“What's wrong with a little Socialism?”

Yesterday, I met my liberal Democrat friend for our weekly breakfast, a tradition we have continued for many years. We talk family, friends, sports and, yes, even politics. Nothing has changed for decades, except he now has fruit and bran muffins; I have stuck with artery clogging fried eggs, up, toast (not whole wheat), high cholesterol breakfast meats and potatoes. He is lean and trim, and has had bypass surgery, I am overweight and disgustingly healthy. Life is not fair.

“So,” he said, chomping a dry muffin. “you must be impressed with the way that Obama has hit the ground running.” He flashed a wide grin, bits of muffin clinging on his lips, teeth and chin.

I nearly choked on a forkful of gooey egg, greasy bacon and starchy potato. “Impressed,” I said, swallowing a heart stopping load of food. “Impressed does not begin to describe my feelings.” I took a draught of my regular coffee, laden with cream and sugar.

My friend looked perplexed, and said, as he took a sip of his herb tea and honey, “What does that mean?”
I told him how appalled I am at the turn this country has taken since Obama's inauguration on January 20, just 4 weeks ago. As he looked on, shocked to discover that there was someone who was not riding a wave of euphoria. His reading of the New York Times and viewing of MSNBC and CNN lead him to believe that the entire country is on a post-inauguration high.

“It means,” I said, “that I am saddened and concerned to see our country make a 180 and head down the road of socialism.”

“So,” he said, “what's wrong with a little socialism? Capitalism has not done so well lately.”
My friend's sentiment is not unlike what many citizens and politicians are saying, or implying lately, sometimes even from the right. In normal times, just saying, “socialism” would be enough to end a political argument. But these are clearly not normal times, so let's take a stab at answering the question directly.

Simply put, socialism is a system where citizens are promised results, not just opportunity. Our Constitution promises the “pursuit of happiness,” but does not guarantee that any particular citizen will attain anything, but will not be restricted from pursuing any legal goal. Socialism preaches that every citizen has the right to certain entitlements, and the state endeavors to provide them to its citizens. Socialists believe that under capitalism, too much wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of too few, who then exploit the less privileged. Socialists advocate a more even distribution of wealth and power, “spreading it around,” to quote a recent Obama phrase.

Under the socialist ideal, effort is rewarded, regardless of results, and accumulation of wealth by a few is prevented, so that more may enjoy the benefits of what society has to offer. The sad fact is that often even a minimal effort is not required, and everyone gets entitlements, deserved or not.

So, what is wrong with wanting to make sure that all citizens are provided for, and that more can have a better lifestyle by taking from the overabundance of the privileged few?

The problem is that to implement socialism, basic freedoms have to be curtailed or abolished. For starters, socialism is built on government ownership or very tight control of industry and commerce. This means, obviously, that citizens' rights to freely pursue business opportunities are severely limited by the government. Property rights must also be greatly curtailed, and the personal accumulation of wealth abolished. The government becomes the arbitrator of who succeeds, and to what extent.

There are those, notably liberal Democrats, who argue that government can provide this oversight and regulation without impinging on freedom, and without autocratic governance. Unfortunately, there is not a single historical example where a democratic society and socialistic principles have co-existed.

So, to the point, what is wrong with “a little socialism?” Nothing, if you don't care about freedom and liberty.

George W. Bush - Last President of the United States of America

It was a good run – 216 years, 43 Presidents, 111 Congresses. The United States of America rose from a far-flung colony of Imperial Britain to the last superpower left. We won wars, hot and cold, with Spain, Barberry, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Mexico, numerous Indian tribes and other, lesser powers over the years. No country ever bore more faithful allegiance to freedom and liberty as did the USA. Although its tenure did not match the run of other long running nations, like the Roman Empire, the Chinese dynasties or Ancient Egypt, no country ever freed more people, or brought more peace or greater prosperity than did the brain child of the Founding Fathers.

But, now, sadly, it may be gone.

Historians will argue for years, centuries, perhaps, about what caused the demise, but they will mark the event with the cover of Newsweek magazine for February 16, 2009. The cover showed a handshake symbol, one hand red, one hand blue, with the headline shouting, “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.” The article celebrates the event, and even declares that the USA is now “French.”

I wonder if this means we will now ban the use of words other than English in commerce as does France with French. Maybe we can also look forward to riots, universal unions, anti-business laws, government mandated 35 hour work weeks, month long vacations, curbs on freedom of speech, and unfettered immigration. Oh, I guess we have that last part already.

Unfortunately, the November elections heavily favored those who want to end the system of capitalism spawned by the Founders. It is doubtful that they will change the name of our country, but everything they founded, even the national symbols are at risk. There has been a desire for changes in the National Anthem (too militant), the National Bird (too violent) and even the name (States have no rights).

There are those of you who read this that will say I am being rhetorical and overly alarmist, let me explain. The Founding Fathers understood that to achieve the benefits of a free market economy, basic freedoms had to be guaranteed. (These freedoms were not granted, but recognized as coming directly from the Creator.) First to be elicited were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Not a guarantee of happiness, just the right to pursue it as you wish.) Next, came the enumerated rights in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Without unfettered access to these basic freedoms, the promise of America can not be fulfilled. Now, to achieve socialism, some, or all of these freedoms have to be severely curtailed, or outright eliminated. The unwashed masses are persuaded to give up these God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for a social safety net, "justice" and promises of a better life. Whether these promises are realized or not, is up for grabs, because once the freedoms are ceded, they cannot be peaceably restored. The history of socialism is a series of failures, with not a single success story.

We are at a tipping point. If the American public falls for the empty promise of socialism, the Great American Experiment will be over, and the country known as the United States of America will cease to exist.

Then, George W. Bush will have been the last President of the USA.

Free Enterprise and Global Warming

Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times columnist, who has been pushing for higher gas prices for the last several years, is promoting a new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” No, the book is not about the oxygen bar at a ballerina convention. It is about, you guessed it, global warming, or “destabilizing climate change.” Proponents of global warming theories have had to change the branding because of recent scientific evidence that there is no warming actually occurring.

I confess I have not yet read the book, but I will, because Friedman’s last book, “The World is Flat,” was one of the most amusing books I ever read. Until his latest book makes it to a library near me, I will have to base my comments on hearsay, what Friedman himself says about his book. (Buying his he would not be Green.) Friedman seems to be an unassailable source, because on his website, Friedman proclaims himself to be “fearless, incisive, forward-looking, and rich in surprising common sense about the world we live in today.” I guess he forgot to mention modest.

He told David Letterman during his appearance on the show, that one of the chapters in the book is entitled, “China For A Day.” The concept is simple. If Friedman could become the tyrannical, human rights abusing dictator of the United States for just a single day, he could forever change the dynamic that underlies energy policy in the US. With an impish Robert Barone grin, Friedman says, “China for a day, but not two days.”

How reassuring!

It is an interesting notion. If we made Mahmud Ahmadinijad the dictator of the US for a day, we could forever end the threat of nuclear war. He would simply launch an all out nuclear war, thus replacing the threat of war with the reality.

But, back to the ballerina convention. Friedman is frustrated that the American public will not see the logic in his lifelong desire to see gas prices at $5 a gallon, at least. If the free market (UGH!) cannot establish and maintain that level, Friedman wants a tax to be levied to assure that gas will never again be cheap enough for people to actually be able to afford it. He reasons that prohibitively high prices for fuel will provide an incentive to move to greener sources of energy that cannot compete with gas on price.

No, I am not making this up. The only thing more remarkable about lusting after high gas prices is that the New York Times actually keeps running Friedman’s column. Maybe in New York City, nobody but cab drivers care about gas prices.

I am not a psychiatrist, but I can see that Friedman has a Freudian angst about free markets. In his mind, free market dynamics keeps getting in the way of what he calls “Geo-Greenism,” his name for the national energy strategy that will restore the competitiveness of the US, our image abroad, save the planet from overheating, make America “healthier, richer, more innovative, more productive, and more secure,” at the same time, bring a second perfect NFL season back to the Miami Dolphins. OK, I made the last part up, but as long as we are dreaming, why not?

His theory is that, if the US leads the way to higher energy prices, the world will see that we are not only geniuses, but are leading the revolution “with the first Green President and a Green New Deal, spurred by the Greenest Generation.” Maybe this should be called the Irish Revolution, but Friedman has coined a new word, ET, Energy Technology, for his next technological revolution.

The hitch in Friedman’s giddy up is that being Der Führer of the US for a day is not nearly enough to start his Green Revolution. He needs to be the Emperor of the World for an indeterminate period of time. Anything short of that, and it just won’t work. Because of free markets. There’s that term again, but if countries like India, and, oh, yeah, China, don’t decide to risk their economies, political stability and futures on unproven theories about green house gases, they will gain a tremendous competitive edge on those that do.

In fact, many countries will probably see a Green USA as an opportunity to gain on the big boys. The choice that Friedman offers is crystal clear, economic prosperity or Green. And, the bet is based on odds that have yet to be determined, since Al Gore decided that the debate over global warming was over.

Friedman’s proposition nicely sums up the frustration that all global warming – oops, climate change – advocates feel. When gas prices are too low to launch a revolution, it is difficult to convince people to pay more, when they can pay less. Friedman and other Green Revolutionaries do not understand this phenomenon at all. They also have trouble understanding why truck drivers prefer black coffee over a double mocha caffeine free latte with artificial whipped cream.

But, don’t worry, Friedman’s next book will deal with that. It is to be called, “Lukewarm, Watery and Sweet.” In it, the award winning author suggests that caffeine laden coffee be raised in price to $5 a cup. That will teach those truck drivers to do things right. Friedman just can’t trust free markets to get the job done.

Political Terrorism

There is another terrorist attack occurring in America, right under our very noses.

We know that the United States of America, and other democratic nations, are currently fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalists, who use terrorism as a tactic to further their agenda. But, right here at home, another group is also using terrorist tactics to get their way, and to impose their will on the American people. This political terrorism is even more insidious because it is being conducted by those in authority in our government. First, let's define what "terrorism" really is.

Terrorism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is:

(a) Policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; (b) the employment of methods of intimidation; (c) the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

Thus, logic and reason are thrown out, and strong arm tactics to force compliance are employed. Radical left wing Congressman Henry Waxman of California, has become a terrorist, using this definition. He has commissioned his staff to monitor, on a ongoing basis, the broadcasts of his perceived political enemies, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other with whom he does not agree politically.

Instead of attacking their ideas with ideas of his own, Rep. Waxman is resorting to using the power of his Oversight committee to harass and threaten his opponents, a policy intended to strike with terror those with whom he does not agree, the classic definition of terrorism. Government monitoring of free speech is one of the most basic violations of human rights. At its core, terrorism is a cowardly act, intended not to engage in meaningful dialog about substantive issues, but to prevail by fear.

Rep. Waxman is not alone in his cowardice, he is joined by a growing number of liberal Democrats, including Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durban, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, and others , who have given up trying to convince, and have decided to intimidate instead.

Will their totalitarian strategy work? Well, if history is any indicator, the American people eventually see through disingenuous political tactics and, above all, resent bullying. The country was founded by people who refused to bow to the King of the most powerful country on Earth at the time, and showed that the ideals of freedom and liberty can prevail over the dark forces of political terrorism.

Get the Story Straight

The hottest new story making the rounds is the saga of "reporter-blogger" Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private, who wrote gut-wrenching tales of abuse in Iraq. He had the readers of New Republic up in arms over stories of our soldiers ridiculing women disfigured by war, animal abuse and disrespecting ancient bones. Not that it takes much to get the ultra-left readers of New Republic up in arms anyway. But, there was one, teeny, tiny problem with Beachamp's reporting. It was lies. He admitted that he made it all up, or most of it anyway.

Using the Ratherian proposition, lefties excused the outright lies by saying that the kind of abuse that Beauchamp wrote about " and worse," is "probably happening in Iraq every day." You have to admire people who don't let a little thing like the truth get between them and their irrational beliefs. New Republic is upset that the Army is "short circuiting" its own attempts to get at the truth. Tsk tsk, what a shame, the US Army will not stand aside and let the editors of the New Republic check the story they have gotten wrong from the beginning.

The most important point of this story is not whether Beauchamp lied or didn't lie, and it is not even whether bad things are happening in Iraq. They probably are. They always do in war. The point is FOCUS. Those who are rabidly hoping for a major American defeat in Iraq, and the editors and writers of New Republic are among them, are using this kind of story to assist in the effort to lose.

Of course bad things are going to happen in war. Bad things happen every day on the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Dayton, OH and Chicken Bristle, KY. What the mainstream media does is to focus on these small events, and using Political Correctness and feel-good politics, get us to anguish over them. And, we do. I hate to be crass, but the whole Abu Ghraib incident should have been on the back of Section B once, not on the front page of Section A every day for weeks. When maniacal suicide bombers send themselves to Paradise, the Arabic word for "Hell," and take dozens of innocent lives with them, our friends at the New York Times and other radical papers, blame it on George Bush. You have also admire people who don't let logic interfere with their firmly held convictions.

All of this journalistic manipulation of the truth and putting agenda over fact, is for the simple purpose of changing the dialog. The big point here is, when you send brave and dedicated people out on a mission, risking their lives, you watch from afar, and stay focused on winning the war, not micromanaging their every move.

The New Republic piece was just this sort of story, designed to divert the American public's attention away from the real story, how the forces of freedom and liberty are slowly, but surely, overcoming decades, and centuries, of abusive, oppressive rule by blood thirsty tyrants in Iraq. It's very simple, win in Iraq, and a new way of life for Muslims in the Mideast ensues; lose in Iraq and new way of life for Americans may well ensue. One we will not like at all.