He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear ( Matthew 11:15-30 )
Challenging both secular wisdom and religious doctrines. - Will our descendants know moral virtue?
Democrat Socialism = Marxism
Envy leads to being bribed by tyrants.
Deception + Coercion + Apathy = The Fall of America "Some Americans will never appreciate America, until after they have helped destroy it, and have then begun to suffer the consequences." --Thomas Sowell
Challenges for Socialists (The truth about Nordic & Scandinavia failed socialism that led to adapting free market solutions.)
Jesus was not a Socialist , nor did He promote Socialism. (Luke 12) What about Ananias and his wife Sapphira in Acts 2?
The false Utopia of Socialism - Additional revelations. ("The doctors in socialist utopias inevitably flee to the capitalist countries where their work is compensated." Shortages of food and necessities, crime, more...)
2. Mandating Charity - Government unconstitutional forced charity through taxation
3. Unions and Democrats (Funding your employer)
4. Democrat Racism (Which party truly advanced civil rights, and which party hindered civil rights.)
Alexis de Tocqueville: "...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Frederic Bastiat: "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone."
Margaret Thatcher, in a speech to Conservative Central Council (15 March, 1986). “Socialists cry ‘Power to the people’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State.”
Thomas Sowell: "Some Americans will never appreciate America, until after they have helped destroy it, and have then begun to suffer the consequences.""Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; We’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." Source: told to Ezra Taft Benson, Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture, in 1959
Roger Baldwin: The ACLU founder and executive director from 1920 to 1950, described the Soviet Union as a "great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world." He wanted to bring socialism to America, but he knew that to be effective, he had to disguise and mask this goal in terms of individual rights. He wrote: "Do steer away from making it look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions." (Quoted in William A. Donahue, Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU - New Brunswick, NJ: Transition Publishers, 1944, pp.6-7)
Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. 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."
Whole Foods CEO Defends Capitalism – By Thomas Gallatin …Mackey insightfully characterizes socialism as "trickle-up poverty" in a play on the old pejorative "trickle-down economics" that leftists used to throw at Ronald Reagan's supply-side philosophy. Meanwhile, Mackey asserts that capitalism is the "greatest thing humanity's ever done." And judging by the massive number of people across the world that have been freed from poverty due almost entirely to free-market capitalism, he may be correct. One thing's for certain: While socialism may bring about more equity, it has only done so at the cost of prosperity, individual freedom, and millions of lives. Capitalism enables and encourages ingenuity and diversity, whereas socialism depresses and destroys such motivations by dragging and holding people down, effectively killing any incentive toward excellence.
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." Roman historian Plutarch (c.45-125 A.D.)
Socialism is incompatible with America’s Constitutional Republic and Biblical-based heritage of freedom and liberty. Socialism is the enemy of economic freedom and opportunity as it undermines responsibility, stifles ambition and entrepreneurship. Innovation of new ideas and products would cease because the drive and desire to create will be stymied by a dependence on the Socialist government that promises, yet fails, to provide all our needs, accommodations, and comforts. The cost of Socialism both economically and the self-esteem of every America would result in the proven history of all nations that tried Socialism, resulting in poverty and despair, while the ruling class of the Socialist government will live lavishly at the expense and misery of the people, and becoming tyrannical, in order to retain their elite status, while destroying the prosperity of the people. In order to repress freedom and liberty, religious liberty of all faiths will become illegal.
Socialism vs. Capitalism: Peter Berkowitz discusses the differences between two economic systems: socialism and capitalism. - Socialism, Capitalism and Liberty: Socialism and capitalism provide two distinct answers as to who controls decisions in the economy. The historical criticism of socialism is that it is a root source of totalitarianism. In contrast, the recent criticisms of capitalism range from disagreement with its principles to critiques of some of its outcomes. …Does capitalism result in inequality?
Here’s What Americans Need to Know About Socialism With socialism’s popularity rising in the United States, it’s more important than ever that Americans know the facts about Karl Marx’s inherently flawed ideology. That is why Heritage’s Lee Edwards, distinguished fellow in conservative thought, has been working hard to explain the true nature of socialism. In his article, “What Americans Must Know About Socialism,” he explains, “This is the reality of socialism—a pseudo-religion grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.” In his most recent article, he refutes the often-used claim by leftists that socialism has never failed because it has never been tried, citing three modern countries that tried and ultimately rejected socialism. You can read about those countries, and why they rejected socialism. - Key Takeaways: Socialism is no longer a parlor game for academics but a political alternative taken seriously by millennials. “They don’t recognize that much of what they enjoy in life is a result of capitalism and would disappear if socialism were to be implemented." This is the reality of socialism — a pseudo-religion grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.
Socialism Always Fails - By William L. Anderson - ...Instead of following the old political strategy of having people run as members of a socialist party, Barkan says that the better plan is for socialists simply to take over the modern Democratic Party by electing socialists from the presidency on down.
...In other words, the entire question of socialism is political; socialists can speak about their utopian visions, be elected on those platforms, but really don’t have to explain how they actually will make a socialist economy perform in a way that will even begin to match the output of a private enterprise–based economy. Yet, when confronted with the reality of the actual performance of a socialist economy, all the writer can do is to appeal to the election of socialists, which should not be surprising, since the end of socialism is political power and nothing else.
...Although Hillier’s obituary “slammed” the wait times in Canada, nonetheless, nothing will be done because Canada’s “single payer” system is both politically sacrosanct and a socialist politician’s dream. It is sacrosanct because it provides the “free healthcare” that socialists promise and a politician’s dream because it provides unending opportunities for “reform.” In reality, the economic calculation problem is front and center, making it impossible to “fix” the Canadian single-payer system, something no Canadian politician will admit.
...One doubts that Hillier would have died in the same way in the United States. For all of the criticism American medical care receives from the left (and the current system hardly fits the claim by socialists that it is “free market”), one can be reasonably assured that a young woman here would not die because of a lack of hospital beds.
...Socialists do not create goods and services; they commandeer them for political purposes, and such things are useful only as a means of putting and keeping socialist politicians in power. ...We have been hearing this kind of thing for more than a century. Socialists tell us that if the rest of us will give them total power over our lives, this time they will provide prosperity, and unlike previous socialist regimes, they won’t strip us of our liberties. We should have as much confidence in their words as the loved ones of Laura Hillier had in the empty promises of Canadian medical officials.
Rand Paul’s Fact-Filled Case Against Socialism - By John Stossel - ...“Hitler’s socialism, Stalin’s socialism, Mao’s socialism. You would think people would have recognized it by now,” says Paul in my latest video.
...“You would think that when your economy gets to the point where people are eating their pets,” says Paul, contemplating the quick descent of once-rich Venezuela, “people might have second thoughts about what system they’ve chosen.”
...Naturally, American socialists say our socialism will be different.
“When I talk about democratic socialism,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., “I’m not looking at Venezuela. I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden.” Paul responds: “They all wind up saying, ‘The kinder, gentler socialism that we want is Scandinavia … democratic socialism.’ So we do a big chunk of the book about Scandinavia.”
Paul’s book is different from other politicians’ books. Instead of repeating platitudes, he and his co-author did actual research, concluding: “It’s not true that the Scandinavian countries are socialist.” Scandinavia did try socialist policies years ago but then turned away from socialism. It privatized industries and repealed regulations. Denmark’s prime minister even came to America and refuted Sanders’ claims, pointing out that “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy.” In fact, in rankings of economic freedom, Scandinavian countries are near the top.
...In fact, Swedes have 50% higher living standards in the U.S. than when they stay in Sweden. Danish Americans, too. Socialism can’t take the credit.
...But the most important argument against socialism is that it crushes freedom. Socialists get elected by promising fairness and equality...
Can Young Adults Learn to Love the Free Market? Podcast and
transcript. - By Rachel del Guidice - ...The free market, Cargill explains,
“destroys all the things that we hate, that especially younger generations hate,
like climate change, high rents, hunger, disease, boredom, all the things that
we as a society despise and want to improve upon. If you want to change those
things and do it in the quickest way possible, you look toward the free market
to do that. It’s not going to be government solutions. It’s not going to be
socialism that makes it successful. It’s going to be the marketplace. It is the
most revolutionary force for change that the world has ever seen."
...[T]he first video, which is about a minute long—and you can find it on YouTube, you can find it on Free Markets Destroy, which is the Facebook page; you go to one of those two places, you’ll see this video—it’s been shared throughout the country and watched more than 360,000 times at the moment that we recorded this interview.
...So this longer video that we’ve put together tries to explain that, tries to explain the value of the free market, and what exactly the definition of the free market is. And basically, that definition boils down to three things. One, you don’t hurt other people or steal their stuff. Two, you keep your word. And then three, there’s no permission required. In other words, you’re free to try, you’re free to buy, and you’re free to leave. That is the essential freedom in free markets.
...Second thing, go to freemarketsdestroy.com, sign up for what is called the Destroy Download, which is our weekly email that you can get to link to our blog that finds out more about what the free market is destroying and improving in our life.
The Market Will Set You Free (PragerU) - By Andy Puzder - It’s time for free-market capitalism to reclaim its legacy as a creator of prosperity — not just for citizens of the Western world, but for people everywhere. It’s not capitalism that has to justify itself; it’s everything else. Why? Because everything else has resulted only in poverty. Does that surprise you? Are you skeptical? Andy Puzder, author of “The Capitalist Comeback,” has the charts and data to prove it.
...Since 1990, hunger, poverty, illiteracy and child mortality have all declined significantly with the decline of socialism. This all happened while we added two billion more people to the world. Far more people; far less poverty. Better health outcomes; fewer babies dying. That’s what economic freedom—capitalism—can do.
...President John Kennedy, a Democrat, said it best while making his case for significant tax cuts in 1963. He said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy didn’t believe that the poor only get richer when the rich get poorer. He believed everyone could get richer with economic growth. History has shown that he was right.
... This whole capitalism vs. socialism debate is backwards: It’s not those who advocate for free market capitalism who need to justify their actions. Rather, it’s those advocating for socialism—or any form of it—who have a lot of explaining to do.
Morality of Free Markets - By Walter E. Williams - ...“The hallmark of a truly free market is that all associations and relationships are based on voluntary agreement and mutual consent. Another way of saying this is that in the free market society, people are morally and legally viewed as sovereign individuals possessing rights to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property, who may not be coerced into any transaction that they do not consider being to their personal betterment and advantage.” (“Business Ethics and Morality of the Marketplace” - By Dr. Richard Ebeling) Ebeling says that the rules of a free market are simple and easy to understand: “You don’t kill, you don’t steal, and you don’t cheat through fraud or misrepresentation. You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others. Your talents, abilities, and efforts must all be focused on one thing: what will others take in trade from you for the revenues you want to earn as the source of your own income and profits?”
...Many believe the pursuit of profits is the source of mankind’s troubles. However, it’s often the absence of profit motivation that’s the true villain. For example, contrast the number of complaints heard about profit-oriented establishments such as computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores to the complaints that one hears about nonprofit establishments such as the U.S. Post Office, the public education system and departments of motor vehicles. Computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores face competition and must satisfy customers to earn profits and stay in business. Postal workers, public teachers and department of motor vehicles employees depend on politicians and coercion to get their pay. They stay in business whether customers are satisfied with their services or not. In a free market society, income is neither taken nor distributed. Income is earned by serving one’s fellow man.
...We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times.
...Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity." Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.
...Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity.
...Let me lay down some truths. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world's GDP. The list goes on. However, these truths don't matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it's brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
...Why? The answer is this: My generation has ONLY seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the Great Depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don't know what it's like to live without the internet and smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague. With the current political climate giving rise to the misguided idea of a socialist utopia, will we see the light? Or will we have to lose it all to realize that what we have now is true prosperity? Destroying the free market will undo what millions of people have died to achieve.
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy have given us. The other option is that we can fall into the [Bernie Sanders] trap of entitlement and [lapse] into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn't seem too hard, does it?
Socialism-Communism - "Iron Curtain" & "Bamboo Curtain," compared to Freedom & Faith - By American Minute with Bill Federer - ...Addressing naive students, who thought socialism and communism would redistribute wealth, President Franklin Roosevelt told the American Youth Congress, February 10, 1940: "The Soviet Union ... is run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world."
Under the Soviet dictatorship:
• privacy was nonexistent;
• press was censored;
• free speech disappeared;
• healthcare was rationed;
• economy was regulated;
• private industry was collectivized;
• political dissent was punished;
• media and entertainment was propagandized;
• children's education became indoctrination;
• marriage and families were subject to social engineering;
• religion was suppressed; and
• human life was valued only by its usefulness to the soviet society.
...Vladimir Lenin stated: "The goal of socialism is communism."
...President Harry S Truman stated January 20, 1949: "Communism is based on the belief that man is so weak and inadequate that he is unable to govern himself, and therefore requires the rule of strong masters. Democracy is based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity, as well as the inalienable right, to govern himself with reason and justice ..." Truman continued: "Communism subjects the individual to arrest without lawful cause, punishment without trial, and forced labor as a chattel of the state. It decrees what information he shall receive, what art he shall produce, what leaders he shall follow, and what thoughts he shall think. Democracy maintains that government is established for the benefit of the individual, and is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of the individual and his freedom ...
Conservatives: This is the Debate We Want - By The Heritage Foundation - ...Andrew Puzder, a political commentator, former CEO, and author of The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left’s Plot to Stop It, explained how conservatives can deliver a winning message to millennials about capitalism. ...“Today, America’s youth seem enamored with socialism,” he said. Why? Because they are being fed a myth – through the education system and popular entertainment – that socialism is necessary to protect the masses from capitalist greed. This, Puzder said, is a complete misunderstanding of what capitalism is or how it works. “The only way to succeed in capitalism is to meet the needs of other people. It empowers the masses – consumers – because you vote with your dollars on which companies succeed and which fail … When I speak to millennials, I always tell them that I have a wonderful message for you: the economic system under which you live is the greatest system ever devised in the history of the world.”
Capitalism vs. Socialism - By Andy Puzder - Decades after capitalism seemed to have triumphed over socialism, politicians are once again arguing about the merits and drawbacks of these opposing economic systems. Why are we still having this debate? Andy Puzder, former CEO of the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr., explains the misconceptions that keep the debate alive.
...But what about Western European countries? Don't they have socialist economies? People seem pretty happy there. Why can't we have what they have--free health care, free college, stronger unions? Good question. And the answer may surprise you.
There are no socialist countries in Western Europe. Most are just as capitalist as the United States. The only difference--and it's a big one--is that they offer more government benefits than the U.S. does.
We can argue about the costs of these benefits and the point at which they reduce individual initiative, thus doing more harm than good. Scandinavians have been debating those questions for years. But only a free-market capitalist economy can produce the wealth necessary to sustain all of the supposedly "free stuff" Europeans enjoy. To get the "free stuff," after all, you have to create enough wealth to generate enough tax revenue to pay for everything the government gives away. Without capitalism, you're Venezuela.
In a 2015 speech at Harvard, Denmark's prime minister took great pains to make this point: "I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with... socialism, therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
So when you point to Denmark as a paragon of socialism, you're really singing the praises of capitalism.
...None of this requires a degree in economics. Common sense is all you need. That's why it's so frustrating to see young people praising socialism and criticizing capitalism. It's bad enough that they're working against their own interest--better job prospects, better wages, personal freedom--but they are also working against the interest of the less fortunate.
Capitalism leads to economic democracy. Socialism leads to the economic dictatorship of the elite. Always. And everywhere.
So beware what you ask for. You just might get it.
Democratic Socialism By Mark Alexander - Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production by way of regulation and income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty -- the rights "endowed by our Creator" -- primarily by refuting such endowment. So what do these observations have to do with the current state of economic and political affairs in our great nation? Unfortunately, more than most Americans currently realize. However discomforting this fact might be, there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadre are endeavoring to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" by planting a debt bomb, the future shockwave of which, they surmise, will break the back of free enterprise. From the ashes of that cataclysm, Obama and his ilk envision restructuring our nation as the USSA.
Stossel: Sweden is Not a Socialist Success John Stossel - Many people think Sweden is socialist, but its success comes from free markets. ...John Stossel asks Norberg why so many Americans think Sweden is socialist. Norberg answers, "We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily." But big government led to problems. "Our economy was in crisis, inflation reached 10 percent, and for a brief period interest rates soared to 500 percent. At that point the Swedish population just said, 'Enough, we can't do this,'" Norberg says. Sweden cut public spending, privatized the national rail network, abolished certain government monopolies, eliminated inheritance taxes, sold state-owned businesses, and switched to a school voucher system. It also "lowered taxes and reformed the pension system," adds Norberg.
Why is Scandinavia so expensive? | CNBC Explains - Across Scandinavia, the average price of everything from a knitted roll neck to pastries from the local bakery are some of the highest in the world. So what makes the region so expensive? CNBC's Tom Chitty reports.
Is Denmark Socialist? - By Otto Brøns-Petersen = Socialism has failed across the world – from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to China, Vietnam, North Korea and, most recently, Venezuela. So now the left references countries like Denmark as “proof” that socialism works. Otto Brons-Petersen explains why they’re wrong: Denmark is just as capitalist as the United States.- It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist. Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.
Was Jesus a Socialist? (Video - PragerU) - By Lawrence Reed ...Did Jesus support socialism? Do the teachings of Jesus Christ condemn the accumulation of wealth while pushing for the equal distribution of resources? Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, explains the misconceptions surrounding one of history’s greatest figures.
...Socialism is the concentration of power into the hands of government elites to achieve the following purposes: central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth. Jesus never called for any of that. ...Nowhere in the New Testament does he advocate for the government to punish the rich – or even to use tax money to help the poor. Nor does he promote the ideas of state ownership of businesses or central planning of the economy.
...In Luke 12, Jesus is confronted by a man who wants him to redistribute wealth. "Master," the man says to Jesus, "tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replies, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" and then he rebukes the man for being envious of his sibling. How about Jesus's Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus's day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn't lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn't it? ...He never drove a "moneychanger" from a marketplace or from a bank.
...Jesus advises us to be of "generous spirit" – to show kindness, to assist the widow and the orphan. But he clearly means this to be our responsibility, not the government's.
...In addition to the Parable of the Talents, Jesus offers his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. In it, a landowner hires some laborers to pick grapes. Near the end of the day, he realizes he needs more workers to get the job done. To recruit them, he agrees to pay a full day's wage for just one hour of work. When one of the laborers who had worked an entire day complains, the landowner answers, "I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" That's a testament to the principles of supply and demand, of private property, and of voluntary contracts, not socialism.
Jesus never endorsed the forced redistribution of wealth. That idea is rooted in envy, something that he, and the Tenth of the Ten Commandments, railed against. Most importantly, Jesus cared about helping the less fortunate. He never would have approved anything that undermines wealth creation. And the only thing that has ever created wealth and lifted masses of people out of poverty is free market capitalism. Read the New Testament. The plain meaning of the text is loud and clear: Jesus was not a socialist. He couldn't be. He loved people, not the state.
- By Bryan Fischer - ...Acts 2-5. “They were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” They were driven by faith, not force. Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common (Acts 4:32). The voluntary nature of this society is emphasized just two verses later. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:34). Their land was not seized by force; no, it was sold through love and generosity.
The voluntary nature of all this becomes abundantly clear in Acts 5, where God puts Ananias to death as divine judgment for lying about how much he gave to God. Barnabas, as recorded in the last paragraph of Acts 4, “sold a field that belonged to him (not the collective) and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:37). Ananias saw how the members of the fellowship admired Barnabas’ example, and decided to snag a little admiration for himself on the cheap by selling a piece of property, pretending to give all the proceeds but keeping back a chunk for himself. But Peter busts him down. “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds?” (Acts 5:3) As soon as Peter uttered these words, Ananias keeled over on the spot and breathed his last. His wife Sapphira told the same lie and met the same fate. Ananias’ problem was not that he took a slice off the top. The problem was he lied about it. For man’s praise, he pretended to be more generous than he really was. “You have not lied to man but to God” (Acts 5:4).- By Julie Roys - ...Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it's actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches. Here's why:
...1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview...To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism — the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material. To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff — and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.
...2. Socialism Punishes Virtue...Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue. ...The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid. As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have "a reputation of good works." (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.
...3. Socialism Endorses Stealing...What Christian wouldn't endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn't endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else.
...4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare...Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.
...5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family...Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the "The Communist Manifesto," once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where "the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair."
Jesus Was a Capitalist to His Core - By Bryan Fischer - ...In Jesus’ story, this rich businessman called his servants together and "entrusted to them his property." Hold it right there! It was his own property! He owned the means of production - it did not belong to the village or the government! The capital used in economic exchange was totally and entirely in private hands. And what he did with his wealth was clearly nobody's business but his own. He, and not some government bureaucrat, decided who would be entrusted with his economic resources.
How can all this be? This makes the hero in Jesus' tale a criminal in the fevered imagination of social liberals, guilty of greed and exploitation, and of grave offenses against an enlightened social order. Further, the businessman distributed the talents "to each according to his ability." Egregious sin number two, for here Jesus directly, flagrantly, flatly, and unambiguously rejects the fundamental tenet of liberalism.
...There is not a breath here in this story of the equality of outcome as any kind of operating principle. In fact, quite the reverse. Jesus had no intention of having everyone wind up at the same level of income, authority or responsibility. This businessman believed in equality of opportunity but not in equality of result. The outcome was not dictated by government regulation but rather determined by individual initiative and skill.
...Accountability in this story does not rest with some government agency. Rather it remains in private hands, with the entrepreneur who called his servants together upon his return and "settled accounts." Jesus' businessman would surely agree with the Founders who said that one of our unalienable rights is the "pursuit of happiness." Note that nowhere did they say that any of us has an unalienable right to the achievement or possession of happiness, only to its pursuit.
...And last but not least in Jesus’ story, when the master returns and finds that one of his servants has buried the money in his backyard rather than investing it, he calls him "wicked and slothful." He does not get food stamps and unemployment benefits. And rather than taking money from the productive workers and giving it out of phony compassion to this man in the form of welfare, he takes the one talent the indolent worker has and awards it to the most productive member of his team.
Jesus' businessman had no intention of rewarding or subsidizing irresponsibility. The lazy servant had no right to anything he wasn't willing to work for. What Jesus taught is that the redistribution of wealth is to be entirely voluntary, motivated by personal generosity and compassion and directed to the worthy poor. There’s no hint in Christianity of any kind of support for the involuntary transfer of wealth through government coercion.
The false Utopia of Socialism - Additional revelations
[See if these tactics remind you of anyone (or everyone) in the Democrat Party.]- - By Małgorzata Wołczyk - 'As a survivor of socialism, I can tell from my own experience, that socialism is in fact the worst political system ever invented.' ...Have you ever wondered why the "socialist utopias" of the world always cause a mass exodus of the best workers and the most enterprising of men? Have you ever heard of a similar mass exodus from capitalist countries? Would anyone wish to live in a country that promises an island of full happiness but always ends up as a prison where there is neither bread nor toilet paper, and instead puts up a fence with barbed wire so you don't even think of choosing another "paradise"? It is no joke, toilet paper was a thing of dreams for the Poles of my youth, not to mention ham or chocolate! Of course, such poverty requires free and frequent access to the doctor and the dentist. But how is this to be done? The doctors in socialist utopias inevitably flee to the capitalist countries where their work is compensated. And as for hospitals, in the socialist utopia of Poland, as must be the case in Venezuela, Cuba and most others, there are always a limited number of hospitals, to match the few qualified doctors; and so, being patient number 340 in the queue, most people in these utopias prefer to take care of themselves.
How socialism turned Venezuela from the wealthiest country in South
America into an economic basket case - By Maxim Lottt
...Now, as Venezuelans struggle against the country’s current dictator, some Venezuelan exiles in the U.S. are desperately warning Americans to avoid going down a similar path.
...Four years after that, Chavez ran for the Venezuelan Presidency. During his run, he downplayed his previous radicalism – telling people that he was ''neither for savage capitalism, nor socialism, nor Communism''. Instead, he claimed to support a "third way" -- a balance between socialism and capitalism. Chavez won the election. Maria Teresa Romero, a Venezuelan who fled to the U.S., says Chavez’s softer rhetoric was all about seizing power. “Hugo Chávez deceived people by blatantly using lies,” she told Fox News.
...But in the short run, their property was safe. Chavez didn't implement many socialist policies immediately. His first priority was instead to re-write the Constitution. He was direct about it, telling the Venezuelan congress in 1999: "The constitution, and with it the ill-fated political system to which it gave birth 40 years ago, has to die. It is going to die, sirs -- accept it."
...Chavez succeeded in re-writing the Constitution, which came with new rights to things like free government-provided health care, college, and “social justice”. The constitution passed a popular vote easily, with 72% of the vote. The basic structure of both the old and new constitutions followed the U.S. model – with a Presidency, a legislative branch, and a Supreme Court. However, after several Supreme Court rulings went against Chavez, in 2004 he “stacked the court” by passing a law to add 12 new justices to it – justices that he got to pick.
...“A series of changes started to show us the terrifying truth,” Giannina Raffo said. “Constant attacks on private property, the implementation of very harmful economic policies, criminalization of dissent, censorship, etc.” In 2006, Chavez ran for election on an overtly socialist platform, and soon after he won, he began major seizures privately-owned property.Thousands of private businesses were nationalized – including media outlets, oil and power companies, mines, farms, banks, factories, and grocery stores.
...Government-run, single-payer health care. Not only would putting the government in charge of health care cost trillions of dollars, but it would also force Americans to endure many of the same problems plaguing government-run health care models around the world, including long wait times for patients and rationing of care. The Fraser Institute reports that patients in Canada, which has a single-payer health care model, who require “medically necessary elective orthopedic surgery” wait on average 41.7 weeks – about 10 months – before receiving treatment. Patients requiring elective neurosurgery, including many patients who have brain tumors, wait 32.9 weeks.
...The elimination of all fossil fuels; socialized energy. Ending the fossil-fuel industry would potentially destroy millions of jobs and require an unprecedented investment in expensive and unreliable renewable energy sources like wind and solar power generation. Even worse, because wind and solar cost two to five times more than existing conventional energy sources, requiring huge sectors of the economy to rely on these renewables would increase the cost of all goods and services and drive countless businesses out of the country. The “Green New Deal” doesn’t stop there, however. It would also socialize much of the newly-created renewable energy industry and require “upgrades” to nearly every building in the country – a provision that would likely cost trillions of dollars and insert the federal government into every American’s home.
...Massive tax increases. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has called for increasing the top marginal tax rate for some wealthy Americans to as high as 70 percent. Democrats have also proposed a dramatic increase to America’s corporate tax rate. Rep. Yarmouth has said he favors raising the corporate rate from 21 percent to 28 percent – a 33 percent increase. This would be one of the largest corporate tax hikes in recent history, and it would roll back much of the reduction to the corporate tax rate passed by Republicans and President Donald Trump as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Those tax cuts, coupled with the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks, have spurred remarkable economic growth in the United States. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 2.8 million full-time jobs were created from January 2018 to December 2018 – 688,000 more than the number of jobs created during the same period in 2017. Increasing tax rates on corporations would likely cause a substantial economic slowdown and might even cause corporations that have expanded their operations to lay off newly-hired workers.
...Abolishing the electoral college. The electoral college enhances the power of voters in smaller states. Without the electoral college, voters in a handful of highly populated states would have significantly more power to determine the outcome of every presidential election, which is exactly what Democrats want. About three in 10 votes cast in the 2016 election occurred in just seven Democratic-leaning states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington State. If the electoral college is abolished, voters in much of the Midwest, South and Mountain West regions – especially in rural areas – will be ignored in future presidential elections.
Liberals Think Americans Are Detached From Reality - By Don Feder
...In "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-year history," Kurt Andersen traces our national psychosis back to the Puritans. And there are those who say the left has hated America – like forever. Still, you have to wonder how a nation of paranoids, superstitious boobs, fanatics and rubes at a carnival sideshow managed to build the greatest industrial society the world has ever seen, serve as a beacon of representative government and defeat the twin totalitarian nightmares of the 20th century. It must have been the New Deal and Margaret Sanger.
...Irony abounds here. The leftism that's come to be called liberalism is based on a resolute refusal to confront reality – and they say we live in a dream world. For Mrs. Clinton and the authors of these books, reality is like Silly Putty. It can be stretched to cover any absurdity. For instance:
• Our national obsession with guns ...
• I feel, therefore I am — Take the left's latest cause, transgenderism ...
• We can negotiate with bloodthirsty tyrants and terrorist death-cults ...
• Raising the minimum wage creates prosperity ...
• Election Fraud is a myth concocted by Republicans to depress the minority vote ...
• Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. To suggest otherwise is Islamophobia ...
• Abortion is a human right ...
• Overpopulation is a dire threat to humanity ...
• Man-made climate change is settled science ...
• Calling illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" somehow changes the nature of illegal immigration ...
• Hillary won the 2016 election ...
• Donald Trump is a White Supremacist ...
...Liberals live in their own hermetically sealed alternate universe. That's why, increasingly, their modus operandi is to suppress speech – to label their opponents fascists while behaving like fascists themselves. In most cases, their proof consists of: That's-the-way-it-is-because-we-say-so.