On February 7, this year, Newsweek Magazine, on it's front cover, declared:

We Are All Socialists Now
"In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French."

The article begins with a quote of Indiana Congressman Mike Pence on Fox News appearing with Sean Hannity and talking about Obama's "nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill."  Pence was complaining about the pork in the bill, specifically calling out $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $20 million for "fish passage barriers".  Hannity ended the segment, calling the bill, "the European Socialist Act of 2009"

The article's authors went on to describe how "The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state."

While I agree with the first part of the above statement excepting the word "conservative", "a ... Republican administration - effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries", The second part, is patently false.  Sean Hannity opposed the Bush-Paulson-Bernanke "Bailout Bill" last year, and Mike Pence voted "nay" to the $750 billion TWICE!  What Newsweek fails to realize is that conservative oppostion to this type of massive government spending is based on principle, not political expediency. We did not support George Bush's bailout, only to oppose Barack Obama's.  We opposed both - ON PRINCIPLE!

Recently, a reporter asked Mr. Obama, "Are you a Socialist?" This article in the UK Telegraph states his answer: "He's absolutely definitely not a socialist, the President insisted. But, he suggested, his predecessor George W. Bush was:"  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/08/barack_obama_george_w_bush_is_a_socialist.  

Now, I don't believe George Bush is an ideological socialist. He is a Bush, however, and Bushes tend to be non-ideological.  George Bush is even somewhat conservative, but again, not ideological.  That is why he could not recognize the Henry Paulson bailout plan as ideologically socialist. That is why he could say, "Well, I obviously have made a decision to make sure the economy doesn't collapse. I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."  In effect, George Bush, in the last month of his presidency has served one up, right across the plate, belt high, for Barack Obama to "go yard" with it.  BHO is swinging for the fences as I write.

As the Obama presidency rolls along, and his Socialist, big-government agendas are revealed in ever greater fashion, Bob's my uncle has once again been proven to be more prescient than Newsweek Magazine.  I wrote a letter to my own Texas Republican Senators and Congressman shortly after the bailout vote was taken, approving that monstrosity.  I did not blog it at the time because it seemed surreal to me that I would even write a letter like this.  I am including it here:

October, 2008

Dear Komrade,
Since your recent vote to affirm the Socialist State in Amerika, I have been trying to determine how I should personally react to and handle the situation.  The government has taken ownership positions in many of the largest banks and financial institutions, thereby exercising some degree of control over them.  This will facilitate the central planning of the economy that has long been desired by the political far left.  At the same time, the largesse of the Federal Government has been bestowed upon the very rich on Wall Street, while, here I am in middle Amerika, with nothing more to show for it, than a diminished investment portfolio.  Now, komrade, I don't want you to misunderstand me.  I have long held to kapitalist principles, yet I am not a rich man.  I have always paid my taxes as required by law.  I have saved and invested as prescribed by kapitalist principles, and hoped to someday retire comfortably and enjoy my latter years until my death.  Now, that dream is in doubt.
Is it time, now, for me to subscribe to the socialist agenda?  Depending on where you draw the line, I am probably very close to the level of poverty which would allow me to receive money from the government for college tuition, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., yet, up to now, I have preferred to work and earn my own way.  Now, with the impending election of the Socialist Barack Obama, and with Sen. Reid in the Senate, and Pelosi in the House, I see an all-out Socialist future in Amerika.  It would not be hard for me to cut back on my work and salary enough to "qualify" for many of the government programs that are now available.  I could certainly use the break, because I've been working very hard for many years now, and if I play it right, I could possibly make out like . . . um . . . uh . .  a good Socialist.  If the economy takes the expected deep downturn following an Obama election, I may have no choice.

Your komrade,
(Bob's my uncle)

This letter actually prompted a phone call from the office of my Representative Pete Sessions.  His chief of staff called me directly and we spoke for about 20 minutes.  While I appreciated the attention from my Congressman's office, I did not appreciate the fact that he voted for giving away the taxpayer's money to Wall Street and the banks, all to no avail.  None of this has worked, nor will it work. John McCain now agrees with me, calling the stimulus bill "generational theft".  We are spending money that exists nowhere.

After my conversation with the chief of staff, I wrote a followup letter:

Dear Congressman Sessions,
I sent you an email, yesterday, decrying the Socialism that is now being foisted upon the government and the people.  As is my manner, I couched the communication in satire.  However, in my view, it was more poignant than satire, because it is my vision of the future under an Obama presidency with socialist Democrat control of the Congress.  
Here is the point I want to make about the bailout.  I don't understand the connections between $750 billion dollars in a bailout scheme for very rich individuals and companies, and I don't trust the President, Mr. Hanky Paulson, the Congress, or anyone who is involved in promoting it and implementing it.   I only realize that somehow, I'm on the hook for about $10,000, individually. (My share of approximately $1.5 trillion recently allocated for such bailouts.)  Meanwhile, the criminals have been identified, but their prosecution seems to be far off if ever.  In short, I'm screwed two ways.  The economy is in the toilet, and I'm helping to bail out some rich guys with tax money I haven't even earned yet.  The American People instinctively understood this a couple of weeks ago.  That is why Congress was flooded with calls, emails, and faxes to not do this thing.    IT IS A QUESTION OF TRUST!  There is none.   
I spoke with your chief of staff, Mr. Harrison, yesterday.  He was kind enough to call me back in response to my email.  I am afraid that I do not have the confidence that he expressed to me that everything will be alright.  Actually, he never said that, but he did try to put a bold, positive face on our present situation.  While I appreciate the call and the effort, in my opinion, we face a very bleak, perhaps violent, and depressing future.
I told Mr. Harrison, that I blog on Townhall.  If I can help in this way, please let me know.  Politics is about communication, so let us communicate.  You have my email address.
Here is the link to my blog if your are interested:

http://backyardgrillblog.blogtownhall.com/

Sincerely,
(Bob's my uncle)

Needless to say, I have not heard back from the good Congressman.

I don't know about you, but if we're not already in a depression, it feels like it.  At least I'm kinda feeling depressed.  Everything I know to be right about this country and the Constitution are about to be severely tested.  We are currently embarking on a journey toward Socialism which could permanently cripple our economy, our ability to lead and influence the world, and will energize and empower evil forces that seek our ultimate destruction and subjugation.  "Bummer!" you might say.  Well now you see why I'm feeling a little "blue".

Some are heartened by President Elect Obama's cabinet and administration selections.  "Maybe he won't be so bad." some say.  Maybe he won't 'overreach'" say others.  It is my belief that he will "overreach".  The only question is "how soon?".  And at what point will it be too late to do anything about it.  Already, the Democrats are consolidating their power in Congress, shutting out the opposition to what extent they can, and preparing to ram through a Socialist agenda not seen since the 1930's.  God help us!

My prayer is that my previous post   What to Expect in the Coming Socialist Government  will not be a prophecy.

Alright, boys and girls,  Bob's Nephew has hauled off with another well-crafted email letter to his congressman.  I blogged extensively about this from Sept. 25 through Oct. 3.  Many of my previous email letters are posted here as well if you want to review.  Anyway, enjoy!

Dear Congressman Sessions,
First I would like to congratulate you on winning your re-election bid November 4.  I am happy that you won the majority in our district and will continue to represent me in a Conservative manner.  I certainly voted for you over the liberal opposition you faced.  Given the results of the election nationally, we will need your principled voice more than ever in Congress.
That being said, I would like to know if you have reconsidered your vote to bail out Wall Street last month.  You and I disagreed on this issue and I sent you an email to that effect.  My email must have had an effect, because it prompted a phone call from your chief of staff.  He and I spoke for about 20 minutes where I explained my view that the bailout action was tantamount to bringing Socialism to this country in a manner and volume never before seen.  
Now we will have a new Government which most certainly will take us in an even greater Socialist direction not seen since the New Deal and the Great Society.  I contend that the bailout vote took the argument of anti-Socialism away from the Republican candidates.   How can you accuse your opponent of advocating Socialism when you, yourself have voted for it.  My house used to be in Sam Johnson's district.  He voted against the bailout.  So did Michael Burgess and Jeb Hensarling.  Tell me, what conservative principle made you vote for what is, in essence Socialism.  Public ownership of private enterprise.
I would ask that you respond to this question and explain to me what effect the bailout is actually having on Wall Street and the banking industry.  Given the events of just last month in the markets and the mortgage industry, I would say that 1.5 trillion dollars in bailouts this year has been money well wasted.

Sincerely,
bob's my uncle

A Free Market Economy

For now, we have what is known as a Free Market Economy.  That is, the way this economy works, millions of people, called consumers, make, perhaps, 100’s of millions of decisions every day about how to spend their money.  They make decisions regarding the products and services they need: food, clothing, shelter, transportation; the products and services they want: entertainment in all its forms, communication devices, electronic gizmos that make all of our lives easier and more pleasant; and some, those who are wealthy enough, buy expensive and extravagant products that most of us can only dream about.  Each decision made in the economy is a democratic "vote", in favor of one product or another.  In a free market economy, more choices are better.  Informed choices are better.  Educated consumers make better decisions and obtain greater value for their purchasing dollar.

Now, on the other side of this picture are the producers and suppliers of all of these products.  Those who are in the business of providing products and services have usually risked something; property, savings, a personal fortune, a line of credit, in order to produce what they produce, their goal being, profit.  And in pursuing profit, they more often than not benefit the greater society by hiring people to help produce their product and paying them a salary. They also benefit society with their product assuming that the aforementioned consumers find enough value in it to make a purchase.  That, in a nutshell, is how a free market economy works; and it could be argued that nowhere has it worked better than in the United States of America.  Nowhere else are there more opportunities to become entrepreneurs than in this country.

The Moral Component

In my description of a free market economy, I did not make any moral judgments about the businesses, products, or consumers involved in the free market.  That is because the consumer is the ultimate judge in the market.  They discriminate, making judgments about the products.  The market itself makes moral judgements, naturally. The morality in the market is that good decisions are rewarded, bad decisions are punished.  At this present time, specifically in the housing and mortgage sector, that is not the case.  The natural laws of the market have been skewed by fraudulent practices, and now bad decisions (sub-prime mortgages, government backed securities etc.) are being rewarded, and good decisions (responsible home ownership, saving and investing) are being punished.  Clearly, consumers and banks who engaged in risky loans and home purchases are going to be rewarded because the Federal Government has elected to bail them out.  Clearly, consumers and banks who made promises and kept them, who did not overextend themselves in borrowing or lending more than could be afforded, will lose out.  Their debts will, most likely, remain in place without modification.  This is possible because the only entity that can exempt itself (and others) from the judgments of the free market is the Government.  

In turn, they (elected officials) can choose whom they wish to reward in exchange for electoral favor, and they always choose themselves, first.  Here is the crux of the whole matter.  Many of our representatives have established a scheme that rewards millions for bad decisions, aided, abetted, and encouraged by those elected officials, in return for votes, thus increasing and entrenching their power.  In a pure democracy, all it would take is 50.1% of the electorate to vote in favor of taxing those who have money in order to give it to themselves.  Basically, mob rule.  Since we have a Constitutionally instituted Representative Republic, not a pure democracy, it's a little more difficult to do than that, but possible, nonetheless.  Given a large enough majority that wants to do such a thing and control of all three branches of government, it can be done.  This is a fearful thing.

Karl Marx wrote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  This is the basic tenet of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism.  I will say that these are three different shades of the same color.  It is basically a wealth redistribution scheme and extreme egalitarianism.  Taking money from high-level producers, and giving it to low-level producers, not requiring the low-level producer to produce more so that he can support himself.  Human nature tells us that the high-level producer will slack off and match the production of the low-level producer.  Why should the high-level producer carry the load of the slackers?   As a socialist worker is reported to have once said, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."  But that's okay in a Socialist Society, because everybody is the same.

Now, How Does This Affect You and Me?  

My boss, who hired me to help him produce his product, is a small business man.  He pays me well for the work that I do and I try hard every day to give him what he is paying me for.  He is also a great guy, and I consider him a friend.  Now, I don't know how much money he earns with his business, I don't know what his profit margins are, but I suspect that he earns in excess of the magic $250K, ($200K or $150K, depending on what day it is), income level that Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on.  I do not begrudge him his “wealth” at all.  I'm glad he's got it because his wealth provides a certain amount of security for me.  As long as his business is doing well, and I am doing my job, I will have a source of income from him. I know he works very hard to make his company a success.  I also know that he has often sacrificed, foregoing his own paycheck, to ensure that his employees got theirs.  I think my boss is the best boss in the world.  

Barack Obama wants to increase the tax burden on my boss, so the government can give more money to some people who haven't earned that money in the free market.  At the same time, Barack Obama wants to increase the tax burden on thousands of other small businessmen like my boss to the same purpose -  giving it to those who have not earned it.  This will cause my boss to, most likely, reduce his overhead, tighten his budget, and have to work even harder to keep his business profitable.  All of the other small businesses, many of which he relies on for his business, to constrict their activities as well, and probably not be able to give my boss the business he needs to keep me working.  If you work for a small businessman, like I do, you and I could possibly lose our jobs and our incomes, then we will probably be forced to rely on government to provide our living.  My boss may be forced to close his business.  Ultimately we will be enslaved to the government since there will be no place else to go, and no opportunities for improving our lot in life.  The revenue to the government decreases with the downturn in business and income.  As this condition continues, there are fewer and fewer resources that the government can use to pay the "workers" that do not produce.  At some point, after all the money has been absorbed and spent, the government must force the people to work (enslave them) and produce for the state and the people.  

The goal of Socialism is Communism.  V. Lenin

Lately, I have been too busy to post here at the Grill.   As I indicated in my last few posts, the sudden lurch of the Federal Government toward Socialism brought that issue into clear focus.  Even "good, conservative" Republicans voted for that dog of a bailout bill.   I have known by observation for some time that Barack Obama is a Socialist and a Marxist.  That being said, I have made a list of very real possibilities should next Tuesday bring about a BHO presidency, a 60 seat Democrat Senate, and a much larger Democrat majority in the House.

1.  Stifling free speech of the Right only.  Fairness Doctrine for Talk Radio, "hate speech" legislation and sedition laws for right leaning bloggers and journalists.

2.  More strenuous and more muscular attempts at gun control/confiscation.  The new Supreme Court will overturn Heller 5-4.  Let the gun-grabbing begin.

3.  Higher taxes for the 40% who are most affluent.  Government largesse for the bottom 60%.  You've got to have a margin in all future elections.

4.  100% ACLU type appointments to the judiciary.  

5.  Persecution of Evangelical and Bible-believing Fundamentalist Churches (see #1).  

6.  Taxpayer funded abortion on demand will become the law of the land in perpetuity.  All arguments to the contrary will be stifled by a Socialist judiciary.

7.  Global Warming will be instituted as the centerpiece of the new Socialism.  Non-compliance fees and fines (carbon credits) will be instituted.

8.  Illegal aliens will become mere immigrant laborers and given an express pathway to citizenship and voting rights.  

9.  The southern border of the US will continue to be a leaking sieve for northern bound immigrants seeking "freedom".    Free education, healthcare, welfare (see #3) in exchange for continued votes for more Socialism (see #8).

Feel free to add to this list or expand on these as you see fit in the comments.