African Socialism revisited

Hopefully this will go through. It seems my first attempt to post this must have hit a filter on Google blogs. It didn't post, and now I'll have to try to remember all I said.

I wrote a critique of Barak H. Obama Sr.'s critique of Sessional Paper No. 10 a while back, but with all that's gone on in the last couple of years, I thought I'd revisit it. I've learned a lot about this administration in the past two and a half years. This reveals a lot of their agenda.

I'll put direct quotes from the critique (in Barak H. Obama Sr.'s own words) in quotation marks. I'll then follow up with my critique (these are my opinions).

"If it is accepted that it is the leaders of a country who usually formulate and define ideologies, then the only source for this definition would be to get it from them either through their speeches, press reports or papers or through their actions."

Well, that says a lot. This administration has refused to acknowledge the definition of socialism as defined in the dictionary, and have been trying to redefine it since Obama got elected and accused of being a socialist. They've even gone so far as to have the media label us all socialists. We have to look towards their actions, mostly, since the speech is directed at redefining the term. President Obama nationalized how many companies, I lose count. The banks, the car industry, etc. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants equality for all, that's socialism. Make everyone the same, no matter the amount of energy they put into bettering themselves. If they don't get high enough on their own, lets take from the rich and give it to them. Doesn't matter that the rich worked to get where they are.

"After all, how can one talk of the independence of something people do not know?"

This applies to why they don't define socialism as well as the reason behind their attacks on the Tea Party. 1. Lets not define socialism, so they won't know we're doing it or how to fight it. 2. If we create confusion on who exactly the Tea Party is, no one will want to join it. If we create a cloud around them, everyone will be against them.

"...differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"

Well, of course they're different. Who determines ones needs? Capitalism is being rewarded by society. Socialism is collecting all the money and rewarding to their needs. So, if the government determines everyone should have a cell phone, for safety reasons, and you can't afford one, one will be provided for you. I see so many people on welfare with IPhones. My family has to work for a living and we can't afford an IPhone.

..."one cannot say that solutions cannot be the same where causes are different."

This explains why Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists and Muslims are all working together to destroy America. What do you think will happen, Mr. President when these other groups deem you not of any use any more? The Tea Party doesn't condone violence, but what about these groups you've sided with?

"If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

He's talking about consolidating land into the public domain. He advocates community ownership instead of individual. Doesn't this would like what they're doing with the farmers? They want all farm equipment listed as commercial vehicles, and everyone who drives them to get a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and pass the same test as 18-wheeler drivers do.

"If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country and this should apply to every body from the President to the ordinary man."

Well, except for applying to everyone. They don't apply any rule they make for the little man to themselves. But I can foresee this administration making an executive order limiting the size of farms....or just regulate them out of business.

"...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others."

Ahh, there's the rub. They don't want free enterprise, or capitalism because it encourage people to accumulate more than the people who would rather sit on the porch and wait for the check from the government.

"If some of these firms were to stop functioning today the country would be at a standstill. Let the government take an active part in these spheres and see to it that the people are actively represented in them."

Let's take over a car company and fire the CEO and put our own guy in. Sound familiar?

"...taxation can be used as a means of forced savings...there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

These were a few paragraphs apart, but they state the same thing, so I included them together. This explains his desire to tax the rich more, because he has plans to keep lowering that upper limit until it includes everyone not currently on welfare. If you don't believe me read the health care bill. It raises the level at which people qualify for welfare. I guess I should be happy, because when it finally kicks in, my family will qualify. Look up (if you don't know it already) the Cloward and Piven strategy.

"I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can e utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."

Hmmm. 'Nuf said.

"There is a statement in the paper about encouraging tourism. it is surprising that the government thinks only about lodges but not about making it cheap so as to include those who are not so rich. At the present time, the cost of living is too high for tourists....there are no price controls so that only the very rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists."

Lets see, this sounds like forcing the airlines to set low air fares and the hotels to charge less. Probably only in liberal cities, though, because who cares if conservative cities prosper? Look at what they've done to Arizona (sued for trying to keep illegals out because the feds won't) and Texas (disallowing aid for all the fires we've had) and Missouri and other midwest towns affected by the flooding.

In conclusion, you can't really blame President Obama. He cut his teeth on communism/Marxism and the Muslim religion through his mother and dad and step-dad. Possibly he believes that his brand of Marxism/communism/socialism will work when no other one has. This is not the thinking of an American citizen. Most natural born citizens recognize our uniqueness. Heck, even some LEGAL immigrants recognize it better than our President.