While you were out celebrating, the fires of liberty were being extinguished, no doubt on the principle of “yes we can”.
The U.S. Congress, abetted by Obama, has passed a Bill that means you can be arrested, thrown in jail, “questioned” for any reason or no reason at all. You don’t have to be charged with anything. Don’t waste time asking for your lawyer – or anyone else. They don’t have to allow it, any more than they need read you your rights or provide any evidence.
And I might add that they also feel they have the right to do much the same thing anywhere in the world – to you or me. All this brings to mind nothing so much as the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin’s Purges and Hitler’s Germany.
My friend Andy Owen sent me a parable which may be made up to attack Obama on the laughable grounds that he is socialist – but which bears thinking about.
Allegedly an economics professor at a local college announced that although he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment on this”. Everyone agreed.
“All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade, so no one will fail and no one will receive an A:.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset. The students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, had studied even less. And the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so reduced their efforts too. The second test average was a D.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings – and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
From, this the following was concluded
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for, without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I do not think Obama is a socialist. I think he is, like almost all politicians, something of a shit. Recently, in an effort to curry favour with the right, he has backtracked on his promise to introduce a more humane immigration plicy.
In fact more people are being deported and families being torn apart under his legislation than were under Bush.
Is this communism or socialism?
I don't think socialism precludes people being successful does it? It just tries to ensure the weakest are protected. Which is not unreasonable.Equally absurd would be to attack capitalism on the grounds of a parable whereby the kids who got As were allowed to eat at the school canteen and see the school nurse and the kids who did not were just left to rot in a cupboard. The conclusions are reasonable. The means of deduction, in my humble opinion are not.
Obama, like Bush, tried to introduce a humane immigration policy, but failed. But he must also allow border controls to strengthen. This way, Obama can win opposing sets of votes, from both left and right. He would be a pretty poor politician if he lost votes by doing anything else. If his balance is too far right and is perceived by Latinos as being anti-immigration, he will probably lose the next election.
“I do not think Obama is a socialist. I think he is, like almost all politicians, something of a shit.” That one gave me a good chuckle.
You could add #6.) Since the government is not a profit or loss institution it has no way of calculating the relative scarcity or abundance of resources … (see socialist calculation debate in Marx's day.)
Drayton,
When Obama was first elected you could not stop singing his praises. I blogged on your site that he was a shit, a crook, has been sponsored by the mob, was a far left socialist and totally untrustworthy. So it has taken nearly four years for what was bloody obvious to finally sink in.
Tony Rezko, a major contributor, convicted of 16 counts of fraud,
Chicago Mayor Daley who ran the corrupt patronage system, Emil Jones, another involved in the patronage scandal, John 'followed' by his son Todd Stroger, Alexi Giannoulias mafia banker, Ted the murdering cowardly drunkard Kennedy, Rev Wright and not forgetting his moral compass Father Michael Pfleger who threatened to snuff out a shopkeeper were/are all supporters of Obama the shit.
Oh, and I haven't started on the first Lady's record.
Whatever we think of any politician the 5 points identify key things wrong with UK plc; too many people doing too little to contribute to the country and the cost of supporting the feckless is crippling the rest. So people who really need support get too little and the people who can't be arsed get too much.
I am merely passing on a parable sent by Andy Owen. Having experienced the undiluted joys of democratic socialism under Attlee, Wilson and Callaghan (I don't count Blair, who is just an opportunist) I am not too keen on it. Among other things 98% tax rates for the very successful encouraged widespread cheating. Anyone who has seen the results of twenty odd years of “you can't fail” education in Britain – a generation of illiterate, innumerate unemployables – knows the parable has strong elements of truth.
I am not sure that bringing in my friend George Smith adds much to the argument. What does an “executive creative director do, by the way?
There is little difference between Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism and Fascism. They are all totalitarian regimes where the government controls all. The difference between the four is simple – How much of the means of production are directly controlled by the government?
In Communism it’s 100%
In Fascism, it’s 0%
But both are still controlled societies where the state is God.
Regarding whether President Obama is a socialist, a communist or simply a shit, he is not an American. He does not understand American principles or English Common law. Otherwise, he would realize there is Rule by Law, not Rule by his magic pen.
Not going to get involved much further here. The US constitution seems to be constructed in such a way that it’s very hard to get anything done.