"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"

"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"
aka "Miss Victory"

Thursday, October 30, 2008

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A MARXIST?


boblonsberry.com
10/29/08
Bob Lonsberry

In 2001, Barack Obama said he saw aspects of Nazi Germany in American society and government.

He also said the U.S. Constitution was fundamentally flawed.

And that he was disappointed that the Supreme Court had not ordered federally administered financial equality as part of the civil rights movement.

He also called for a political coalition to be formed that would force "redistributive" policies on the American people - using the power of government to equalize wealth across the society.

In 2008, that political coalition is about to take power.

It's called Obama '08.

And more surprising than the fact that a candidate for American president should harbor these political views is that nearly half the people in the country don't see any problem with them. The fact he holds such anti-American views is attributable to his own particular history and values. The fact tens of millions of people can be taken in by such views is attributable to a social and educational system that has failed to teach a love of country and an understanding of its unique history and values.

Unfortunately, we have raised a generation - and a candidate - steeped in Karl Marx instead of John Locke.

Karl Marx was a German philosopher of the middle 1800s who believed that property should be communal, that the money and labor of everyone should be thrown into one government-controlled pot and then passed back out to people based on their need.
He said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

His teachings are the foundation of Communism and the governments of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba. He inspired Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung.
John Locke was an English philosopher of the late 1600s. He believed that people were only free if they were economically free. If you are not free to control the fruits of your own labors, then you are not truly free - you are a slave to whoever can take possession of what you produce.

His philosophy was, "Life, liberty and possession of property."

His teachings are the foundation of the government of the United States of America. He inspired Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, various other Founding Fathers, Voltaire and Rousseau.

Nowhere are John Locke's teachings better encapsulated than in the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere are Karl Marx's teachings better repudiated than in the Declaration of Independence.

Karl Marx taught that the individual is inferior to the state. John Locke taught that the individual is superior to the state. Karl Marx preached the collective will. John Locke preached the individual will.

Karl Marx called for central planning and control of society and its members. John Locke called for a society comprised of members planning and controlling their own lives.
The philosophies of Karl Marx and John Locke are mirror opposites. They are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive.

The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution for our Republic that reflected, among other things, the values of John Locke. The supporters of Karl Marx have, for some 150 years, been the enemies of America and its Constitution.

The Constitution is the core of America. It is both the agreement that binds the states together and the rulebook that defines what this country is. It includes a Bill of Rights that guarantees liberties - listed and unlisted - to American people as individuals.

When people go in the Armed Forces - or become presidents of the United States - they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.

It does not seem that Barack Obama could honor that oath.

If he considers the Constitution fundamentally flawed, and his own personal views contradict its very nature, how can Barack Obama uphold and defend it? How can a man who sees parallels with Nazi Germany in American society possibly love this country?
Barack Obama said that he believes the Supreme Court has the power to control all property in the United States and order its redistribution equally to everyone in the country. That means he believes you don't have a right to your property, or to the money you earn. He believes the government can take that from you as it will, and parcel it out however it sees fit.

That's "sharing the wealth."

He also said that he wanted to organize a political coalition that would be - using his favorite word, again - "redistributive." At the very foundation of his political career and philosophy is the belief that government-guaranteed equal rights isn't enough, what really counts is government-guaranteed equal wealth.

The problem with that is that people are different. People have different talents, and work ethics, educations and ambitions. To assure equal outcome requires you to extinguish individual rights and opportunity.

When you guarantee that one citizen will not fail, you likewise guarantee that another citizen will not succeed. Without freedom to do the one, there is not freedom to do the other.

The Obama way is not the American way. The American way values individual freedom and encourages individual success. It honors self-reliance and recognizes that the government is our servant, not our master. It abhors tax slavery and considers that any man who takes another man's money is a thief.

In 2001, speaking freely on public radio, Barack Obama was a Marxist.

In 2008, playing word games on the campaign trail, Barack Obama is still a Marxist.
Shame on him.

And shame on a society so ignorant of its very nature that it neither notices nor cares.

11 comments:

bobisimo said...

I don't understand (and likely never will) how Obama's (and McCain's!) desire for social reform instantly becomes the most un-American, hardcore principles of Marx.

Obama says he wants to improve health care by moving in the direction of (not even a complete move) a single-payer system like Canada. It works well there. Our health care system is a joke.

In other words, Obama wants to take something that works elsewhere, re-configure it so that it might work here, and he's labeled un-American.

I could go on with other social reforms. I could go on with how McCain also wants to improve health care and reform other social services. But I have a feeling anything I say is going to be ignored - because, as Bob Lonsberry writes, Obama is a socialist.

Instead, I'll just say this to the Bob Lonsberry's of the world: how come Marx's quote is derided as un-American when its roots are in the Bible? Is the Bible also un-American? If you can say that Obama's efforts to reform social services are un-American, then I can say your resistance to health care reform is satanic.

Ha! :)

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

Here's the difference Bobismo.

In the socialist "spread the wealth money" is taken by force (taxation under threat of imprisonment) and not necessarily well managed.

In the bible scenario it is given voluntarily out love and directly to where the giver decides it needs to go.

As far as socialized medicine, I don't want anything to do with it. I don't want the government in charge of my medical care and I don't want more bureacracy than we've got.

If you want to know how bad it can be, look no further than Canada or the UK. Did you know that they are trying to push a bill through in Canada that makes it illegal to own vitamin C wihout a prescription?

This is telling of just how much control the lobbyists get for their greedy pharmaceutical companies once they get in bed with government services. Can you imagine why pharmaeceutical companies don't like vitamin and mineral supplements? I can.

And thanks for your comments. You are a thinker and your thoughts are most appreciated.

Downtown Indy said...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

It seems bobiso wrong.

bobisimo said...

If you want to know how bad it can be, look no further than Canada or the UK.

Hm. I think we can both agree that the US health care system needs reform. I think the issue of debate is whether we'd be better off letting the government handle it or not. And while I can wholeheartedly agree that it's really hard to trust the government to handle something so immense as the health care needs of hundreds of millions, well – you said it yourself: look to Canada.

I just moved back from the States after having lived there for a little more than seven years. Additionally, many in my circle of friends there are either doctors or work in the medical profession. One is even in pharmaceuticals. :) These relationships are in addition to the direct and one-off experiences I had with the system. So I can honestly say that I have looked to Canada! :) And it's been good.

There are flaws in the Canadian system, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that their system has a lot going for it over ours. I'm also saying that I like to think that the people of this country can find a way to make it work. At worst, anything has to be better than the US' current system for the average “Joe Six-Pack”.

There have been times where I pulled a muscle or watched a friend bend his collar bone and every time the local clinics or the hospital got us in and out with little waiting and with no cost or need to show ID or some kind of insurance documentation.

I hear complaints about dead-end waiting lists for transplants but a close friend of mine received two (kidney transplants).

Costs? I broke my finger twice - once in the US and once in Canada. Both times, my finger was X-Rayed. In Canada the damage was more extensive. I ignored it for a couple weeks, the bones fused together improperly, and a surgeon had to re-adjust them. Afterward, I had to go through rehab. In Canada, I paid $6 (for two sets of pain pills which I didn't even use). In the US, for much less, I paid a little over $100.

Government intervention can work. Countries like Canada have shown it.

The problem is that, with all this said, I don't really believe that McCain or Obama are going to greatly improve the situation, at least not in the short term.

I've looked at enough independent studies to have a feeling that the health care industry may be “better” than it is now under Obama instead of McCain, but that's not a certainty. And “better” likely isn't enough. We all have friends and family who aren't exactly well off and we know that a $2,500 Obama drop in cost (or a $2,500 McCain tax credit) isn't going to get them out there buying health care if they don't already have it. It makes it more affordable, it makes the level of care higher if they do buy in, but they're probably still going to try to live without it if they can to save money for bigger necessities, bills, etc.

Anyway, it's just disheartening to see both candidates trying to improve conditions for the American people in the way they best see fit – and seeing one of them consistently labeled un-American because of it.

As to the other point, Bill C-51 has a lot to it and I don't understand it well enough to really comment but I think it's inaccurate to say that Canada is trying to ban vitamin C. :) I'm not saying we shouldn't be wary of the pharmaceutical companies. You're dead on there. I just never witnessed anything or heard anything specifically worrisome in Canada. I was able to get vitamin C and any number of other vitamins and minerals at places like Wal-Mart or Superstore or GNC and so on. I was even able to get codeine over the counter – generic or name brand – which was awesome for the occasional extremely-bad headache. That's not going to change.

PS I like your site and I like the discussion. I appreciate you running this site and feel like I'm already learning a lot. I admit my views/experiences (pro-socialism) may be naturally off from the theme of the site (anti-socialism), but I like reading up on and engaging in conversation with people of dissenting views; I learn a lot, and that leads me to re-think issues and understand them more fully. I fully admit that a lot of my beliefs are based on personal or one-off experiences and, maybe, a tad too much idealism. :)

bobisimo said...

It seems bobiso wrong.

Ha. As if Cato is the be-all and the end-all.

"Cato is one of the most blatant examples of 'simulated rationality', as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion."

bobisimo said...

There was so much to respond to so I'm sorry if I had to make a few post submissions! :)

Here are my last two comments for now:

About the biblical origins of the Marx philosophy:

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)" and "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)"

So in other words, socialism.

Right? :)

A group of people (a government-like group) pooled their resources and then re-distributed them to others who needed them more. Except, it's even more than socialism; it's more like communism because it wasn't just a progressive tax, there was no property ownership at all. Everyone was to sell their own wealth so that it could be "parted them to all men, as every man had need."

I'm far from religious or any type of biblical scholar, but again... it just comes across as ironic - to me.

And back to John Goodman, I've read a bit of his comments and blog postings and I gotta admit he makes some sense.

However, I'm not recanting my prior comment; it's foolish to argue that we should ignore any kind of reform because there are imperfections in other systems.

I hold that the Canadian system is better than the US system. Although polling suggests that those who use the US and Canadian systems rate the respective systems roughly equal, the Canadian system covers everyone and is far more affordable to individual users. In other words, if you have the money to enjoy the US system, you'll get good care.

In Canada, we can leave out the "if you have the money" qualifier.

Anonymous said...

bobisimo,
.
Here's something to consider: I know many Canadians. I know of one in particualr who earns a similare salary to mine - his net pay is about 60% of gross. Mine is 80%, after I pay my health insurance.
.
So - please explain to me how the Canadian system is better? When I do the math, it would cost me over $20,000 more annually.
.
Now if you want to talk about people in the US who can't afford a health plan like mine, let's turn to a familiy member of mine with no insurance. Four months ago, they guy (in his mid fifties) started losing feeling in his legs. Within a week he couldn't walk and had excruciating back pain. He was taken to the ER and determined that he had a tumor in his spine. He had surgery two days later, and then three months of 24/7 re-hab (including 8 weeks in the hospital, 4 weeks in a rehab facility) and now has 3 outpatient rehab visits per week.
.
Those who say the poor and uninsured in the US have no healthcare are full of it. All they need to do is work within the system that's already provided.
.
Getting back to Canada, I had a retired Canadian relative who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The man payed his taxes all his life for "free" health care. When he was sent to the hospital, local hospitals were closing and reducing staff because of budget problems. He spent the first three days in a bed in a main corridor that was lined with patients who had no rooms. He finally became so vocal about paying all his life for a system that he never used, and was then cast aside in a corridor when he needed it, that the hospital finally caved and gave him a room.
.
The US mediacl system can definitely use improvement, but in a fee society, costly and tax-heavy socialist health care is not the answer. It's nothing more than an excuse to funnel tax money into the companies get the contracts to provide the care.

bobisimo said...

Here's something to consider: I know many Canadians. I know of one in particualr who earns a similare salary to mine - his net pay is about 60% of gross.

If you read my earlier posts in this thread, you understand that I know a lot of Canadians, too.

More than just "knowing" Canadians, however, I actually worked there for a little over seven years.

I don't know how much you earn, but I'll freely admit my income was in the $50K-$80K range, and my taxes were *not* 40% of my check (cheque)! And I'm not trying to weasel out on a technicality. I'm talking about *all* deductions. Every last one. I'm even throwing in my taxable parking benefit!

And the end result? My total deductions were about 27%. (I actually dug through old stubs to do the math to make sure.) And for that, I had *complete* health care. I'm even talking getting my wisdom teeth removed, fully covered.

Of course, if I earned less, my total deductions would have been significantly less.

If you want to see a chart detailing some facts, check this out:

Income Taxes in Canada

I'm sorry to hear about your specific example about one particular person who had a bad experience with the Canadian system. That honestly sounds awful to be shunted out into a hallway (hey, at least his health was accounted for!).

But I've never heard from anyone within my circle, or their circles, a complaint like that. Sorry, that's just how it is. I know there are flaws. I won't deny that. I know that it doesn't work for everyone. Stuff goes wrong. But it's overall a very nice system and the majority, according to polls, are satisfied. The reviews are positive.

Your comment does not convince me that the US brain trust couldn't make an even better system based off a Canadian-like model.

Anonymous said...

Bobismo - I know that we got into specifics about certain care options and how much it costs, but in reality, we're talking about the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how socialized medicine would be handled in the US.

Here's what it comes down to: I'm finance corporations A, B, and C. I look at the cost of social welfare in the US and I arrive at a figure - let's call it $1 Trillion per year. Hmmmm....

Since I only need $100 Billion in capital to loan the government $1 Trillion dollars, I can rake in $900 billion/year. Before interest on $1 Trillion.

So here's what I'm willing to do... I'll spend $1 trillion or more dollars in advertising, incentives, bribes, blackmail, and anything else that I can possibly do to get the government and the public to support my cause.

And in the end, I'll have the government make it law that the citizens will pay me my money. I won't have to chase down clients and healthcare any more. And to make it happen, I'm gonna help myself by underfunding health company's and by overcharging pharmaceutical companies. I'll make healthcare unbearable under current circumstances.

But i have the solution. For a few dollars more of everyones money, I'll be living large. And my folks in government will make sure that it happens. Government healthcare for everyone. And all of the profit to me.

And that, Bobismo, is why I'm fundamentally opposed to social medicine in the US. It's primary purpose hasd nothing to do with healthcare. It's the legally mandated/enforced transfer of money from the pockets of the people to the pockets of the ultra-elite - using healthcare as an excuse to make it happen.

I'm already indebted as a slave to pay off my countries debts to private corporations - for causes and establishments that have no Constitutional basis. I refuse to add to my burden for the sake of further lining someone else's pockets. My eyes are wide open. Are yours?

bobisimo said...

OK, now *that* is an argument I can comprehend. And I'm not going to argue against it. Why would I? You're making sense.

When people tell me that the Canadian system doesn't work for the people it irks me. And that's where I'm coming from. That's why I made all the posts I made above. And I stand by them 100%.

But to hear you talking about it from the other end, about corruption and working the system, about the rich trying to get richer and exploit the masses? Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that.

It worries me, too. I like to think on the level of an idealist - think that this is what we could accomplish for the people. But then... maybe the ends justify the means?

But you're completely right: there is a lot to worry about, there are a ton of hurdles to overcome, and decisions like this cannot be made lightly. For every noble cause a society can come up with, a single person with ulterior motives can ruin it. The question is: do we let them stop our evolution?

Anonymous said...

Bobismo - I like to think from an idealist perspective as well.

For example, in my ideal world, there would be no borders, no passports, and no militaries. We'd have a representative government with a series of states aligned under the freely elected and Constitutionally bound global leadership.

Within that world, free enterprise would exist, with regulation to assure that government and industry couldn't collude to collapse us like we're witnessing now. There would be distinct lines drawn between business and government, 100% transparent lobbying, and all violations would be held severely accountable.

The media would be allowed to have no affiliations with other industry or government. I'd even recommend that advertising be a separate medium from news reporting.

And I would recommend that anyone who earns over $2 million/year be required to pay 50% taxes. No loopholes. They would have no ceiling on earnings, but they would be required to contribute half, while continuing to live as royalty. That would increase the tax revenue exponentially.

With that we could pay for universal health care for the world.

And I would also eliminate all budgetary spending that requires interest bearing loans. The government would never be be-holden to private finance institutions in order to function.

But that's simply my utopian dream. In reality, the current system is at the mercy of private finance who charge interest and who rely on the flawed reserve capital system to generate funding. That's why a global system of finance will not help the world, but enslave it to the banks, whom we'd be repaying for generations to come.

Welcome to reality, bobismo. You and I seem to both be idealists. But the fact is, in the real world the shadows behind the throne are called banks. When the throne makes a decision, our current system put's money into the bank's coffers. The King knows that his power is derived by those in the shadows, and he pays homage in order to maintain the throne.

Therefore, Obama has promised a universal health and welfare system, and the shadows are rubbing their hands with glee.

It truly sucks. But that's the reality that we face. Ignoring it in hopes that all of the promises will be kept is like ignoring the fact that a man is standing behind you and threatening to put you in jail if you don't participate by paying your share - so that he can fill his pockets. That's how Universal Healthcare works. If you have some suggestions on stopping them, I'd love to hear them.