Subject: Fwd: Socialism Still A Failure
Forwarded intact, credit where credit is due.
----- Original Message -----
> From: The Republican <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Socialism Still A Failure
> CONGRESS ACTION: April 2, 2000
>
> =================
>
> SOCIALISM STILL A FAILURE: To anyone not blinded to reality by their
> ideology, it is no secret that socialism, because of its inherent and
> essential nature, is, and must always be, an abject and disastrous
> failure. The failure of socialism and social engineering by "the best
and
> brightest" of left-wing liberalism is once again being proven, the latest
> evidence coming from communist China, Canada, Britain, France, and
> Australia.
>
> Exhibit One: Communist China's one-child policy has long been a shining
> example to which the population control extremists in this country
point,
> admiringly demanding that we should try to be as "enlightened" as those
> Chinese so we can "save the earth". As has been repeatedly demonstrated
on
> this page and elsewhere, the very ideas that the world is overpopulated,
> and that population density leads to poverty and starvation, are totally
> erroneous; but the "save the earth" crowd simply isn't interested in
> facts. Now comes news from communist China that their one-child policy
> isn't all it's cracked up to be, and has been, in fact, a disaster.
> Communist officials, "spurred on by a rash of student suicides,
breakdowns
> and family murders", are "softening" their policy. The social engineers
> have been shocked by widespread female infanticides, illegal
> gender-selective abortions, and rampant official corruption and
terrorism
> in enforcing the policy. Turns out that, no matter how hard the
> "enlightened" try, people simply can't be "engineered" like machines.
Think
> that the Jane Fonda-Ted Turner-Hillary Clinton population controllers in
> this country will learn anything? Don't bet on it.
>
> Exhibit Two: Socialized, government controlled medicine is a perennial
> favorite of the leftist social engineers in this country. Hillary Clinton
> has become most closely associated with that goal as a result of her
> disastrous nationalized health care scheme in 1993, and she has long
> touted Britain's National Health Service with envy. Former candidate
Bill
> Bradley made nationalized health care a major plank of his failed
> campaign, and candidate Al Gore has cited Canada's health care system as
a
> model to be emulated. Now from Canada comes a report by the Organization
> for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that there are long
> waiting lists for surgical and diagnostic procedures (one report
concludes
> that the median patient has to wait 70% longer than is medically
> reasonable); that some procedures, routine in the United States, are
> unavailable in Canada; that technical devices such as CT scanners and
MRI
> machines are scarce; that cost controls on pharmaceuticals have actually
> led to deaths from the lack of available medicines; and most astonishing
of
> all, in this era of increasing general world-wide health and lengthening
> life spans, Canadian life expectancy is actually declining. From
Britain's
> National Health Service comes a report that perhaps one third of all
> terminally ill cancer patients are dying only because of delays in
> treatment or misdiagnoses. According to the London Times, "long delays
> between appointments were often blamed for a time lag when previously
> treatable cancers grew incurable". A leading British cancer specialist
was
> quoted "It costs nothing to ensure that patients see a doctor within two
> weeks, as the government has insisted, but what is the point if they
then
> have to wait about three months for treatment with a worn-out
radiotherapy
> machine?" Think that the Hillary Clinton-Al Gore nationalized health
care
> schemers in this country will learn anything? Don't bet on it.
>
> Exhibit Three: France contains what is considered to be the last big
> communist party in Europe. But this week, France's communist party
> scheduled a party vote on a document condemning the history of
communism,
> concluding that communism "did not liberate humanity", but rather led to
> the "oppression of the individual, a tendency to see different opinions
as
> deviation or betrayal, and practices which in all too many cases
bordered
> on the criminal". Sounds like political correctness in this country. One
> member of the party hierarchy in Paris said "It's time to move on and
> leave all those old ideas behind. They didn't do us any good." True, but
> those ideas did lead to mass imprisonment and the slaughter of millions.
> Typical of the usual reaction of brain-dead socialists (and leftists in
> this country), who never let reality intrude into their irrational
> fantasies, was the reaction of one old communist in France: "It's not
the
> party that needs to change, it's the rest of society." Typical of the
> egomaniacal thinking of all socialists: the rest of the world is wrong,
> only they are right. Think that the socialist left in this country, that
> is still trying to impose government regulation on everything in sight,
> will learn anything? Egomania isn't confined to leftists in France, so
> don't bet on it.
>
> Exhibit Four: Socialism, by its very nature, is an inherently tyrannical
> ideology that uses force or the threat of force to take from those who
> produce and redistribute to those who don't (after the ruling elites take
> their cut). Under socialism, all power rests in the hands of the almighty
> State. One of the very first steps always taken by ascendant socialist
> governments, like their brethren totalitarian ideologies of fascism and
> naziism, is to make sure that the people they rule have no power to
resist
> their mandates. That requires a disarmed population, a process that
always
> starts with routine firearms registration, followed, when the
> totalitarians are ready, by universal confiscation. All in the name, of
> course, of a more peaceful, orderly, and crime-free society. We are
> currently undergoing one of those increasingly frequent paroxysms of
> irrationality from left-wing extremists in this country over firearms,
> claiming that criminal violence is caused by the mere existence of guns,
> and ridiculously proclaiming that violent crime would be reduced -- if
not
> eliminated entirely -- if we could only get rid of guns. Or at least
> register them. After all, what's the harm in that, they ask? Left-wing
> irrationality over guns isn't confined to this country, and that
> irrationality has made great headway in countries like Britain and
> Australia. But unlike those countries, the United States has a
> Constitution that provides some protection to the individual right to
keep
> and bear arms in this country. Because of our Constitution, Australia
and
> Britain are further along than the U.S. in their attempts to rid their
> societies of guns, so that anyone interested in studying the effect of
gun
> control -- that is, anyone interested in facts, which excludes most
> left-wing liberals -- can study those societies and observe whether the
> gun-ban-as-crime-control schemes have any merit. They don't. Which of
> course won't stop the gun banners in this country from lying through
their
> teeth to achieve their goals of disarming our population. Here are some
> facts from abroad. Australia has historically had a low crime rate, and
a
> reputation as a quiet, peaceful country. Then in 1996, a criminal went
on
> a shooting rampage. Anti-gun propaganda was cranked up (as it is
following
> every similar incident in this country), and gun bans were swiftly
> enacted, encompassing not only handguns, but many hunting rifles and
> shotguns as well. Leftist politicians promised that the crime rate would
> probably "drop by up to 20%" once they got rid of all those nasty guns.
> That didn't happen. In just the one year following the gun bans,
homicide
> rates INCREASED (in one Australian state increasing by a staggering
300%),
> armed robberies (note that: armed robberies, by criminals who still had
> and always will have guns) INCREASED, assaults INCREASED, and the
burglary
> rate in the United States, which had been higher, is now lower than that
> in Australia, Canada, and Britain (the other western democracies that
> recently enacted or had draconian gun ownership restrictions). Prior to
> the gun bans, there had been a steady decline in the rate of armed
> robberies and burglaries in Australia; following the bans there has been
a
> dramatic increase in both. The rate of violent crime in Britain is now
> higher than in the U.S. Think that left-wing gun banners in this country
> like Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady will learn anything? Don't bet on it.
>
> Socialism is collectivism, in which the independent decisions of
> individuals are replaced by the collective decisions of the State. Free,
> unfettered choice by individuals is hateful to socialists. One bastion
of
> freedom in our society is the election process. But beyond the right to
> vote, as free people protected by a Constitution, we have the right to
> publicly speak and write in support of candidates we like, and in
> opposition to candidates we dislike ("Congress shall make no law
abridging
> the freedom of speech"). When we have neither the time nor the skill to
> personally speak or write, we have the right to join other like-minded
> citizens in support of, or opposition to, candidates for office.
> ("Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably
to
> assemble"), and the right to contribute -- it takes money to spread a
> message in our society -- to support those who advocate for us and those
> candidates we want to represent us. We cannot morally be forced to
> contribute to causes or candidates we dislike ("...to compel a man to
> furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
> disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical..." -- Thomas Jefferson) --
although
> it happens all the time, through mandatory union dues, and taxpayer
> matching funds to political campaigns. But campaign "reformer" Al Gore
is
> trying to destroy those freedoms. Here's his latest scheme:
>
> "So I propose the creation of a non-partisan Democracy Endowment. The
> Democracy Endowment will raise more than $7 billion over seven years, and
> then, with the interest and the returns on investment, finance Senate
and
> House general election campaigns with no other contributions allowed to
> candidates who accept the funding. Let me be clear: this is a
non-partisan
> endowment for our common democracy. You can't give to any one party; you
> can't give to any one candidate. Every qualified candidate will have
access
> to these funds according to a formula that is based on the district or
> state in which they are running. To raise the funds for the Endowment,
> there will be a 100 percent tax deduction for any individual or
> corporation that contributes. (emphasis added)
>
> You cannot contribute to candidates you support. You will be forced to
> contribute to those you oppose. If you give to Gore's fund, your money
will
> be given by government bureaucrats to everyone, even to candidates whose
> beliefs are hateful to you. Even if you don't contribute a dime to
Gore's
> fund, as a taxpayer you will be forced, by the tax deductibility of the
> contributions of others, to subsidize candidates who want to destroy
> everything you believe in. Leftists, who loudly support freedom of
choice
> when it comes to killing unborn babies, want to deprive you of the
choice
> of who you support to represent you. They'll decide for you. If
> insufficient money is raised, Gore will force broadcasters to donate air
> time. But not so you can find out what candidates believe, because Gore
> promises "a crackdown on issue advocacy ads". Gore benefits from voter
> ignorance. He will "appoint commissioners who believe the public
interest
> must be protected in new ways". Beware of leftists who propose "new
ways"
> to define your freedom.
>
> So why is it, despite overwhelming evidence gleaned from repeated
examples
> played out over decades and continents, that the left in this country
> refuses to learn that socialism is an abject failure? They aren't dumb,
> why can't they recognize reality when it stares them in the face? The
fact
> is, they do. They know full well that for the vast majority of the
people
> in any society burdened by socialism, life becomes a nightmare of
poverty
> and slavery in service to ruling party apparatchiks. The leftists in
this
> country know all that, and they don't care. Why? Because in their
> delusions of superiority, they believe that they will constitute those
> ruling party apparatchiks. As the French kings before the revolution,
> socialist ideologues really don't care how dismal a life is lived by
their
> subjects, so long as they rule, and by virtue of their rule, live the
good
> life themselves. As bad as life was for most people in the Soviet Union,
> the ruling elites lived the good life. And even better, those ruling
> elites get to impose their crack-brained schemes on their suffering
> populations without having to overcome the annoying roadblocks put in
> their way by democratic institutions, without any need to establish a
> consensus of opinion, without any requirement of showing that their
> schemes make any sense or stand any likelihood of success, and most
> important, without any of the constraints imposed by a Constitution.
True
> nirvana for the tin-pot tyrants who populate the left in this country,
who
> call themselves "liberals".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mr. Kim
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONGRESS ACTION Newsletter can be found
> with most web searchers,and is available at:
> http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/
>
>
> [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not
> Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A.K. Pritchard
> http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
