A Brief History of Socialism in America

From 1876 onward, after the North recovered its fortunes and the South was unburdened by the end of Reconstruction, the nation was ruled by laissez-faire capitalism, and freedom flourished for most (not all) of the nations' citizens. The rapid pace of the Industrial Revolution brought about an exemplary standard of living but also new problems for the rapidly developing nation, and socialistic or progressive "reforms" appeared in this country for the first time.

Progressivism as social reform during the hard years of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, in my opinion, was not socialism, but a way to help workers and farmers cope with the rapid development and industrialization of the country. It was supported by one of the Republican icons of history, Teddy Roosevelt (photo, right), as governor of New York and later as President (1901-1909). Private charity and philanthropy — supported by well-to-do citizens including the "Captains of Industry” and finance, such as J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, etc., with little or no government financing — flourished and gave a great boost to research and development in science, agriculture, industry, and medicine, as well as the arts and architecture.

Socialistic reforms began to take shape with Democrat President Woodrow Wilson (1914-1921; photo, left), who enforced anti-trust laws against industry but not against unions. Labor bosses began their long career of corruption and violence in trade unions. World War I brought violations of civil liberties of citizens and foreigners in the U.S., as well as a “war economy.”

Prosperity, wealth and happiness increased dramatically in the 1920s for most citizens during the presidencies of Warren G. Harding (1921-1923; Teapot Dome Scandal notwithstanding) and Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929). However, the “Roaring 20s” ended with the stock market crash and Herbert Hoover, and the Great Depression followed with great misery to the country. And despite these difficulties and hardships, crime remained low. The American people helped each other as best they could.

Then came FDR (photo, right) and socialistic "reforms" took place in earnest under the guise of "getting the country on its feet again." Socialism grew hand-in-glove with federal usurpation of power. World War II may have been one of the reasons for the end of the depression, not government intervention in the economy.(1) The Constitution was ignored but war and patriotism forgave all…

Prosperity was renewed in the 1950s in the Eisenhower years, despite difficulties with Dean Acheson’s containment policy of world communism. Joseph McCarthy was significantly correct (yet, the charge of “McCarthyism” persists, nevertheless, as if the threat of espionage and communism had not been real!). Indeed, there were a lot of communists and traitors in our government, but not as many as in the 1930s and 1940s.

American socialistic reforms were given a boost with LBJ's "Great Society" program. Civil rights reforms gave equal opportunity to African-American citizens, but instead of increasing their standard of living, the welfare programs that have been enacted have brought them triple rates of illiteracy and illegitimacy — and the breakdown of their families as the government has essentially replaced the need for fathers in their households. A similar process is taking place with whites and Hispanics to the detriment of the nation.

The Nixon years brought a crisis of government, while the Carter years brought a crisis of confidence, a nadir in national spirit, impotency and pusillanimity in world affairs, and advances of communism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America at the expense of America's former friends. Socialistic reform was advanced during the Carter years with the establishment of the Department of Education (i.e., government indoctrination), financial reforms (i.e., Community Reinvestment and subsequent legislation), etc.

The 1980s were the prosperous years of Ronald Reagan (photo, right), the advance of socialism at home was rolled back, and the advance of communism worldwide was halted; within a few years the "Evil Empire" had collapsed of its own evil and corrupt weight. The boom years of Ronald Reagan were carried over through the Clinton years. But socialism refuses to die because once implemented and the majority is drinking from the public trough, it becomes very difficult to pull them back!

And here, we must pause and ponder Sir Alex Fraser Tytler's (University of Edinburgh; 1714-1778) dictum: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy...always followed by a dictatorship."

Let us say that in our constitutional republic equality before the law and equality of opportunity are being converted into equality of outcome (the leveling of society to the lowest common denominator) and the rule of mediocrity, which if it becomes entrenched enough in our country, will convert us from a former vibrant nation par excellence into a decadent Third World social democracy. What is Socialism? Ludwig von Mises has written a magnificent book, Socialism. I invite the reader to peruse that volume as well as Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, but if time is of the essence, read the little gem of a tome, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat (photo, left).

In the meantime, here is my own composite definition of socialism with its indulgent ironic twist: Socialism is the assumption and maintenance of power by evolution, seduction of the population by promising something for nothing, but in reality taking from some to give to others, the use of class strife, envy, and incitement of the dark side of human nature to justify legal plunder. This redistribution of wealth and despotic management of power is carried out by elites, who are above the rest of us and who, by expressing their "good intentions," claim to protect us from even ourselves for our own good. This unnatural "equality" is maintained by the state owning or largely controlling via regulation or heavy taxation, the means of production (e.g., factories, mines, etc.), distribution (transportation, communication, etc.) or the consumption of goods or services (e.g., food, health care, housing, education indoctrination, etc.). The goal it to eventually herd us all onto their own plantation where they, the socialist elites, will be more equal than the rest of us!

My definition of socialism is derived from my long studies of history and political science, the subjects of collectivism and tyranny versus freedom, not to mention, my early life experience in a communist "workers' paradise." I am referring here to my native Cuba, truly once a beautiful semi-tropical paradise converted by communism into a collectivist hell hole under an unending, communist tyranny, a tyranny my own loving parents helped to create, deceived by their own misguided sense of social justice. They lived to regret it, and happily made it to freedom in this great nation, these United States of America.(2)


(1) To understand the Great Depression one must read the monumental work of Murray Rothbard, another giant from the great Austrian School of Economics. 

He and most other serious economists (of various school of economics with the exception of Keynesian or Marxist) believe that the interventionist ("hands-on") policies of Herbert Hoover, not his laissez faire methods, worsened the depression! 

It was the monetary policies of The Creature from Jekyll Island that set the stage for the depression that began with the Stock Market Crash of 1929. That creature, the Federal Reserve, only established a few years earlier in 1913 (part of that terrible troika that also included the 16th and 17th Amendments) "set the stage" for the "Boom-Bust" economic cycles that we contend with today.

 The Fed's printing of fiat currency out of proportion to real wealth and without sufficient backing by precious metals (gold and silver) caused the inflationary period of 1921-1929. Recessions and depressions are caused not by speculation by entrepreneurs, but by government interference with the free market.

Frankly, evenPulling the welfare cart more recently President Barack Obama sought economic advice not from the free market economists of the Chicago or Austrian School of Economics but from Keynesian economists whose advice have sown the seeds to profligate spending and have led to the implementation of policies of fiscal irresponsibility. We are now reaping the whirlwind of magnified socialism and economic disaster! (Photo, right: Courtesy Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute)

Scholars are still debating whether World War II ended or contributed to ending the Great Depression; ditto for the increase in the money supply in the late 1930s and 1940s as the cure. Still others believe that self-correcting forces in the market and economic cycles set the stage for recovery. I believe that the psychology of U.S. victory in World War II, coupled with new initiatives, work, entrepreneurial activity, and a new optimistic outlook for the future in the 1950s (the same as with Reagan in the 1980s after the stagflation of Jimmy Carter presidential years) set the stage for prosperity!

2. Our family story was published in my book, Cuba in Revolution — Escape from a Lost Paradise (2002).

Written by Dr. Miguel A. Faria

This article was published exclusively for HaciendaPublishing.com on September 28, 2011.

The article can be cited as: Faria MA. A brief history of socialism in America. HaciendaPublishing.com, September 28, 2011. Available from: http://www.haciendapub.com/randomnotes/brief-history-socialism-america

Copyright © 2011 Miguel A. Faria, Jr. M.D. 

Your rating: None Average: 5 (12 votes)
Comments on this post

Sen. Ted Cruz vs. Donald Trump!

Submitted by Col. A. Chenoweth:


The criticisms of Trump come mostly from the Lib-Dems and their supporting media. Their false claim that Hillary would be scared to face-off against Rubio is rubbish—just a diversion so the dumb Republicans might, indeed, elect Rubio instead of Trump—whom they know will defeat Hillary.

To boot, neither the Lib-Dems, nor Hillary, nor Socialist Bernie, nor the Republican nominees understand free-enterprise—Business—and that THE ENGINE OF THIS COUNTRY IS NOT GOVERNMENT—BUT BUSINESS, FREE ENTERPRISE. The government, Congress, the Administration and agencies only make “make-work.” Have you ever seen the federal government up close? It’s a magnet for mediocracy: paper-pushers, un-fireable, and stalling until retirement—virtually a total welfare system where the recipients are given desks to lounge on all day before picking up their welfare checks. And, those who lead them? Who with any modicum of ambition would work for the government, unless they see it as a comfortable way to waste a life until an overgenerous retirement?

None of the so-called Republicans running have ever run a company, had to risk investments, hired and fired, produced or gone under, been fired themselves, had to meet a payroll—or for that matter ever had to really account for anything or been responsible for same? The only things they have run are their mouths; Rubio and Cruz are empty suits just like Obama. Only the governors have ever run anything.

Should Hillary by some freak of nature win, the country would be doomed, as it would be also if either Cruz or Rubio were to win. None of them could lead or turn this country around, much less keep it from becoming bankrupt.

Only Trump— with a VP like Kasich, who could help him with the intricacies of governing—and Christie, Attorney General—could stave off the demise of this once great country, but only for so long. With all of the external AND internal threats (nuclear, cyber, terrorist, natural depletion, pollution, energy, and even available water; population shifts, monetary system failures, etc.), even Trump and company would only stall the inevitable. It is predicted that by the end of this century, neither Europe nor the United States will exist as we now know it.

I think, this country has had its 250-year run as a dominant world system. It has grown too large to be workable and the government too big and dysfunctional. What we might be facing is an amended Constitution that— as the thirteen states did in the interim before writing a Constitution in 1789— is reform a “Confederation” (not a Confederacy) of six regions comprised of states with similar outlooks, that would be under a very limited central government like at present but scaled way, way, down.

Who knows? But to me — and I hope to many of you brilliant friends — Trump is the only one who can redirect and lead this country at this very critical year 2016 and beyond.--- Avery Chenoweth, Sr. in quaint ol’ Perry, GA. Feb 29, 2016.

Mia Harper: And lead us right into the toilet you mean!

Dr. Miguel & Helen Faria: Although Trump will likely carry all before him on Super Tuesday, we are supporting Senator Ted Cruz (R- Tx) , the most knowledgeable and most principled conservative running— but will support whoever gets the nomination in the GOP against the corporativist and socialist Democrats, Hillary and Bernie! Learn more about Senator Ted Cruz in Dr. Faria's review of Cruz's book:

Ted Cruz obtained his B.A degree from Princeton University (1992) and his J.D. from Harvard Law school (1995). He is the first Hispanic (Cuban-American) to serve as U.S. Senator from Texas. Cruz has been a high achiever all his life and has many other firsts under his belt — e.g., the youngest and longest-serving Solicitor General in the history of Texas, etc. At about the same time he was Solicitor General, he was also an adjunct law professor at the University of Texas and taught U.S.Supreme Court litigation. 44-year-old Cruz has been an effective member of the U.S. Senate as well a leader in the Tea Party movement, and not surprisingly, he has plans to run for the GOP nomination in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

Fortunately, Cruz has written a revealing book that tells much about himself, his hard journey as a Cuban immigrant son, and the source of his political philosophy — but like everything Cruz does, this tome will no doubt get under the skin of liberal (an even some establishment "conservatives" critics) who will attack it for political reasons and its uncompromising honesty.

Despite his ivy league education and high level of constitutional and legal knowledge, this polymath and precocious statesman remains down to earth and close to his humble roots. His honesty and sincerity permeates the book. He dreams of what it could be but does not flinch at telling the truth of government corruption and inanity. He exposes the political corruption in Washington and the double game the politicians play to remain in power and deceive the American people, including the establishment of his own party, an establishment that does not want to rock the political boat and want to continue politics as usual. The book simply is an informative eye-opener!

But the book also has a positive message: Like its author, this magnificent tome recounts the forgotten and potentially recoverable story of the American dream, a story that needs to be retold, recounted just as Cruz has done to re-energize and unite this nation in the traditions of her founders.

There are many political lessons that can be learned in this book, but the greatest thing it could do is to reignite the optimism and enthusiasm of those Americans who love this country and understand what this nation stands for in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. It will be instructive for those who truly wish to learn about his political journey. America haters (and compromisers), though, will hate this book as they already hate its principled author, and so, as a warning against causing a potentially medical hypertensive crisis, they should abstain from reading this book, unless from the outset, they set to read it with a fair and open mind and take a blood pressure lowering capsule.

Miguel A. Faria Jr. M.D. is an Associate editor-in-chief of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), a retired professor of neurosurgery, and the author of the book, Cuba in Revolution — Escape from a Lost Paradise (2002) and many articles on science, politics, and medicine.

We are aware of Cruz's vulnerabilities, but agree with a commenter, "Lisa Winne Clark (Amazon July 18, 2015), on my review: "Although his FATHER may not have been a citizen of the U.S. at the time, he later became a full-fledged; but THAT'S not really the issue. You see, his mother WAS a citizen of the U.S... Her name was Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and he was only born in Calgary, Alberta (Canada) while both of his parents owned a seismic processing firm which contracted out to the oil business. His mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware, and she was a citizen. So the information put out there by anti-Cruz people, is by far, incorrect. Please get the story straight, before you tell it again. Only ONE parent needs to be a citizen of the U.S., for a child to be considered the same."

Today's poll: Women!

Today's poll in the Macon Telegraph: Inspirational Women!

Which of these prominent U.S. women do you believe is the most inspirational?

3% Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors

1% Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook

5% Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo

12% Hillary Clinton, former U.S. Secretary of State

17% Michelle Obama, First Lady of the U.S.

58% Sarah Palin, conservative commentator & former Alaska Governor

4% Meg Whitman, CEO of HP

The # in the sample is not reported. But we agree with the result!

Today in history

Today in History, January 21, 2014

1793: Reign of Terror about to begin in the French Revolution, King Louis XVI, condemned for treason, was executed on the guillotine. His cousin Philip Egalite voted for execution; Thomas Paine against it.

1924: Russian communist Vladimir I. Lenin died at age 53.

1950: Former State Department official in the FDR administration, Alger Hiss, accused of being part of a Communist spy ring, was found guilty in New York of lying to a grand jury. (Hiss served less than four years in prison.) Hiss' treason (for Stalinist Russia)and espionage (for the GRU) have all been proven correct via Venona intercept and testimony of defectors.

George Orwell (Eric Blair), author of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and "Animal Farm" died in London at age 46.

1968: Battle of Khe Sanh began during the Vietnam War. An American B-52 bomber carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed in Greenland, killing one crew member and scattering radioactive material.

1977: President Jimmy Carter pardoned nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War.

Self destructive Politics of envy in GOP contenders...

Alas, the politics of envy and class warfare has entered the GOP nomination campaign. Charles Krauthammer has penned a telling column, "THE GOP SUICIDE MARCH," January 2012. He writes that Obama and the Democrats have successfully changed the issue from defending Obama's dismal economic failures with the assistance of GOP hopefuls. He writes:

"Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope...

"The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat-cat donors over people, political power over everything.

"It's all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement -- blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney -- plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter."

And then the most shameful but predictable part of this sham strategy follows, writes Krauthammer:

"Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by ... Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney's Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.

And the vultures love it:

"Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama's class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint."

"...The Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point -- a last-ditch attempt to salvage re-election by distracting from their record -- into a central focus of the nation's political discourse."

Newt Gingrich calls himself a Reagan Republican. Well, he has just violated Reagan's most important policy of objective roll back socialism by inciting socialism and class warfare hatred in the campaign. He has also violated Reagan's most important Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Krauthammer concludes: "The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won't be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries." I sadly concur! MAF

The GOP: Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney

Dear BenCats,

You have mounted a magnificent defense of Newt Gingrich. I think Newt should have hired you for his advisory staff! And I am not being sarcastic, Ben, but commending you sincerely. And let me reiterate I will support Newt if he wins the nomination.

Regarding Mitt Romney's shortcomings, I agree he might not be the perfect conservative, but we must still recognize that he had to be elected and serve the people of Massachusetts, those same people who elected and re-elected Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy! As I have said before, Romney had to balance his conservatism with little concessions to his constituents. I like to think that he follows the teaching of the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, the British statesmen, that admonishes us that a good representative in a Republic must balance his principles with the wishes of his constituents.

In my opinion, this balance makes either a demagogue politician or a real statesman. Romney would probably make the best president because of the fickleness of the American electorate, where independents tilt the balance.

He has been attacked underhandedly for his Mormon religion. And yet, we have the "establishment of religion" clause in the Bill of Rights, and it applies here: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I am no fan of JFK but in 1960, similar attacks as are being launched about Mitt Romney were launched about JFK because he was catholic --- to cause fear of the candidate. The “Popish" lies and fears did not materialize. History shows, the many errors made by JFK as president took place more because of his lack of firm convictions and moral guidance than his following any papal catholic commands.

Let me also say that I have a strong reservation about Mitt Romney's questionable stand on the Second Amendment, but again I like to think that his unclear stand is the result of his response (or even political pandering) to his constituents in Massachusetts, same as with health care (i.e., RomneyCare). Nevertheless, this reservation does trouble me greatly, and it weakens my support for him as a candidate.

I also agree with you that Romney's attack on Newt regarding Reagan was faulty, and it fits more in the reverse. Although, it is a violation of Reagan's "11th commandment," it is a relatively milder violation of it, I consider it politics. In my book, joining the socialist opposition–namely using socialistic class warfare rhetoric and the politics of envy to defeat a fellow Republican– is a very grave violation, and so my reason for the post above.

Newt Gingrich:  Let's give him credit where credit is due. He evicted corrupt Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tx) from the House of Representatives, led the Conservative Revolution of 1994, forced President Bill Clinton to accept many of the conservative congressional reforms (e.g., welfare reform, balancing the budget, reducing government spending, etc.,) but the reality is that the Revolution latter fizzled before full fruition.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) is a CFR member, who has trimmed his sails to various political winds, (e.g., NAFTA, WTO, U.N., etc.).  I think Newt's time has come and gone and his deals with the devils have been too many. But as I have said before, with the shadows of power of the CFR in the media, we can expect Newt's candidacy to continuously be boosted for 2012, despite the "Republican establishment." Where the CFR and the GOP establishment overlap is difficult to tell but may not always coincide, as we may entertain here.

I think the Republican political establishment may oppose Newt simply because its experts think he is less likely to win against Obama than Romney, but no more sinister motives. Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh are very savvy conservative pundits, but so are Ann Coulter, Elliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer, Drudge, etc. As to Nancy Reagan, I am sorry to say, she was an excellent, loyal, protective wife, but not a very good advisor to Reagan, and in many ways derailed his conservatism. If any one person contributed to Newt's partially true assertion- i.e., "the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies"– was Nancy Reagan!

In short, BenCats, I understand political rhetoric but I draw the line on the use of socialist and class warfare rhetoric and the incitement of the politics of envy in the GOP campaign. That is where, aside from personal attacks, I draw the line on Reagan's 11th Amendment.

With all that said, any of the GOP contenders, except perhaps John McCain, would be better than what we have today! We must vote Republican!


Ben I agree you did a great job defending Newt!

Ben I agree you did a wonderful job supporting Newt in your article. And I agree with Dr. Faria I will vote for the last man standing..as I know you will.

I also agree with Dr. Faria that so many times 'politicians' have to bargain a portion of their soul...to get to the next step. Newt has made some deals with some bad devils; if there is any such character as a 'good devil'..But what Newt hasn't already done to himself with his 'past'...You know that dreadful part of our personality that follows us throughout life; Then he will do it now to himself. He has a bad habit of opening his mouth and doing himself in.

I too have reservations with Romney and my concern is with that second amendment also. He has made himself clear At least I thought he did; that he is against Obamacare and would work to repeal it. And yes, Obama will tie Romney care around his neck and attempt to strangle him with it in a debate. But "I" don't think it will work just my opinion.

Also, Whether people want to admit it or not..Romney 'looks Presidential' and that is also important in more ways than one. We know how Obama got elected. But Romney looks the part,presents himself well,is actually intelligent,has run business,has made his success himself.And Romney loves America!

Just look at the last four standing and honestly tell me who with all their baggage,,religion, and experience..who "looks like they will represent this country with respect"!
I say Romney..and I like Newt..but as a woman stated in Florida..."I wish I could see Newt debate Obama but I want Romney for President."

All that being stated; I believe Romney 'will be ready for Obama' and he will win. Thanks Ben and Dr. Faria for all the facts.

How to chose a candidate

How does one choose for whom to vote for president; Stances on the issues, social or fiscal conservative, or socialist or capitalist, who gets a favorable endorsement?

Yet the question remains: why can’t social conservatives get a candidate? Moreover, how long are we supposed to vote for someone who does not reflect our values? Our continued support only ensures we will not get represented. I wonder if we are not better off remaining away from the polls to get our message to the Republican Party. We will be hurt in the short term, but in the long haul, the party will know not to discard its base. Had Sarah Palin not been put on the ticket last election, I was not going to vote for McCain for the same reason.

I will not weigh in heavily for or against the current Republican candidates. Many good points have been already made in those regards. However, as a social conservative, I want someone who best represents those interests. These issues are important to me, as they are individual protections, much like the Bill of Rights. Santorum will get my vote in the primary.

Romney talks a good game now, but I must judge him by his actions. Dr. Miguel Faria does make a relevant point that he was stuck in an extremely liberal state; however, does this mean that the real Romney is a conservative who can now emerge from the stagnant liberal soil from which he came? Simply put, I, like so many in the party, do not trust him. Whether gun control, abortion, or the theory of man-made global warming, he record is antithetical to ours. While Romney is no doubt a capitalist, he pushed the core socialist agenda of state-run healthcare. How can he now preach against a government-run national healthcare? This is not a state’s rights issue; it is a collective versus individual right.

Newt can be a great debater, and many of us remember his struggle to keep then President Clinton in check, especially regarding fiscal matters of state. Clinton was, unfortunately, very successful in pushing his virulent gun control, which resulted in the killing of 76 civilians by military-trained and military-equipped FBI HRT. Newt even aided Clinton in his thirst for more gun control. Newt carries much baggage also with his endorsement of the theory of man-made global warming. This is no light matter since it will be the means of redistribution of wealth from successful countries to unsuccessful ones with the carbon tax. Green has become the new red, as the saying aptly goes. His stance on Amnesty for illegal immigrants does not set well with many Americans either. Neither his marital affairs nor his religion matter to me, as long as he does not lie under oath or believe in Jihad. Newt has said some alarmingly anti-capitalist statements also, which make me wonder which side of the wall he is on socialism.

I did not intend to even get this deep in the particulars. Consider this: approximately 35% of the populace is social conservative, about 20% liberal, so who is representing us when both parties continue to present only liberals? Obama is extreme left in both social and fiscal matters. He is also the most socialist president we have endured since FDR. No doubt, only a committed socialist, extreme liberal, or union member would vote for him. (Race could be a factor for or against him also). So I will likely vote against Obama rather than for a Republican candidate, unless the candidate is Santorum in which case I could actually vote for him. But I will not continue to support the Republicans after the scourge of Obama has past.

Oh and one prediction: Obama will reverse his stance on the Keystone pipeline or he will be defeated. Turning down jobs, refusing energy in this climate of rising gas prices, and aiding our enemy China with oil could make a statue vomit. This will get him defeated unless he changes his mind.

I am as Southern as anyone

I am as Southern as anyone can possibly be; but I don't believe the government should have their nose in our lives 'dictating' . And at this point in our history we are living in the First Stages of Socialism and that is strictly a personal opinion based on facts.
Traditional Values are most important to me personally but I don't want any government dictating to me what they think I should have as a value;Government to me is not in the business to 'dictate values'.
Government can not legislate morality and values;furthermore Our Government at this point in time has no values. This country chose 'anything goes' and now it does .
When you have a President as we have now ,that has further castigated 'the country's values' around the world,reprimanded citizens on things that are none of his business.."That" is a huge problem to me and it tells the world how truly weak we are. And I haven't touched on his ideas of reducing our military and leaving us wide open for the slaughter..
Apparently the people in Massachusetts condoned and endorsed Their state insurance just as the state of Georgia upholds and condones "Peach Care", Tennessee supports 'TennCare'. I disagree those fall within states rights. Now; when they go broke too, Then they'll have sense enough to also see it is not working.

Many people including myself 'feel' the same way you do,BUT the alternative (4 more years) is just not on my table. Four more years will 'be too late' for anyone on the Republican side..to make an 'attempt' to turn this country completely around. And it won't happen 'overnight',with any of the Republican candidates if elected either.
Some things IMO, have to have a 'stumbling block' to 'stop' the continued forward motion and 'anyone' on the Republican ticket IMO can be 'controlled' more than Obama or at this point 'any democrat', Because the entire democratic party is socialist.
You must remember Obama has the biggest Socialist and killer of nations in his hip pocket,George Soros and he 'runs that Party'. And Nancy Pelosi is his bride. The Senate needs to be taken ASAP. in order to remove some of that 'ruling party'.

And there is NOT one single Republican Candidate IMO again; That Does not know all that and more.

This time around whomever the Republican Candidate is,,will be that stumbling block..

my prayer is that the next time around This country will truly be ready for a great Conservative President..and there are many New Governors that would qualify .

I like Santorum,but I don't believe he is strong enough to beat Obama..And 'that is the most crucial point';"Who can beat Obama"? We're not in this game to lose,so the one that can beat him is the man we need.

Good post. Thank you for your insight.

GOP contenders vs. Obama

Koba, as usual you make such logical, factual, I would even add, self-evident truthful points! How can I refute them? It would be an impossible task. You about convinced me to look at Rick Santorum seriously– but can he win the nomination?

The untenable situation you describe in your post is very similar to those I mentally confronted in the Presidential elections of 1992 (Bush 41 vs Clinton); in 1996 (Clinton vs. Dole); and in 2004 (McCain vs Obama)– all unacceptable candidates. What were we to do?

We were forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils (the GOP candidates) in two of those elections. I reconciled myself to principle and voted for my friend Bob Barr (Libertarian in the 2004 election), and I told my mother, who was very distraught about it that if we had to lose and election that was the one we needed to lose!

John McCain betrayed conservatism too many times, he was and remains a Trojan Horse, who would have done more damage than even Obama is doing today. Conservatives have a difficult time opposing a Republican, pseudo-conservative, president– and so protected, socialism advances unobstructed, as it happened with the disgraceful presidency of Bush 41, "read my lips no new taxes," "I will not sign a quota bill," expansion of UN sovereignty and NWO at the expense of the USA, stifling regulations galore over businesses and the practice of medicine, ATF and FBI- Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) atrocities (e.g., Ruby Ridge, Idaho and elsewhere intensified under Clinton and Janet Reno, leading to Waco, etc.).

Yes, Koba, I understand your frustration; I can only hope that the American people, sooner or later, will have to wake up, and those on the sidelines, the fickle and "independent" will have to take sides– or we will all be swallow by the socialist, authoritarian leviathan!

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality" Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy

Trump endorses Romney!

I'm also for Mitt Romney, and I'm excited that Donald Trump has endorsed him. I was afraid of the remote possibility that Trump may have gone as a third party candidate, Moreover, NewsMax reported erroneously this morning that Trump was going to endorse Newt Gingrich.

I'm happy to see that a wealthy millionaire like Trump has done the right thing, whereas George Soros (a privileged communist more equal than others) and Warren Buffet (a closet socialist) are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Isabella I don't know whether

Isabella I don't know whether to be happy or worried that Trump supports Romney.And I laugh as I say that because if Trump had been on the Republican ticket I would have probably voted for him..

He's been there and done that! (whatever it may be in business)

But you are so right. Trump has made no beans about it;he stands firm behind the USA. And he wants to continue making money as we all do.

Donald Trump has seen every scenario in business that can be seen I'm sure..and he's a good one to have on board and Romney is a business man.

I concur with the ladies!

Dear uneed and Isabella, and where is Chowder3?

Well ladies, I agree with your posts. What I have trouble understanding is the wealthy hypocrites, who want to destroy the world that made it possible for them to become wealthy. They wish to kick the stool for others who would work hard to do the same, become wealthy. They, and I have George Soros and Warren Buffet in mind, do it simply for their own elitist, socialistic selfishness– and the addictive media craving!

Let me reiterate that pseudo-patriotic millionaire, Warren Buffet is a self-serving, publicity-seeker. He will make those astoundingly politically-correct, hypocritical, self-serving statements purely because he will be quoted and written about by the complicit media.

If Buffet was to defend Romney and the millions of dollars Mitt Romney has paid in taxes, he would not be quoted!

Truly philanthropic people, do not go to the media in bombastic fashion for self-promotion as Buffet and Soros repeatedly do and continue to do for their own self-promotion. No money in the world can buy them the seemingly unprejudiced propaganda they repeatedly get from those "spread the wealth" comments.

Truly altruistic people do the good deeds with little fanfare, like Mother Teresa and myriads of others in food kitchens, missions, etc. These self-promoting billionaires are free to donate their whole fortunes without waiting for the government to take it away from them, or push the State leviathan to take away from others!

Altruism in search of self-promotion is not philanthropy, but hypocritical, maleficent self-interest in disguise, not beneficence. MAF

As usual. I concur!

As usual. I concur!

The stench of an Old Myth

Dr. Faria,
There is a persistent myth that needs to be confronted whenever we are able to do so. It is that communism is really not a bad idea on paper. In fact it might work if only the right person were in charge. I have heard this tripe so many times by fellow students in college, and now the View with Whoopie spewed this insidious myth again, calling it a "great concept." (See Whitlock, Scott. Whoopi Goldberg: Communism Is 'a Great Concept' That 'Makes Perfect Sense' on Paper. Media Research Center.org, December 20, 2011)

First, I don't care how a concept may appear to someone on paper, I care about its results in action. Communism has murdered as many as an estimated 100 million, has led to slavery, totalitarianism, torture. In fact, one might argue that the very idea was devised by a demon, when judging it by its actions and not its alleged intentions.

Secondly, it is a dictatorship, whether of the "proletariat," the peasants," or whatever the Party decides to call it. That a certain number of people would willingly submit to this is startling, yet believable.

Pascal Bruckner claims: "The far left has never gotten over communism" (Tyranny of Guilt). I think this is correct. But is it because they are ignorant of the great curse of communism, actually believe that over a hundred years has not yet provided an effective dictator, or are so quixotic as to think that somehow the idea will somehow workout in the end? In other words, let us ignore communism’s past evil and believe that the next time things will somehow be different. Doing the same evil experiment and expecting different results…hmm.

I guess I know the answers, so my own motivation is that I would like for you to comment on this old, persistent myth. I think it needs to be exposed and disposed of whenever it arises from the sewers of addled or deceived brains. I think you have probably run across this insidious and naive belief more than once in your endeavors. Would you elaborate?

Also thank you for keeping the work up here. So many socialists and the deceived are so willing to believe while ignoring the facts.

Where are the omelets?

Dear Koba,

I am very aware of this myth. Just a few years ago, but years after the collapse of the Evil Empire, a Russian citizen came to speak to the school that my youngest daughter was attending. She said something to the same effect and added that true communism was never implemented in the USSR! Apparently, this visiting teacher believed that "true" communism developed only when the state "melted away."

I have also been told that Vladimir Lenin intended for a more democratic socialism to develop in Russia, a socialism that Stalin derailed into Stalinism, "a far cry from what Lenin intended!"

In the 20th century fool-heart anarchists believed the myth and allied themselves with the socialists and communists in Italy and notably in Spain and Russia, to overturn the established order. And you know what happened to them. (See The Political Spectrum — Part I and Part III).

The persistence of these myths stems in part from the naive, misguided idealism of Plato's Republic and the assertion that elites, governed by philosopher-kings, should rule for the "good" of society. Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" added to that naive and misguided notion.

Rousseau, attacking the idea of private property and instigating the idea of primitive communism, wrote in 1754:

"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine,' and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.' "

But for anyone who really wants to dissuade himself/herself from the myth of the goodness of communism on paper, all they have to do is read what the real men of communism, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir I. Lenin, wrote themselves.

In "The Political Spectrum (Part III) — The Extreme Right: Anarchism," I quoted Lenin, who In State and Revolution (1917), wrote: "The proletariat only needs the state for a certain length of time. It is not the elimination of the state as a final aim that separates us from the anarchists. But we assert that to attain this end, it is essential to utilize temporarily against the exploiters the instruments, the means, and the procedures of political power, in the same way as it is essential, in order to eliminate the classes, as to instigate temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class."

The political reality was even more stark and sinister than could be expressed in his word. They never intended for the state to disappear. Both Lenin and Stalin justified the police state repression, the use of terror, and even the monopoly of power that they arrogated to themselves and the Communist party by claiming to be the purported representatives of the proletariat! They then began to exterminate their political opponents and consolidate state power. That is why Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is subtitled "1918-1956," to implicate Lenin at one end, Stalin in the middle, and the continuity with Khrushchev and the "collective leadership" thereafter.

So actually, there were not theoretical considerations, Lenin initiated communism and terror, and Stalin, following in his footsteps amplified his teachings and practice, and so did Mao Zedong, trying to get it "right" on paper and in practice – and so 20 to 40 million of their own countrymen were exterminated in each country, while they experimented and were cracking the eggs to make the omelets that never materialized! Communism is not good on paper or in practice, it not only goes against human nature – but it is intrinsically evil. MAF

Yes, I must agree

Yes, the ends justifies the means is indefensible when one considers the many millions killed in Communist China. One must ask oneself eventually is the ends worth it. Is living in a totalitarian world under one party rule by a dictator worth so many deaths?

The merits of communism must be judged upon the evidence, and the evidence shows torture, totalitarianism, theft of property for redistribution to the new elites, and the murder of 100 million (Black book of the Dead). While the communist sympathizers defend this ideology based upon its alleged intentions, I judge it by its actions.

Many proclaim: “But it will be classless. All will be equal.” Yet this too has proven to be a myth. As you pointed out in your quote by Lenin, the words of a Bolshevik and their actions often do not meet. Nor were classes eliminated. Upper classes were merely replaced by a new one with party membership being one requirement. Even it was limited to roughly 18 million out of 300 million ( Comrade J), depending upon the time period. And the benefits (nomenclatura) reaped by the upper-class Communists were enormous compared to the average citizen: wages, medical care, food, and even summer homes.

Moreover, so many in the US complain that we have only 2 parties. How could they possibly reconcile themselves to one supreme party? Nor would many here be delighted with the prospect of a dictatorship. And this is the only way Communism can function since it is only in power with brute force by a secret police. Forget Bill of Rights; there are no inherent rights even to exist. I agree it is only plausible that they never intended for the state to disappear. After all, it is the means of their power.

But let us suppose that the argument that the communists just haven’t gotten it right were valid. Why is it going to be any different now? How can we believe that “true” communism can come to pass when a century of murder, torture, and slavery have not produced even one example of this “true” communism?

When the people say: “You know, communism is a great idea, but it has just not been implemented right yet”, I respond: “Show me one good example of communism by a government.” It would have been interesting to see what Whoopi Goldberg would have said to that.

Reagan and Coolidge, the greatest Presidents indeed!

Hi Koba,

Just yesterday I commented in another foreign publication about some Good News from around the world, particularly a reassuring victory in Spain and the statue of Ronald Reagan that was erected in Poland with Lech Walesa presiding. I commented on the fact I had not seen it publicized in the American media, just as you have pointed out. Great minds think alike!

The victory in Spain was particularly satisfying to me. I wrote:

It is about time Spanish voters regain their senses. In Spain, as soon as the socialists obtained power, they carried out a shameful, disgraceful, and cowardly act of capitulation, backed by a fickle Spanish electorate---plainly an act of submission to Islamic terrorism!

The Madrid train bombing attack by al-Qaeda took place in March 2004, four days before Spain’s general election that consequently overthrew the conservative, U.S.-friendly government of Jose Maria Aznar’s Partido Popular and replaced it with the cowardly Jose Luis Zapatero’s Partido Socialista (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party).

At that time, Spain appeared not to have gotten over their own conquest by the Moors (i.e., North African Muslims) that took place in the 8th century; their own Reconquista (Remember, El Cid) took hundreds of years, until 1492, when the Most Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, finally assaulted and conquered the last remaining Moorish Kingdom, rich Granada (Remember Alhambra)!

More recently and what most people do not know, even many in the world's intelligentsia, is that to cap the story, many of Generalissimo Francisco Franco's vanguard elite troops, who actually took the last bastion of Republican (Communist-controlled) Spain around Madrid--- were Muslim, anti-communist, Moorish troops from North Africa in Spain’s last remaining possessions!

The “Republicans” (communist is what they really were and led by the Stalinist thugs, who despoiled Spain of her gold before they retreated in 1939) took a beating by Franco’s Moors! The Socialists in Spain can not still get over it!

Bravo for the conservative victory! Still, a lot more of socialism in Europe and even America needs to be rejected!


Yes, I saw where socialist leaders had been rejected in Spain. They had also invested a great deal of money into the "clean energy" in typical socialist fashion by huge government subsidies. A much larger fiasco than Solyandra.

Your comments on the Spain during this time is especially interesting. The author Orlov, whose book we had discussed, albeit briefly, also gave a good perspective from the communist view, and in particular, the KGB. Much off what I know of the Spanish Civil War was colored by my early schooling so long ago and the many of those duped by Communism like Hemmingway, Orwell, etc.

I did not know that many of Franco's elite were Muslims. How were the Muslims rewarded then? Are most Muslims, as I suspect, anti-socialists still? Of course the biggest enigma for any person is why socialists trust the government?

Spanish Moslems in the 1930s...

It is indeed a very interesting aspect of history. I was made aware of it by a descendants of one of those Muslims, who is a very prominent Physician in my home town. I looked it up and it was as he explained it to me. They were troops from the Canary Islands, the Spanish Sahara and Morocco. Most of those Muslims became incorporated in Spanish society. They were certainly anti-communist, and not the same Muslims as the ones we are facing today in Islamic terrorism.

Koba, Happy Thanksgiving for you and your family! MAF

Reagan remembered

I saw just this week where our most popular president in the last 50 years was honored in Poland by a statue and a speech by Lech Walesa. the story got virtually no coverage here in the US. Yet there are similarities between him and Obama. Reagan took a country with high unemployment, interest rates, and inflation and turned it around by 1983. This has not occured under the current administration.

Reagan also brought pride back to America that was sorely lacking after Vietnam and the poor Carter years. He brought our hostages home from Iran, built up our military. But perhaps most important, President Reagan did not accept detente; He would accept nothing less than the defeat of communism. "We win. they lose," he said.

When they were in Reykivik, Gorbachev offered the most anyone could expect: he offered to eliminate all of the nuclear arsenal if the US would do the same. How could Reagan refuse such an offer? Ha, Reagan stated that both sides may need help fighting other enemies. Then he offered to share the SDI with the Russians. In one stroke of genius he attacked the great flaw of USSR: that they could not allow the West to surpass them. Yet the USSR was already spending far too much on military while consumer goods were lacking. And since Gorbechev wanted to reform communism while not settling complaints in typical communist fashion by slavery or death, Gorbechev must have felt the need to meet consumer demands, albeit with pitiful communist scarcity.

At this time of Thanksgiving, I think it appropriate to thank someone who helped in the destruction of one of mankind's worst enemies. The man was President Reagan. The enemy was communism.