middle of the Great Depression, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House. In 2009, the world is in a recession experts say will lead to a Depression worse than the one in the “dirty 30s”.
Americans hitting the streets in tomorrow’s Tax Day Tea Parties can take heart in knowing that their forbears have been there before. They came through the Great Depression and survived the arrogant politicians of the day.
And the people who survived the Great Depression are the parents and the grandparents of the very Americans who will be out in force tomorrow.
Surviving President Roosevelt took some doing. Surviving President Barack Obama, a mere knock-off of the original, and a George Soros puppet to boot--should be a walk in the park.
And just to think Obama’s cult thinks “The Messiah” is being original.
On Not Understanding Capitalism or Liberalism
Supporting Capitalism over SocialismBy Alan Caruba
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Not long ago, Rasmussen Reports conducted a national telephone survey and asked “American adults” if they believe capitalism is “better” than socialism. I found it disturbing that only 53% responded that they did.
That is a very bare majority of Americans who think capitalism is a better economic system than one essentially controlled by unelected bureaucrats, no matter where it’s found.
Fully 20% thought socialism is better and 27% weren’t sure.
It turns out that age has a lot to do with your attitude about capitalism. Adults under 30 were evenly divided. “Thirty-somethings,” Rasmussen reported, “are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.”
Republicans by a margin of 11-to-1 favor capitalism. Democrats are more closely divided with just 39% favoring capitalism, while 30% favored socialism. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% preferred capitalism while 21% favored socialism.
I have no proof of this, but I suspect that most Americans would have some measure of difficulty defining the differences between capitalism and socialism. One of my favorite definitions is by Winston Churchill who said that “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Back in the 1940s, Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party candidate for President, said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened.”
If Thomas were alive today, he would no doubt take a great deal of pleasure in Social Security, Medicare, and other “entitlement” programs that constitute a third or more of the nation’s annual budget. They are not voluntary.
The problem all such programs are encountering is that they are going broke. As the demographics of the nation change, we are running out of a younger, working population for the support of older ones. Europe has long since arrived at this point.
The irony is, of course, that capitalism is the only system that has a built-in motivation (called risk) for people to start new businesses, employ others, and strive to grow and succeed. America is one long story of such entrepreneurship, of venture capital looking for the next new idea, new product, or new service.
Capitalism also caters to the most inherent attribute of humans; greed. What is always overlooked, however, is the way wealth, once acquired, finds expression in philanthropy. Countless worthy causes in the arts, health, scholarships, aid to the less fortunate, et cetera, flourish because of private giving. And there is much to be said for inheritance; the right to pass on one’s wealth and property to one’s family.
Thus socialism is counter-intuitive to how humans organize themselves, their lives, and their societies.
As former President Ronald Reagan put it, “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.”
As we close in on April 15, the date your income tax payment is due, the power of governmental coercion becomes quite evident. It is also the day this year that nearly two thousand “Tea parties” will be held around the nation to protest the tripling of the nation’s deficit, the proposed increases in taxation, along with the wastefulness of so much of what passes for government spending.
The Unconstitutionality of “Bailouts”There needs to be another item on the Tea Party agenda. It is the fact that the “bailout” monies disbursed to General Motors and to a variety of banking, investment, and the huge AIG insurance company are totally in violation of the U.S. Constitution that forbids government choosing what enterprises will be allowed to continue or fail.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano warns against this in his most recent book, “The Revenge of Dred Scott.”
“The Constitution does not repose in the Congress the power to bail out individuals or private industry; Bailouts violate the equal protection doctrine because the Congress can’t fairly pick and choose whom to bail out and who to let expire; they violate the General Welfare Clause because they benefit only a small group and not the general public; they violate the Due Process Clause because they interfere with contracts already entered into; and they turn the public treasury into a public trough.”
Now consider this: This year’s bailout, stimulus, and other spending binges have obligated future generations of Americans to $12.8 TRILLION in debt, according to a recent Bloomberg study. Meanwhile, Congress and the Obama administration are poised to impose a bogus “climate change” program that could cost $3 trillion and regulate every aspect of our lives.
America is at a critical turning point and it must, if it is to have any future whatever, turn away from this profligate and very liberal use of the public treasury, combined with the baseless “cap-and-trade” program of carbon credits that will cripple what economy is left.
Socialism aka liberalism, as it is currently being put into effect by the Congress and the White House, prevents the failures that are necessary for the correction of bad management and bad judgment.