Progressive Liberal Democrats Embrace Marxist Socialism

The Democrat Party of past years is dead! - They have either gone into hiding, afraid to stand up for what they believe, or they have decided to join the crowd that is determined to destroy American liberty and freedom with Marxist socialism.

I have continually stated here that a large percentage of the voting public believes America is a place where anything is possible as long as there are people that will take the responsibility upon themselves to make sure the country continues to function in such a manner that the irresponsible can survive.

Who are the irresponsible you ask, they are those that can't see beyond their next football game, golf game or the next weekend at the cabin. They abhor anything that interferes with their ordered lives. "Don't confuse me with facts about how life really is. Don't burden me with decisions that effect how I will live in the future. I want others to decide those questions - that is what our government is for. The more government control we have will allow us to live unmolested and not have to do anything personally that will effect our or lives - all we have to do is just do what we are told". Can't happen here you say - think again!

Socialism is alive and well and gaining ground in America.

These people are in every walk of life - teachers, airline pilots, construction workers, executives of sales, manufacturing, services. They refuse to comprehend that "you can run but you can't hide".

They are those that live for the weekend to escape from the drudgery of the work week in a dead end job - a job that is actually suited for who they are but can't admit they don't have the will or skill to improve their situation. They are perfectly positioned for the socialist marta of "taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive". Witness congress getting 'revenge' on the oil executives for high oil prices - how will that help the oil price? It won't, of course, but it plays well to those that are ready and willing to have others take the responsibility for the incompetence of the many.

The following article is one that sheds light on how we seem to be sliding into a darkness where there might not be any escape. Socialism, the foundation of the New Socialist Progressive Party, liberal Democrats, has never worked and history has proven where it has been tried it has failed. And yet we are on the brink of repeating all the failures of that history.

How can this happen in America? Why is this happening in America? I wish I knew. We have everything and yet so many are willing to give it all up for instant gratification, the quick fix, the painless solution to our every want and whim.

Where did these people go wrong? I struggle every day trying to figure out how did this huge group of people get separated from reality? Have they always been here living ordinary lives and then all of a sudden they decide freedom isn't worth the effort anymore? Why have they become so blind as to not see what is coming to destroy us all? Why is it so clear to me but totally refuted by others?

We have to stand tall while we keep the faith in America, the battle for freedom must never be relinquished.

The Sweet Illusion Of Socialism
By TERRY SATER Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The underlying issue of the 2008 election makes this a watershed moment in American history, too important to shrink from full and frank debate or allow emotional appeal to cloak party platform DNA.

In April, when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., was asked if presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was a Marxist, he replied: "I must say, that's a good question . . . I will tell you that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't . . . I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

It was a good question, but there is a broader one: Will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of socialism, Marxism and communism? Those are our choices. We must have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to debate the choices plainly, by proper definition and without equivocation or censorship.

Words matter.

The left avoids any use of the terms "socialism" or "Marxism." Conservatives have been intimidated into using childish euphemisms such as "nanny state. "Webster's dictionary defines "socialized medicine" as "medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained by assessments, philanthropy or taxation." We should call it that, rather than "universal health care."

In May, two House Democrats called for nationalization of the U.S. oil industry. A June Rasmussen poll reported that 37% of Democrats liked the idea. Webster's defines "communism" in part as "a theory advocating elimination of private property" or "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society."

In 2004, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She could have easily quoted Karl Marx, who said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The Fairness Doctrine, favored by many Democrats, sounds wonderful, but it ironically disguises the ultimate objective: silencing conservative speech. Why not just call it the Kill Conservative Talk Doctrine?

We've come far from promises of "a chicken in every pot" to Barack Obama's June 3 declaration that "the chance to get a college education is the birthright of every American." When did it become a birthright?

In his 1982 book, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism," Michael Novak noted that many who have lived under socialism would find it hard to believe "that other human beings would fall for the same bundle of lies, half-truths and distortions. Sadly, however, illusion is often sweeter to human taste than reality. The last Marxist in the world will probably be an American nun."

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism," said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s. "But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

If it is to be, let's do it with our eyes open, aware of every ponderous step. I understand why a person wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when promised "entitlements" or income redistribution or care whether it is called liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, communism or "change." We at least should know whether it is a gift horse or a Trojan horse, or a combination of the two.

Sater writes a monthly column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where this article first appeared./