The book, called Saving Freedom, is by Jim Demint, a Republican senator from South Carolina. According to the release, "DeMint contends that increasing government control and a socialist agenda are weakening the freedom and Christian values upon which the United States was founded."Yet another hyperbolic brick in the wall being built by those who are determined to polarize, divide, and undermine the country with revisionist history: people who can't stand to lose control, so they claim we're about to lose the country to "socialism." It's no surprise, but still sad, to see LifeWay sidestepping its main mission and buying into the brouhaha.
The other story was an Associated Press report that gun-lovers are building up their arsenals and buying bullets at such a pace that ammunition makers are working round-the-clock shifts but can't keep up with demand. Apparently, there's a widespread fear that the Democrats, now in power, will clamp down new gun control laws (although none, according to the article, have been proposed), so they're stocking up.Let's just hope that none of them intend their bullets for imagined socialists.
9 comments:
Tony, now I love you and most of what you write is right on. You hear the "but" coming? Yes, but it is a friendly "but."
First, I agree that LifeWay has stepped the wrong way (as they have so many times in recent years) by entering the political fray. This is one of the many problems with the SBC that a lot of people just don't get. Second, the bullet hoarding is ridiculous.
"But," I do think there are some real "socialists" in our midst and many in our government. They may not call themselves that, but their policies and actions speak for themselves. They are not all imaginary.
What else do you call it when the government is taking control of huge chunks of the private sector? We already have "Government Motors." The bailout of the banks is another example. Congress is now waging to take control of all student loans, cutting out the private sector lending institutions. If certain forms of health care reform pass it will be only a matter of time until the private sector cannot compete with a government that just keeps printing money. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-governmental institutions that are largely responsible for the debacle of failed mortgages. President Obama is on record as wanting the authority to control all media, including the internet, in case of what he and one other person may deem a national emergency.
So what is the definition of socialism?
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)
I hope I am not right on this, "BUT....."
Wow, at least Ron isn't collecting guns and bullets, but he is buying into the "Socialist" fear mongering. The government hasn't taken full control of the large chunks of the private sector and it isn't planning to do so. Right or wrong, it has plowed money into them to try to keep them and the country from failing. However, the banks have been paying their bailout money back. I hope that General Motors and Chrysler will do that as well.
Where is the world does all this Marxist-Leninist-Socialism crap come from? Obama on record as controlling the media in a national emergency? I haven't seen that, but his predecessor surely wanted to do so. In WWII the government pretty much controlled industry and limited the media with much censorship. Not a whole lot different.
I can see why presidents want to do that during a national emergency as they have always tried to do, and I see a certain need to do it. Today with the internet and satellite phones, it is so easy for underground organizations to communicate without being caught.
No, Ron, I don't think we are close to the Marxist-Leninist model. It is simply that Obama is an intelligent and well liked man, and neocons, racists, and fundamentalist Christians have lost the power they so crave. They can not deal with that in any other way than to use the fear words Socialist, Communist, NAZI, and Muslim.
The redistribution of wealth by government is "the" key component of Socialism. Everything else, that a Socialist government or policy does is directed toward that goal. President Obama has declared numerous times that he supports redistribution of wealth and that his policies are directed at redistribution. Many of his Czar's belonged to Socialist organizations in the past. Therefore, 1+1=2.
"His Czars"?
I refer to them as his Czar's because he is the one who appointed them. 32 of them and counting. Carol Browner, John Holdren, and Kevin Jennings are just a few with very radical backgrounds.
As with many things, I suppose, "radical" is in the eye of the beholder; it usually refers to "someone with a radically different approach from my own."
As for the redistribution of wealth, I suppose Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch programs, welfare programs and subsidies to farmers would all qualify, since they involve a "redistribution" of funds from taxes paid by other people.
If that's the case, one could argue that the country has been "socialist" ever since it started caring whether elderly, poor, or disadvantaged folks have access to food, shelter, and health care.
If there is a difference in approach to social concerns within the Obama administration (which was elected on a mandate for change), it is in degree rather than innovation -- it's not as if the current administration invented the idea of helping more Americans to have a better life.
Or so it seems to me.
Anyone know an easy way to contact Lifeway by email to express an opinion about their publishing books such as this and other matters?
They are radical in that there beliefs are in direct opposition to the Constitution which is predicated on Free-market Capitalism. As with the word "radical" so also the word "care" is also in the eye of the beholder. I am not sure the programs you mentioned have helped in the best possible way. Perhaps the States could do a better job which is why our Constitution gives the bulk of power to the States rather than the Federal government. That way "help" is more direct and local and better managed. All of the programs you mentioned are also some of the worst managed and fraudulent programs in this country.
I guess it really comes down to how free a person wants to be or how much power they want to give the Fed over their lives.
GA Mountain Man:
Concerning internet issue, just because you never saw it doesn't mean it isn't true: Feel free to check out Senate Bill .773 -- the bill would grant the President and the Secretary of Commerce the exclusive right to determine the definition of a "national emergency." This has been reported in the national media and is not the figment of some sophomorish conspiracy buff.
Personally I just think that is too much power to invest in any two people...I don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, left-wing, right-wing or no wing.
I didn't mention czars...but that is the word being used by the national media (no neocons there) to describe multiple appointees by the President. One good example is what the Washington Times called the "Diversity Czar." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/.
Concerning your generalization that those who oppose the direction of our government must be "neocons, racists or fundamentalist Christians." Are those not also terms aimed at stirring a frenzy of fear?
Mt. Man...I respect your opinion. All I ask, especially on a website committed to Christian advocacy, is the same in return.
P.S. Have any of you received "The American Community Survey" from the Census Bureau? 28 pages of extremely invasive questions from our government. But I am not blaming President Obama for that; it started under President Bush. Another of his unwise policies...like "No Child Left Behind" and "Faith Based Initiatives." See, I do try to be fair and balanced (with a sense of humor to boot).
Post a Comment