Daily news sites: Socialism| Find Breaking World News

Home » Socialism

Tampilkan postingan dengan label Socialism. Tampilkan semua postingan

Breaking News: A new Washington blockbuster is set to debut Friday

By James H. Shott

From the people who raised your moral outrage with "Fast and Furious," drove your anger to fever pitch with "Negligence in Benghazi," and left you scratching your head with "Wasting Billions Again in Green Energyville," comes a new, even-bigger blockbuster that threatens to unleash mass chaos across the land: "The Attack of Sequestration!"

Sequestration is a predetermined set of mandatory cuts to defense and domestic spending totaling $965 billion over the next 10 years. The first round of $85 billon automatically takes effect March 1, unless our elected leaders, the stewards of our government, get busy this week.

There is a great deal of political Tomfoolery associated with this looming event, such as the myth that sequestration represents actual cuts to federal spending — it doesn't. The $965 billion total and the $85 billion for this year represent reductions only in budget increases, not cuts in spending. And even if Congress does not stop sequestration, the federal government will spend $2.14 trillion more in 2022 than it does today.

Then the idea that something so tiny in a federal budget so bloated as ours will be calamitous is just silly. The spending for 2013 is estimated at $3.55 trillion — which is $3,550 billion — and $85 billion is just pocket change. In fact, since the fiscal year is already nearly half over, the damage will be less than that.

And then there's President Obama's idiotic scare tactic that teachers, first responders and other important workers will be laid off. As all informed Americans know, school teachers, fire fighters and police officers are state and local employees, not federal workers, so their jobs won't be directly affected by the sequestration, although cutbacks in programs sending money to the states might have an impact.

Over a 10-year period sequestration would reduce proposed spending increases by about 2.5 percent. In practical terms, that means instead of having $100 to spend, government would only have $97.50, a tough situation, perhaps, but certainly not a catastrophe. And given the enormous and dangerous national debt facing us, it's a sacrifice our public servants will just have to cope with.

The president would have us believe that not only was sequestration the idea of Congressional Republicans, but that he was totally against its development. Both assertions are false. According to author Bob Woodward in his recent book "The Price of Politics," the origins of sequestration rest comfortably with then-White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew (he’s the guy Mr. Obama has nominated to run the economy at the Treasury Department) assisted by then-White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors, and was approved for presentation to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid by President Obama on July 27, 2011. Mr. Woodward referred to Lew and Nabors as "probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government," which explains a lot about why we are where we are.

This is no small point. The president has a penchant for laying the blame for his failures on the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress. He cannot run away from this one.

As for the president's strong opposition to the immensely flawed concept, here is what he said on the subject in November of 2011: “Already, some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts – domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.”

President Obama either has one of the worst memories of anyone to inhabit the office, or simply does not like the truth.

Clearly, even though the "cuts" the Obama sequestration imposes are too small, given the scope of our fiscal crisis, it is a clumsy tool that cuts spending indiscriminately. Typical of the administration's planning, it was poorly thought out, and was designed as a mechanism to bludgeon Republicans to agreeing to even more tax increases than they agreed to last year.

Because it is a rip saw where a surgical laser is needed, sequestration can do serious damage, but it does not have to. Department heads and military service chiefs should have full discretion to apply cuts where they will do the least harm, something that should not be difficult to accomplish by people dedicated to working to sensibly reduce over-spending.

Vast areas of waste and duplication have been well documented, and total at least twice the amount of this year's cuts. And there are truckloads of failed government programs and projects – like Head Start, putting a muzzle on the Environmental Protection Agency, and doing away with SWAT teams carrying out the work of the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies that have no business using that kind of force.

Of course, this solution assumes that the elected leaders of our government start doing what is good for the country instead of what benefits them politically. And now is the time for the President of the United States to stop campaigning and finally show some real leadership.

Cross-posted from Observations

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists." This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:

"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)

As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past. The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection. Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past. Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*

Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built. Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:

The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse

Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:

"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)

"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)

Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity. What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth." This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God. It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding. That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq. But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view. It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:

"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)

The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States. That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands. This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views. One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God. The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power. This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around. Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek). At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole. They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers. They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat. For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted. The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center. This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Happy New Year! Attention Washington: fix our spending problem

By James Shott

As last week came to a close the nation was peering over the edge of “Fiscal Cliff” with only a few days left to fix the problem, and it seemed likely that nothing more would be done before 2013 arrived.

Nearly everyone likes to celebrate holidays, but when there is a crisis afoot, the people whose duty it is to address that problem are expected to make the appropriate sacrifices and do their job. Finding that your house is on fire, you expect the fire department to respond to your call. You don’t expect to be told, “sorry, but all firefighters are taking the holiday off.”

Where the fiscal cliff is concerned, the public servants we pay to responsibly run our government have put that priority behind others they consider more important. They went home for the holiday, or to Hawaii.

President Obama tells us over and over how the policies of conservatives and Republicans are responsible for "getting us in this mess." But that is wrong: what got us in this mess is decades of irresponsible and improper spending and taxation. It has not always been like it is today, and we are the victims of wrong-headed policies from those public servants.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D), retiring Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, told the National Press Club recently that raising both spending and taxes really should not be a problem, when viewed as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP). He noted that since 1969 the budget has been balanced five times and tax revenue was around 20 percent of GDP each of those times, and that the budget has never been balanced at the historical level of 18 or 18.5 percent of GDP, the level many Republicans favor.

Spending for Fiscal Year 2012 exceeds 22.9 percent of GDP, according to the 2012 edition of “Federal Spending by the Numbers.” In the past 20 years, federal outlays have grown 71 percent faster than inflation, and the average American household’s share of this spending is $29,691, or roughly two-thirds of median household income. Federal spending is projected to continue increasing at this rate, pushing total government outlays to $5.5 trillion a decade from now, and to about 36 percent of GDP in the next 25 years. To quote Mr. Obama: “That’s irresponsible. That’s unpatriotic."

Sen. Conrad is a fiscal hawk that sensibly advocates balance between revenue and spending, a philosophy that would eliminate the annual budget deficits the Obama administration loves. But like so many of those in Congress and in the administration, he accepts the current levels of both spending and taxation as appropriate. They are not only inappropriate, but are eight times higher than the average level over the first 130 years of our history.

Dean Kalahar, economics teacher and author of Practical Economics, explains that from 1787 to 1849, federal spending averaged 1.7 percent of GDP. For the next 51 years, from 1850 to 1900 (including fighting the Civil War) spending averaged only 3.1 percent. And from 1901 till 1930 (including fighting WWI) it never reached 8 percent, and averaged approximately 3.2 percent.

During the height of the progressive movement, including FDR's New Deal, federal spending never exceeded the 1934 level of 10.7 percent. And even though as WWII raged and spending shot to 43.6 percent of GDP, four years later it had fallen to 11.6 percent. For 130 years of our existence, federal spending averaged around 2.5 percent of GDP, says Mr. Kalahar.

That level of spending was close to what the Founders had in mind for their limited government. But it has grown incrementally, as politicians abandoned constitutional limits and today this statist, socialistic philosophy has moved us toward fiscal collapse.

Mr. Kalahar understands what public servants and many, perhaps most, Americans do not: Government spending is taken directly out of the pockets of the people, or out of the economy. “Every dollar consumed by our profligate government is one less that could fund productive advancement in the private economy,” he wrote. “Every dime needlessly spent by government comes at the cost of efficiency in moving scarce resources to their most valuable use.”

What that means in simple terms is that if left alone, the private economy will most often cruise along comfortably, repair itself when necessary, and the genius of Americans will produce an expanding economy that benefits us all.

“The just and proper fiscal balance is to give the state what it needs to protect you and your property while at the same time protecting you and your property from the state,” he wrote. “Looking at the low historical trends that allowed this great nation to lead the world into prosperity would be a good place to start an honest debate in determining federal spending. A good rule of thumb would be to give half of what the politicians ask for.”

And, as economist Walter Williams reminds us about federal spending, "If 10 percent is good enough for the church, it ought to be good enough for Congress."

As we have incrementally increased spending as a percent of GDP, now we must begin to incrementally return to the spending level before 1930.

Cross-posted from Observations

Obama the Socialist, or Is He? Listen to the Voice of One Who Knows...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

at the 44th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival

Every so often we have our views called into check. Whenever this happens the wise person considers the perspective, as well as the experiences of the person calling the entrenched views into check. In doing so one learns and therefor grows. At least that is how it should work.

Milos Forman, the immigrant from Czechoslovakia who later won Academy Awards for best director for the films “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”, provides just such a check for America. He clearly, and accurately describes American politicians misunderstanding of totalitarianism and western European democratic socialism in his July 10th op-ed piece in the New York Times .

He ends the article with a very poignant warning. Mr. Obama, and politicians of both major parties, as well as every American citizens ought to consider his words... and warning.

The New York Times - WHEN I was asked to direct “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.

The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.

Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

My sister-in-law’s father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn’t stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.

A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.

Skip

Whatever his faults, I don’t see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation. Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government — into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. It’s fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers: America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. But let’s be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.

Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia’s streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.

I’m not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was. It was not — as Mr. Obama’s detractors suggest — merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise: it was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of “social justice.”

Skip

I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing. All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country. Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse. {The Entire Article}

Indeed wisdom is increased through the recognition of truth as well as having the ability to understand and accept it as truth. President Obama has many failing, he has shown he does not have the answers to our national problems, his solutions have created more questions than answers, he has a vision vastly different than many, perhaps the majority of Americans, but as Mr. Forman has aptly pointed out the President is not what the right has painted him to be.

Via: Memeorandum

Daily news sites

Contact :

Histats

Breaking News: A new Washington blockbuster is set to debut Friday

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

Happy New Year! Attention Washington: fix our spending problem

Obama the Socialist, or Is He? Listen to the Voice of One Who Knows...

Bitcon Trading

Postingan Populer

Blog Archive