Everything comes at a cost, be it monetary, or by consequences. The Democrat Party's two lead candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, are running on a platform of eliminating cost and consequences. Their agendas are impossible, and cannot be achieved. Their promises are empty, and the consequence of their platforms is slavery.
Republican Candidate Donald Trump also proposes a number of things. He says, "We will make America great, again." He wants to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, temporarily ban Muslims from immigrating into the United States because "radical" jihadists reside in their ranks, eliminate common core and the federal government's influence on education, "repeal and replace Obamacare," defeat ISIS in the Middle East while strengthening our relationship with Israel, and a whole slew of other offers from a businessman's perspective. His desired agenda, even though a vast majority of it seems reasonable, also will come at a cost, both monetarily, and through the consequences of the actions.
Ted Cruz takes a stronger conservative stance. He says on day one he will repeal Obamacare and tear up the disastrous Iran Deal negotiated by the Obama administration. He calls for a return to the United States Constitution, including a return to a strong presence by the States in government. He also is calling for stronger immigration enforcement, a strong national defense, and a whole litany of proposals that makes conservatives froth at the mouth.
Good, or bad, every single offer by these candidates comes with a cost. To every action there is a reaction, and some kind of monetary payment, attached. This is the reality of life, politics, and liberty (or the devastating lack, thereof).
When considering candidates for any political office, be it President of the United States, a Congressman, a Senator, a State officeholder, a local City Councilmember, supervisors and board members, or the dog catcher, to make the proper choice we must take into consideration the cost that may go along with our choice. Sometimes we will mess it up, and sometimes we will choose the lesser of evils, or even find a diamond in the rough that turns things around, and makes a dent in our desire to stop the downward spiral of our system from order to disorder.
Which brings up the current drive by the Democrats, and a number of citizens (mostly younger, but spanning across all age brackets, and diverse cultures).
Socialism is not "free stuff," or having a police department and fire department (as some folks who support statist candidates seem to think). Emergency services is among the few authorities we have granted to government so as to keep order, and protect the populace should there be elements or incidents that are not hoped for. "Free stuff" is often the result of socialism, not a part of it, and once one investigates deeply, one realizes there is no such thing as "free stuff." Someone, somewhere, pays for it, either monetarily, or through consequences to society.
The snake oil salesmen who promise "free stuff" are using something we see in magic shows. It is slight of hand, distractions to move your attention from what is really going on in the background. In the end, "free stuff" is a piece of candy being handed to you from a shady individual in the doorway of a "kidnap van," or a poison apple that may look red and shiny on the surface, but is in reality filled with life-consuming toxins.
The proper definition of socialism begins with governmental control of the means of production. Bernie Sanders is a supporter of a government takeover of any and all industries, and he wants to believe that government is capable of fairness, and equal distribution. It'll bring up the bottom and push down the wealthy, he promises. Equity. Equal misery.
When there are no wealthy remaining, because everyone is dependent upon the government, who then pays the monetary cost for such a system? And if everyone is equal, that means you are no longer allowed to try and make yourself better, to achieve your dreams, to buy a nicer car or set a goal to buy a nicer home. Everyone is equal. By law, nobody will be allowed to seek profit, or a better life.
Such is the societal consequence of socialism.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claim they are not socialists. They are progressives. They believe in private businesses remaining in place, but they believe a federal standard through heavy regulation must be imposed. Profit is greed, they say, and the large corporations must be brought under control. In other words, they want to allow the private industries to remain in the hands of the owners, and for government to control the means of production so that the corporations don't misbehave through heavy regulation and governmental standards.
The kind of system Clinton and Obama supports, governmental control of the means of production through heavy governmental regulation, is commonly known as "fascism."
Either way, what the Democrats have to offer is not good for the United States, and if we elect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders into the White House to carry on Barack Obama's work to fundamentally change America, the consequences will be more than the Millennials will wish to bear.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment