- Special Sections
I thought this week instead of commenting on current events, I would take a crack at an upcoming future event. Donâ€™t get me wrong, there are plenty of current events to discuss; I just know this one is coming and I want to go ahead and get a jump on it.
At some point in the future, and knowing The Obama Iâ€™m going to guess it will be fairly soon, The Barack is going to start defending socialism (I mean more than he already is). There are a lot of reasons this is going to happen, but the two main ones are first, itâ€™s at the heart of all his big government programs, and secondly, itâ€™s (socialism) the method heâ€™s using to get control of our day to day lives and economy.
By the way, I donâ€™t think The Barack is really a socialist. In my opinion he has just decided to use a socialist program to achieve his real goals, which include, but are by no means limited to, gathering as much power and control into federal government hands as possible. Since instituting socialism is the best peaceful way to make that happen, down the socialist rabbit hole we go.
Before you say â€śthatâ€™s pretty dumb, no one, including The Barack, could possibly defend socialism in the United States and get away with itâ€ť, let me lay out a few things and see if they seem familiar.
Although there are a lot more people in the U.S who would be okay with an outright socialist platform than you would think, they are at least for now in the minority, so the defense of the socialist agenda is going to have to be labeled something else. One way it could be, actually has been phrased by The Obama himself is â€śWhen you spread the wealth around, itâ€™s good for everybody.â€ť I donâ€™t know if you consider that a short description of socialism or not, but for me, it will do until a better one comes along. That quoteâ€™s not taken out of context either. It was a direct answer from The Barack to someone (Joe the plumber) who asked him a direct question. Since The Barack seldom ever has to answer a direct, pointed question about his intentions or policies from the normal main stream media, Iâ€™m going to assume Joe the plumber caught him by surprise (I'm sure the left would think of it as "ambush reporting"). Apparently, when put on the spot by an actual, pertinent question, he answered (there was also no teleprompter present) before he could remember to put the right spin on his response.
The way The Barack, and his minions are going to â€śdefendâ€ť socialism is by attacking capitalism. Since the Department of Education hasnâ€™t quite managed to turn all of our citizens into undereducated liberals (mainly because they havenâ€™t been doing it long enough), the attack on capitalism will be dressed in the clothes of "equality, human kindness, and compassion". After all, it sounds a lot better to say that you are going to help a group of people rather than to say you're going to lower the standard of living for everybody else who isn't in the group you are planning to "help".
Just as an aside, there are plenty of groups out there who are present, ready, and willing to be the people on the receiving end of government largesse. An excellent case in point would be the occupy wall street movement. They aren't waiting for The Barack to get around to the "spread the wealth around" stage, they are demanding their cut right now. This isn't a column about the OWS movement (I've already published a couple of those) but if the shiftless cretins who represent themselves as the "ninety-nine percent" are the best our schools and universities can do, we are in a lot of trouble (see once again all the arguments I have made for abolishing the Department of Education).
Oddly, while there are a lot of people who would like to get all the government help (money) they can, other than a few oddballs like Warren Buffet, there aren't many individuals or groups of people volunteering to pay for all of this. That's why the defense of socialism has to be an actual attack on capitalism. This isn't some ideological argument over a dusty old principal that doesn't really make a difference. We have reached a point where the government (under The Barack) intends to confiscate more and more treasure from people who have it, so they can give it to people the government thinks deserve it more than the people it belongs to. I wonder how the people who tell me they don't vote or get involved in politics are going to feel when their tax rate goes up fifteen percent or more? I bet they will start whining and complaining to anybody who will listen that "somebody should do something about this".
Anyway, back to the attack on capitalism. One of the favorite ways for the left to try and show how "bad" capitalism is, is for them to find a laid off worker somewhere and get them to tell their story about how they worked hard for years and suddenly they have no job, and can't find another. Seriously, do you think it's possible to get the whole story about why someone is unemployed after "years of faithful labor" in a fifteen second sound bite? Most of the time, when the evening news flashes through some story quickly, it's just the nature of how network news works. However; in cases like this, I think they do it on purpose so they can intentionally leave out large chunks of information. After all, if Kim Kardashian were to start a new wardrobe line, or get married again, they would and do spend a lot of time on those types of stories. So if they can get you the "full" story about some meaningless reality "star", what is preventing them from digging up the whole nitty-gritty about job layoffs? I think the reason they stick with the emotional â€śfrontâ€ť of these stories rather than the economic background is because a lot of layoffs are caused by government regulations, and union rules. We couldnâ€™t have that information going out to the public on the old nightly news, it might embarrass The Barack.
When these "drive by" stories about the effects of a down capitalist economy go by, the implication is, or sometimes they just come out and say it, that the capitalist system is cold, cruel, and heartless. The further implication, or again sometimes just stated, is that it should be replaced with something more "compassionate", and by golly, the federal government is standing by ready to step in.
So let's see, a capitalist system allows you to work and earn anything you are capable of getting to the limit of your own abilities but the socialist system takes what you manage to earn away from you and gives it to someone who doesn't use their abilities as well as you do (or at all). Hmmm, can you see why even now The Barack has to defend socialism by attacking capitalism?
One more quick point about this coming â€śdefenseâ€ť of socialism. Even if The Barack didnâ€™t think defending socialism was a good campaign strategy (and he does), he has hitched his wagon so firmly to intrusive big government (and I must mention overspending), that he really has no choice. Romney is about to â€śbeat him to deathâ€ť with the socialism stick, and the only way to defend himself against that is to attack, attack, attack.
So now we have The Barack, who supports abortion, in nearly any form so firmly that it is one of the few things he had an actual record on before running for President, and has also just â€ścome outâ€ť in support of an attack on traditional marriage, about to go after the economic principles (capitalism and work ethic) our very nation is founded on. Doesnâ€™t all of that just give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.