Showing posts with label Fabian socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fabian socialism. Show all posts

Friday, November 12, 2010

President Obama: We Must Embrace Globalism and The Emerging One World Economy

English: Red Army "Workers of the World U...Image via Wikipedia
At the title link to this post you will find an interesting article I found after yesterday's post.  So, what does embracing globalism mean in the world of the average citizen? 

I've been confused about Andy Stern's "workers of the world unite" rhetoric.  If we were to merge our economy with communist and socialist economies that allow their workers to be paid what might be termed as  "slave labor wages" how is this going to benefit all those union members he once represented? How is this going to effect all those unsustainable pension systems?  How is this going to address this country's unemployment rate.  Why is SEIU now trying to "organize" the 99ers?  What does "winning justice for the 99ers" mean? 

I don't think "globalism" is going to improve the impact of trade deficits with China.  More US jobs are going to disappear are they not?  Our country doesn't manufacture much anymore, but we sure do buy a lot of stuff from other countries.  The article to which the preceding link takes you makes some good points regarding the fact that the efficiency of American manufacturing is not the issue and says:

"But American companies have difficulty competing against foreign countries that undervalue their currencies; pay health care for their workers; provide subsidies for energy, land, buildings, and equipment; grant tax holidays and rebates and provide zero-interest financing; pay their workers poverty wages that would be illegal in the United States, and don't enforce safety or environmental regulations."

Note:  This article is from The American Prospect website and TAP is a progressive leaning website that searches for new possibilities for "social justice."  I was a bit surprised to find this article there, however, they do point our that they "take seriously their role as a forum for constructive debate and civil argument...which will find a basis for compromise that leads to change."  I can live with that, however, the result of pinning down what "compromise" means to a progressive results in one realizing that the message is "they know best" and if you disagree, you are unwilling to compromise. 

What we have to begin to understand is what "globalism" and "new world order" and "one world economy means to progressives, socialists and communists. 
In 1969 Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeff Jones and other Weather Underground (the more violent arm of Students for a Democratic Society; SDS) kids wrote an essay titled:  "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows."  It begins:
"The contradiction between the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the imperialists headed by the United States is the principal contradiction in the contemporary world.  The development of this contradiction is promoting the struggle of the people of the whole world against US imperialism and its lackeys."

Yes, America is the source of all of the problems in the world.  Not only that, but, as the video, The Story of Stuff, our children have seen at school everything we have already belongs to the "oppressed" peoples of the world and as the Weather Underground gang says in their essay:
"It is the oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs; the goal of the revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of the oppressed peoples of the world....All of the United Airlines Astrojets, all of the Holiday Inns, all of the Hertz's automobiles, your television set, car, and wardrobe already belong, to a large degree to the people of the rest of the world."

Their goal? It was and perhaps still is:  "the destruction of the US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

The question you need to ask yourself is this:  "Who determines how to get to a classless world and how will they know when it has been achieved?"  I would also add that you need to decide what world view you hold.  One that says A) a group of elites will determine just what our "Artificial Paradise" will look like or B) one that is based on a transcendent source of "right and wrong" and follows principles and values that are timeless?

I've signed on to and believe in choice B and I will continue this blog to provide information that will hopefully help others make informed decisions about the future of this country.  I will also pray without ceasing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 21, 2010

If you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly--Alan Grayson

George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright.Image via Wikipedia
There is an interesting video at youtube that lists some of the statements made by our elected officials that are of concern.  If you also consider that Alan Grayson also said recently on a radio program that, "Everyone who shouted 'Drill Baby drill' should be rounded up and thrown in jail" and Nancy Pelosi wanting to conduct investigations into who is funding the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque there is a pattern that bears consideration.

To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did later add that maybe we need to look into the funding of the Mosque would be good too.  If you have not seen Peter Johnson Jr.'s commentary on the Mosque issue I recommend it.  He does the best job of expressing where I stand on this issue. 

That said, I'd like to share my reaction to Alan Grayson's remark.  When I heard him say this I wondered how he reconciled the "Complete Lives System" proposed by Ezekeil Emanuel.  The above link takes you to a paper written by him and some of his colleagues: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."  Among the eight simple principles for allocation are classified into four categories according to their core ethical values.  The one that concerns me is the "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I do not mean to say that I don't recognize that there are and will be times when there are shortages.  I just want to be assured that the individuals who are making the decisions have a strong moral base in the sanctity of life.  Have and will hard decisions need to be made? Yes.  I just want us to strive to make those decisions on certain basic values.

I believe that our system of government was established as a Constitutional Republic in order to ensure that we continued to make decisions based on our core principles.  We are abandoning the system of checks and balances and that is not conducive to using those core principles to make tough decisions.  This, coupled with statements made by the Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, urges us to take a closer look.   In this video GBS recommends that people come before a sort of "panel" and be asked to "justify their existence."  If they are not doing their share or perhaps a little more then he ultimately suggests some sort of humane gas to end that existence.

That sounds scary, but I do not intend to use it as a "scare tactic."  If you entrust your well-being to someone whom you have elected to represent you and those you love I believe you need to know their character and on what basis they make their decisions.  You don't have to agree with everything, but it's good to know when times get tough that the person has a core set of values that doesn't change.  I'd like to also add, for your consideration, a recent article that came to my attention via Hot Tea Radio.  The comment was titled: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, which cancer drug has to go?" (or something like that :-)  The link takes you to an article that includes the phrase "death panels."  I know that phrase has been labeled a scare tactic, rhetoric, and/or propaganda, but I urge you to take a closer look at what people mean when they say that.  If my medical options have to change for whatever reason, I believe the decision-making should remain as close to my family, my doctors and myself as possible.  I feel that the further away it gets, the more like a "death panel" it becomes.  And it won't necessarily look like a "panel."  It will involve the slow, steady, and dispersed establishment of various restrictions and regulations that you might not even know about until it hits close to home.

This all leads me back to something I read in The Road to Serfdom.  Hayak writes on page 6:

"...the fatal flaw of socialist planning (is that) it "presupposes a much more complete agreement on the relative importance of the different ends than actually exists, and that, in consequence, in order to be able to plan, the planning authority must impose upon the people that detailed code of values which is lacking....and why, even democratic planning, if it were to be successfully carried out, eventually requires the authorities to use a variety of means from propaganda to coercion to implement the plan."

My belief in our system of government does not reflect an opposition to change.  It reflects the belief that the farther removed the decision-maker from those who are impacted by those decisions the more danger there is in abandoning those principles and values that are so important.  The checks and balances are there for a very good reason:  our government and country consists of flawed human beings. 


Enhanced by Zemanta