"The comedian's project is tentatively called "The Marriage Ref" and features celebrities, comedians and athletes who will judge couples in the midst of marital disputes while recommending various strategies to resolve their problems."
"If you’ve been following recent developments in the Netherlands, you’ll know that Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, is to be put on trial for offending Muslims. “Look at what you’re doing,” the sardonic Brit Pat Condell pointed out. “You’re prosecuting a man who is under 24-hour protection from attack by violent Muslims. Yet he’s the criminal for expressing an opinion.”
Quite. But, while Europe has a high degree of tolerance for intolerant imams, it won’t tolerate anyone pointing out that intolerance. It is not necessary for Minheer Wilders to be either jailed or forced into exile to conclude that the Netherlands, like many of its neighbors, has already conceded the key point - that Muslims now have the exclusive right to set the parameters of public debate on Islam. And, given that they don’t regard it as debatable at all, that means that the remorseless Islamization of Europe will continue and accelerate while the deWildered political establishment stands mute."
I’m a little confused here, folks. For the past two years Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Bar
ney Frank have howled at the very suggestion that any of their policies are in any way worthy of the “Socialist” label conservatives have given to them. The mainstream media, dabbling in a little labeling of their own, has ensured that any politician or pundit on the Right using the S-word in association with liberal Democrats or their campaign promises is quickly either deemed a “fear monger” or vilified for crossing some arbitrarily defined rhetorical line in the sands of public decency and courtesy.
It appeared obvious from the defensive and curt reactions liberals have always had to being called one that they understood it was indeed a negative thing to both be, and be called, a socialist.
But that was all before I read the latest copy of Newsweek, the nation’s second largest periodical, which proudly proclaims: “We’re all Socialists Now”!
Phwaaahhh? Really? Have things honestly changed that much from November when “socialist” was a detestable and condemnable tag to assign even to your worst political enemy? Maybe “socialist” is the new “metro-sexual”, a term that ought to bring shame to any real man called one, but becomes accepted as something tolerable, and even cool, because enough ignorant people use it to fit in.
The subtext of the article that followed in the provocative cover story of Newsweek (written by two of it’s most influential editors) can basically be summed up here in about forty words: “Remember all the hub-bub about socialism during the campaign? Turns out it is no big deal and is in fact basically a good thing that we have already been practicing for some time. So ease off the Democrats and support the ‘stimulus’ bill.”
Phew. That’s a load off my mind.
Now to be fair, the writers of this article did strive to give some hint of context as they gauged the pulse of American politics in 2009. They acknowledged that on social issues, we are still a strongly Center-Right society. Then once more at the very end of the piece there was some mention of the fact that, oh, by the way, the same European socialism we don’t have a big problem heading towards does kind of guarantee higher levels of unemployment and increased dependency on the federal government to provide things Americans have traditionally (and appropriately) been responsible for themselves.
But regardless, the fact remains: We’re in real trouble here,
No, the real disturbing thing about all of this is the fact that most of you reading this right now either don’t know or don’t care what socialism is, let alone what its implementation will mean for our immediate and foreseeable future. We’re missing the clear warning flares coming up from the European’s experience with Nanny-State socialism, so what hope is there really that people in this country would be able to internalize and conceptualize what a bigger Big Brother in the States would be like?
Because I’m legitimately interested in showing, not just telling, my fellow citizens some of the socio-political truths and realities I’ve been turned on to, let me briefly explain what is generally meant by the term “socialism” and how it applies to
The most fundamental and basic question to ask about any political and/or economic system is: What role will the government play in the lives of its citizens? For almost all of human history, the government, whether ruled by kings or oligarchies, was the sole granter of rights and unquestioned arbiter of all financial matters. All property belonged to those in power. There were no meaningful distinc
tions between “private” and “public.” Everything was done and bought and sold and fought for by the will of, for lack of a more Marxist word, the “State.”
A working definition of Socialism is, “A political theory advocating state ownership of industry; an economic system based on the state ownership of capital.” For the
Central to the socialist ideal is the idea of “central planning.” This means that “experts” in
Modern liberalism, its logical conclusion, is socialism. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Sean Penn and George Clooney, Keith Olbermann and Katie Couric all want the government to have a drastically-increased control over the American economic system. That means your livelihood, people. In the name of arbitrarily defined words like “fairness” and “equality” these painfully short-sighted, influential people seek to willingly relinquish the thing that generates enough wealth for their vacation homes and distinguishes the
In the Newsweek article the writers go on to say:
“People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.”
Alright, first of all, our addiction to foreign oil would instantly become a non-factor the moment these same Democrats in power now dropped the dog-and-pony-show and allowed domestic drilling. They’ve been foolishly blocking it since 1998 and ironically presented as evidence against drilling just this past summer that our own natural supplies would take a decade to have any real impact. Plus we get less than 15% of all our oil from the 
s other inventions.
However, the true problem at the heart of socialism is found in the implication of the second sentence in the Newsweek quote above: even the best among us is powerless to the destructively alluring promise of more free stuff.
Government entitlements have a narcotic-like addiction, creating instant dependency and ensuring that the 'giving' party is in a better position to remain in power. Federal bureaucracies and agencies never go away, no matter how wretchedly poor their performances may be. Benefits from Uncle Sam that our grandparents would have been insulted at even being offered are transformed in to “rights” that politicians, even conservative ones, feel pressure to protect and promote.
It appears that the argument many including Newsweek are making these days is that because government has grown (even under a Republican), that it should grow. This fails to take in to account that the average voter and taxpayer sadly doesn’t follow the complicated inner-workings of Washington to even know what is happening most of the time, and it attempts to justify liberal policies of increased spending and higher taxes by pointing to “conservatives” who legislate and lead like a liberal would.
So what do we need?
Lower taxes. Decreased spending. The cutting of un-Constitutional federal agencies. Accountability for corruption in government. A strengthened legal system and simplified tax code that punishes illegality and promotes efficiency. Common sense and first principles.
Most of all we need a change of heart and mind for the American people so that personal responsibility and civic duty are the cornerstones of our society, not class envy for those who have more and resentment for, and detachment from, those who have less. People are hurting right now in this country, but we can’t continue to put out our personal fires with the gasoline-drenched “aid” pandering politicians will always try and hand us.
Economic and political freedom go hand-in-hand and anyone who tells you otherwise or fails to act and vote accordingly is not your friend. He’s your comrade.
Being gracious winners, this week, liberals howled with delight at George Bush for coming in seventh-to-last in a historians' ranking of the presidents from best to worst.This was pretty shocking. Most liberals can't even name seven U.S. presidents.
Posts
All Comments
