Search This Blog

Saturday, October 18, 2008

I don't know Joe the Plumber BUT I've heard of Karl Marx

I know socialism when I see it and hear it. Barack Obama wants to turn us into the United Socialist States of America. Mark J. Perry explains why Socialism Failed (and will continue to fail). Here is an excerpt:

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!

I strongly encourage you to read the entire article, written in 1995 before any of us heard of Barack Hussein Obama. It explains why socialism has always failed and will always failed and, therefore, why Obama's plans for this country will do great damage to my country. Therefore I am dead set against Obama being elected on the basis of his political philosophies alone. But I believe that character issues take his possible election from the category of bad all the way to dangerous.

Let me tell you what I know about Barack Obama beyond the fact that he is trying to bring us closer to becoming a socialist society.

A family acquaintance who is a slam-dunk Democrat worked with Obama on one of his campaigns. He and his wife are both voting for McCain this year. Why? He said because "Obama is the worst man to ever run for President. He was a very rude, arrogant man of low moral character." This man prefers to not go into details but I believe it will be the first time he has ever voted for a Republican in his life! His experiences have reverbrated throughout his family, an Illinois family accustomed to automatically voting straight Democrat,

Barack Obama is a product of the Chicago Political Machine, who got him elected to public office in the first place and taught him how to play the dirtiest version of the game. The idea that he represents any kind of change other than a change in his pay scale and a change for the worse for America in general is laughable.

Obama has lied about his very strong ties to ACORN and continues to lie about it to this day. Obama has worked with them since the 1990's in one way or another, steered government monies to them, taken campaign funds from them, paid them to get out the vote for him in this election. Barack Obama is a liar on a consistent basis and one of the things he lies about is ACORN. If you don't know, ACORN is the organization that helped push democratic leadership to protect the Fannie/Freddie scam until the entire mortgage/banking system began falling apart.

Barack Obama did begin his political campaign in William Ayer's front room. William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette, are both unrepentant terrorists involved in bombings and murders from their Weatherman days. Ayers may have ghostwritten Obama's first book. Obama has tried to distance himself from Ayers recently but there are many ties there.

Barack Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a dedicated communist and anti-American who actually dedicated a book to Satan.

Barack Obama got a great deal on a piece of very expensive property while buying it in tandem with Tony Rezko, a crook who is in the news in Illiinois for various felonies. Business as usual in Chicago but sometimes people get caught. Rezko might have a part in bringing down the current Illinois governor.

Khalid al Mansour not only helped get Obama into Harvard, but may have paid a good part of his school bills.

Do I have to remind you that Obama went to a church where the Pastors (plural on purpose) teach hatred, racial politics and are blatantly anti-American? I don't even need to include links on this one, do I? Jeremiah Wright was once characterized by Barack Obama as his spiritual advisor and like family, like an uncle, before it was no longer politically expedient.

Obama was taking hundreds of thousands from Fannie/Freddie/Brothers and etc. and helped his Democratic brothers keep that train running while stifling John McCain's 2005 bill that would have saved us from this crisis. I went over this in great detail in an earlier posting.

Depending on the site, Obama is rated among the top five most liberal Senators and usually number one. Joe Biden is rated at number three on the list. To be the most liberal Democrat is to be a socialist and his programs are certainly socialist in nature.

Like Dick Armey said, Democrats say they love jobs, but they hate employers. Obama's ill-timed comment to "Joe the plumber" about spreading the wealth around was a slip that reveals where he is really coming from. Let me tell you, it didn't work in the Soviet Union and it won't work here.

While Obama may have beaten John Edwards and Hilary Clinton in the primaries, he may have more in common with both Edwards and Hilary (via her husband) than first thought...Vera Baker is being paid and was paid to go away and you have to wonder why? Barack Obama would not be the first Presidential candidate to have a loose cannon, so to speak. But if he is just another Chicago political animal, just another socialist who wants to grow government to run our lives, just a guy who loves terrorists and radicals and crooks, what's a little adultery thrown in?

The big problem at the end of the day is that, if the Barack ticket sweeps the nation, we will have possibly the most liberal Presidential team in the history of this nation with a veto-proof majority in both houses set up perfectly to go forward with their socialist agendas. There will be no limits on abortions whatever, even allowing for the stabbing death of a 95% born infant as long as one bit of his/her body has not yet left the womb. Wealth distribution/class warfare will be the theme of the economic policies. Government will take over medicine and dominate already troubled schools. More controls on our personal lives will be enacted. Small businesses will have trouble making money, large businesses will move overseas or south of the border and it may be that the beginning of a totalitarian form of government will be traced back to the first Obama administration.

Am I an alarmist? Yes! Let me tell you something, I was in the middle of a motel fire once and I awoke to discover that fire was all around me. Smoke obscured my view, but I grabbed the other person in the room and carried her out through the fire and smoke and then began banging on doors to wake people up and get them out! I woke up the manager and made him mad at first for disturbing his peace - until he saw that his business was on fire! He then immediately called the fire department. I saw that place burn to the ground but not one person was seriously hurt in that fire, in part because I was the first one to wake up but in part because I took action and warned everybody of the danger. I am doing the very same thing now.

WAKE UUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPP! Barack Obama is a dangerous man who will do great damage to this country if he is elected. WAKE UUUUUUUUUUUPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ted said...


Anonymous said...


Please explain in what way you think Obama's platform is socialist. You present no indication of how or why you think that is the case; instead you just trot out the usual list of right wing talking points that have nothing to do with socialism.

Next, compare and contrast with the Bush years. I think it'll be hard for anyone to top that in terms of expanding government, even Obama if he were given a veto-proof majority (which I doubt he'll get).

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

So, Radar, I've noticed you have decided to start to refer to Obama using his middle name. I've noticed that many conservative bloggers use Obama's middle name but not McCain's. Why is that?


Anonymous said...

Radar's post is actually a rather neat encapsulation of what the McCain/Palin campaign is reduced to at this point: bereft of a positive message for their own candidates and platform, it's all fear mongering, innuendo, smears etc. You have to wonder if some of these people even know what "socialism" actually means. I saw a McCain supporter somewhere proclaim that taxing one person and then giving that money to another was "socialism". I look forward to Radar's enlightened commentary on the subject.

Pity. McCain could have been better than this, and actually has been better than this. His biggest unforced error was the Palin pick, as it both deprived McCain of the "experience" talking point (imagine if, say, he'd picked Romney and were running "no experience" ads against Obama from the RNC onwards - Palin was an astoundingly generous gift to the Democratic party) and put McCain on the defensive - Palin's stunning ineptitude has turned her into someone who has to be shielded from all but the most friendly media sources, making Dan Quayle look like an elder statesman in the process.

Cuts in capital gains tax and trickle-down economics don't go over so well these days, and so McCain is reduced to smear, baby, smear. Palin will be a shorter blip than Dan Quayle in the political history books.

Look forward to returning to YEC/evolution arguments on Nov. 5th, your health permitting.

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

About your hotel fire story:

He then immediately called the fire department.

By an odd coincidence, I was reading about the fire departments of Ancient Rome not too long ago.

The most famous one was run by a private citizen named Crassus. Whenever a building caught fire, he'd go out with a brigade of trained slaves and offer to buy the building from the owner at a deep discount. (Obviously he'd offer less and less money as the fire progressed.) He'd also offer to buy neighboring buildings that were at risk of catching fire. Once he'd bought up what he could, he'd get his slaves to put out the fires and start renovating his new property.

He became one of the richest men in history. (A few people accused him of starting some of the fires, but they were probably just jealous and engaging in class warfare.) Anyway, he was able to use his wealth to help overthrow the Roman Republic and set himself up as one of three co-dictators.

Many years later, the Roman Empire fell and the socialists took over the fire department. That's been a complete disaster. As you pointed out:

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally.

Today, there's no incentive for a fireman to risk his life running into a burning building. If he hangs out near the fire engine and pretends to untangle the hose, he'll earn just as much money and be a lot safer. I've heard that in some places, the socialists have instituted "volunteer fire departments" where the firemen don't get paid and have no incentive to even show up!

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that everyone escaped from the hotel. How did you alert people? Did you go door-to-door and say, "I've got some information that's quite likely to save your life, and I'll sell it to you for the contents of your wallet." Or did you give out the information first, and send a bill later on? (I hope the socialists hadn't brainwashed you into giving out the information for free!)

radar said...

This was a rant, a release or venting of my feelings and concerns. That Obama is a socialist is too obvious to waste time on. But the article on socialism I linked is a thorough look at what socialism is and what happens when it is applied to society.

The fire story is true. I actually ran from door-to-door and pounded on them screaming all the way from my room to the manager's office. My room was the last room in the row in the old-fashioned motel. I also had no clothes on. My clothes and keys and wallet and also my car that was parked right in front of the place were also destroyed. It was not a good day. I sat there under a tree and watched everything burning as the fire department fought the flames. One of the people I awakened had access to a blanket and brought it over to me to wrap up in. It was the only thing I had to wear as a police officer gave me a ride home later.

The fire department, chaos, is dumb, first because socialism is forced and volunteering is a different animal. I volunteer to work with teenagers because I want to have a positive impact on their lives and doing it is my incentive.

Second, firemen want to save lives and doing so is an incentive. Many people enter a field in which service to others is part of their reason for serving. However, a fireman who will not do what the team has trained him to do will be fired. Full-time firemen are paid to do their jobs, get promotions for years served effectively and get demoted or fired for not doing the job. Incentives prevail as in other jobs in a capitalist society.

I know at least three volunteer firemen. They do get reimbursement for time served and uniform allowances, etc. But they primarily do it the way I work with teenagers, for the desire to be of service to others. They all have other jobs that provide their families with income and are incented to work well under the capitalist system.

Altruism and acts of heroism and also various volunteer acts of service are some of the good things people do, yes. That has nothing to do with a daily job. If you think for one minute that people would work as hard as they could to do their jobs well, innovate, be creative and so on if it made no difference to their paycheck or status you haven't been paying attention to history or learned much about human nature. I learned from working in a union shop that even having the safety net of a union causes some people to do pretty much the minimum. But even in that environment there were promotions and qualified overtime and other incentives to motivate and it was possible to fire a lazy worker, it was just a lot of trouble. Under socialism, you are gonna get yours even if you lay around home and have babies or stand over by the door talking instead of working.

chaos_engineer said...

Full-time firemen are paid to do their jobs, get promotions for years served effectively and get demoted or fired for not doing the job.

Well, yes, but the fire department is still run by the government. Isn't that socialism?

Actually, I think the problem is that we're using different defintions of "socialism". I'd define a socialist program as one where: (1) Most funding comes from the taxpayers. (2) Services are provided to everyone who needs them, mostly regardless of ability to pay. (3) High-level policy decisions are made by the people-as-a-whole, acting through their elected representatives.

Examples of this kind of socialism in the US include the fire department, the police, the public school system, and the military. (I wouldn't mind adding health care to the list; I think that would be less flawed than the current system.)

But after reading your reply, I *think* you're defining "socialism" as "a system where everyone gets paid the same salary regardless of how much work they do." If that's the case, then I've got good news for you: Sen. Obama isn't a socialist! Actually, I don't think there are any socialists around anymore. (There might have been some in the 1960's but I never got to meet one.)

Anonymous said...

"That Obama is a socialist is too obvious to waste time on."

Now you've got me ROTFLMAO...!

"But the article on socialism I linked is a thorough look at what socialism is and what happens when it is applied to society."

Now tell us what it has to do with Obama's platform.

Your shifty evasion above makes me suspect that you didn't really think this accusation through - once again you seem to have just taken on whatever talking points happened to be on the specials menu at Stop the ACLU or wherever and swallowed them hook, line and sinker.

Chaos engineer makes very good points, especially re. how the two of you may have different definitions of socialism in mind. There are perfectly good dictionaries for this kind of thing, but since Radar is fond of making up his own definitions to suit his purposes, let's try it this way:

1. Radar, how would you define socialism?

2. Radar, how is Obama's platform "socialist"?

3. And if we go by such an innocuous explanation of socialism as chaos engineer proposes here, then how is Obama's platform socialist in what you would consider a bad way?

-- creeper