What’s Wrong With A Little Socialism?

They’re here … they’re feeling strong … and they’re coming out of the closet. Earlier this week the Washington Examiner Revealed, up until June  Obama’s Environmental Czar Carol Browner was a member of Socialist International, a worldwide umbrella group for socialist parties. Their motto … “Progressive policies for a fairer world.” Arghhhhh!

All for the common good comrade. In the past this would have been a deal breaker … but not today. With “Dear Obama” in charge … they are coming out of the closet. Exhibit A … Fox’s Bob Beckel discussing the Browner story this afternoon. Asks Beckel, “What’s so bad with a little socialism?”


I would say the conservative didn’t handle the come back very well. So I will. What’s so bad with socialism? It substitutes individual thought for collective thought. It restricts and regularly eliminates and often punishes personal liberty and freedom for a common cause normally determined by self appointed Czars. It says I am smarter than you and YOU will do as I say. Socialism is collective slavery. It enslaves the mind, it enslaves the individual. Key point: Notice who they point a finger at the minute they are criticized … the Bush administration. I swear this Republican led bailout has seriously hurt conservatives.

Now back to Browner. Specifically she was part of an environmental group that believes “global warming” should be governed by international law (set by the socialists, the deciders, I am sure) … complete with international taxes:

Browner’s CSWS is similarly open about the economic costs it is willing to impose, across national borders to achieve its environmental utopia. On Sept. 5-6, 2008, the commission noted that the costs of its proposals would “rang[e] in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades,” and it called for a “redesign of the international rules on intellectual property.” That is international bureaucratese for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to “share” technologies with less-developed countries.

At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July2, the CSWS officially resolved that “market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development.” Again, that’s bureaucratese. It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the “resources necessary” to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime” against “global warming.”

Nuff said.

3 replies
  1. Bill
    Bill says:

    Can these great minds can site one planned, collectivist economy that produced more widespread long term prosperity and freedom than capitalism?

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Forget Ayers, forget Wright.  The real threat to the country is this bogus "threat" of so called anthropogenic global warming.  It is a convenient tool of the leftists and socialists to "tame" the United States, the "great satan" of both socialists/communists and Islamofascists, effectively bringing it to its knees by pulling the rug out from under its economic base.  Obama has revealed the base of his true intent: socialize the U.S.  And he is so self assured (read it: believes his own and the media's BS) that he doesn't even bother to hide it anymore.  Of course, our vaunted media once again "misses" the real story, and will seek to obscure any of the story that might get out.

    Isn't it funny how these "saviors" of the world don't go to the greater and growing source of greenhouse gases: China?   Obama's statements show a certain degree of admiration, while simultaneously deriding the U.S. in front of foreign audiences on his "foreign gravitas" tour last summer.

    Don't be fooled by his fake olive leaves to conservatives and capitalists.  It is a sham.

    Isn't Browner the one that wiped all of her computers of all her EPA files and backups on her last day of work, despite being issued an injunction prohibiting her from doing so?

Comments are closed.