Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism

When one looks at Pope Francis condemnation of unfettered capitalism and the need for the re-distribution of wealth, it is certainly nothing new coming from a pope; the idea that there is plenty of food and money available to raise everyone to a comfortable level has been the promise of the various forms of collectivism since the days of Karl Marx, while simultaneously condemning the horrors of the collective states of  Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and the Communist Chinese. The problem of course is once the government has control of  the economy, it also has control of the society itself. While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. When one looks at Socialism throughout the world today, not only are the countries mired in uncontrolled debt, but there is unfettered abortion, unfettered homosexuality, unfettered euthanasia (in Belgium the"right" to euthanasia now extends to children), unfettered secularism and unfettered control of the populace by an ever intrusive government taking a more and more money from the citizenry to pay for the government, while the leadership lives in unfettered luxury.

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote. Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism
 
One might agree with the Popes condemnation of unfettered capitalism, as capitalism only works with a free market and the current market is fettered by crony capitalism, but the term itself has no meaning as it was an invention of the left to describe a free market they have no control over. What the Pope Francis chooses to ignore here, is socialism does not have an economic engine, while supply and demand in a free market does and more people have been raised out of poverty by capitalism than any other economic system ever used. And the end result of a collective/ socialist society has always been a slow slide into insolvency; or worse, starvation on a massive scale. Further it is the very nature of a collective society to try and fund itself through financial speculation. As I have mentioned in other writings, the "law" of supply and demand is intuitive to the human condition, where collectivism must be forced on the people. Collectivism only works for a short time, usually as a result of the people (or nation) being threatened by an outside force, so the people are willing to sacrifice their individual freedoms for the sake of survival. However, if the collective state is allowed to continue too long, it will eventually collapse under it's own weight.

This is already occurring in the third world, and the cause is the non-autonomy of markets through world governance, the UN, World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund). Here you find massive starvation as third world countries are denied the industrial advantages to bring them out of extreme poverty, through the auspices of Global Warming and carbon credits. International Global Warming talks have repeatedly broken down as the IMF wants to control the Carbon Credit Exchanges that were supposed to redistribute wealth to non-industrialized countries. In the name of low carbon development, the Carbon Credit exchanges are already creating pandemic starvation, as farm land is being seized or nationalized and industrial agriculture is growing bio-fuel crops, such as oil palms, or food crops specifically for export. Further the high demand for bio-fuel has also caused the price of food stables such as corn, to levels unaffordable by the poor. 'Biofuels a big cause of famine' In Africa tens of thousands of the poor are being forcefully evicted from their homes and land to "protect the environment and help fight global warming...The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out. The end result of replacing food crops with cash crops and/or exporting the high value food crops industrialized countries, has led to a huge increase in pandemic starvation in Africa; this is the effect of the world government control of markets that the Pope believes will help end the structural causes of inequality.

In the final analysis Pope Francis seems to want socialism on his terms and it just doesn't work that way. Socialism always has it's own agenda and as mentioned before and it is always the opposite of the tenets of Christianity and Catholicism. Consider the fact that a government that can force equality, also believes it will better decide what to do with charitable donations, rather than religious organizations (the Obama administration has already suggested doing away with tax deductions for charitable donations). If one looks at the nature of socialism, it's is immediately apparent that charitable donations are almost non-existent, as the government takes so much of the citizens money money that is supposedly re-distributed to the poor. So  one wonders if the Catholic church is willing to acquiesce it's ability to feed and clothe the poor as it's tax exempt status would be eliminated also in the name of government redistribution. The end result is always a secular society that has no room for religion.

The Rule of Law is a Tradition?

In a recent speech President Obama made the following statement regarding why he can't change immigration law without congress, "But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition." Obama To Heckler Calling For Him To Stop Deportations. But saying the rule of law is a tradition in the US, is akin to the President believing the separation of powers is a good idea when it works out for him. Yes, we  have traditions that are unique to America, like celebrating Thanksgiving and the Forth of July, but the rule of law defines our country; John Adams famous quote is," We are a nation of laws, not men". No, Mr President, the rule of law is not a tradition, it is the bedrock principle of our nation and central to ordered liberty; funny as a Constitutional scholar I would have thought President Obama would know that.

The Truth will Stop Liberalism

There is a truism that says if you want to make a conservative mad, tell a lie; if you want to make liberal mad; tell the truth. We are now seeing this truism play out, and in this case it's the truth about the lies that are fundamental to liberalism. "You can keep your plan if you like it." Nine words that has stopped President Obama and liberalism in it's tracks. It is well known that most Americans did not like President Obama's policies, but the left leaning main street media was so overboard in it's villainization of the Bush administration, that the people voted for hope and change. And even though the President proceeded to go back on practically every promise he made, he was somehow insulated from theses policies and the American people by in large still trusted Obama. Liberals exist on misplaced trust, so when the average Americans personally felt the pain and experienced the loss of their own health Insurance, and it became clear Obama and the Democrats in Congress had knowingly lied about ObamaCare, they finally realized they had been scammed. And with trust gone, the hubris of liberalism is laid bare for all to see.

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Continues to Court Relativism at Religious Education Congress

 Well the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for 2014 will be at it's usual spot (The Anaheim Convention Center) March 14-16 . And for the first time in 5 years Jim Wallis (evangelical leader of the  Sojourners) has been asked to return as a speaker. Those not familiar with Jim Wallis he strongly believes that individual salvation is okay, but what Jesus taught was collective salvation that requires political solutions and the forced equality of a collective state.

Wallis' affinity for Marxism and socialism is evident in many things he himself has said. For example, in 2005 Wallis stated that private charity to help the poor was insufficient, and that true social justice could be achieved only by an omnipotent central government empowered to redistribute wealth: "We have to be very clear about this. Voluntary, faith-based initiatives with no resources, no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction, is not adequate. That's a charity that falls far short of Biblical justice."
Jim Wallis.

To no surprise Wallis has been a spiritual adviser to President Obama along with Jeremiah Wright; combine these two and one can see why our President has very skewed  belief in Christianity. Below is a link to rather lengthy study of Jim Wallis I wrote in 2009. When you are finished one has to ask if Catholics in the United States are really wanting to sell their soul to the Progressives and give up many of it's tenets such as pro-life, pro-family and the most basic tenet that Jesus came down to earth to forgive sins and re-establish a relationship with god; not to advocate for Communism.

Marxism for Christianity; Jim Wallis, Running With the Devil 

Will the Democrats be Punished for ObamaCare?

The President lied about ObamaCare and the usual suspects are lying to try and cover for him.

Oct 23 Katherine Sebelius says; President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1

Oct 29- Katherine Sebelius says "... we had tested the website and we were comfortable with its performance,” she said. “Now, like I said, we knew all along there would be as with any new website, some individual glitches we would have to work out. But, the volume issue and the creation of account issues was not anticipated...).*

Nov 13 Nancy Pelosi claims nearly 5 times as many people signed up for Obamacare than HHS numbers show.

Nov 14 Debbie Wasserman Shultz says;“You’re darn right that our candidates are going to run on the advantage that Obamacare will be going into the 2014 election."

Nov 14 Obama: "I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. I’m accused of a lot of things. I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work."**

Nov 17 Nancy Pelosi: What we are talking about is affordable, quality, accessible health care for all Americans. It`s about choice. If you like what you have and you want to keep it, you have the choice to do that. 

While the mainstream press is finally doing it's job by reporting the outright lie that, "You can keep your plan if you like it" (and of course President Obama turns to his stock excuse, "I didn't know" and/or "wasn't told"), the truth is there is nary an aspect of ObamaCare that was not lied about. Not only will your individual plan be canceled , but the replacement plan will increase in price 50-100%. Further since the different levels of ObamaCare plans are the same, the differences are with the  deductibles, which are now high as $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, the highest levels allowed under the law; so those that can only afford the cheapest plans will pay the most for their healthcare; and the subsidies (some one else's money) will do little to help as they only cover the premiums, not the deductible. One wonders if the Democrats will finally be punished by the electorate for being complicit with the big lie that is ObamaCare.

*... the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. “Former government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.” Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are 

**"They had been claiming that the Obamacare rollout was his top priority and that he was receiving regular updates, which was inaccurate. And he gave remarks on October 1 about how great it was and that people should go sign up," the aide said. "Assuming that he didn't know that the website didn't work, why did they let him make that speech when they knew it had crashed in testing? Did really no one recommend a delay to the President? It just seems odd." Sebelius: Obamacare Website Problems Blindsided the President

Obama's Says He Had to Lie‏ About ObamaCare

President Obama, in a speech to supporters in Washington DC, said he had to lie ObamaCare. The President now says the numerous times he promised,  “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.”actually had the unspoken disclaimer, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you're grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they've got to change it to a higher standard. They've got to make it better, they've got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That's part of the promise that we made too. That's why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.

If we had allowed these old plans to be downgraded, or sold to new enrollees once the law had already passed, then we would have broken an even more important promise -- making sure Americans gain access to health care that doesn't leave them one illness away from financial ruin. The bottom line is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody and that's the right thing to do.
Obama; What We Said Was You Can Keep It If It Hasn’t Changed Since The Law Passed
 
So President Obama says that his two promises were mutually exclusive. If he would have let you keep your current plan under ObamaCare, then access to the health plans promised by ObamaCare would not have been possible.This of course is classic Alinsky; the ends justify the means. What is unusual is you never actually hear it discussed. But President Obama is so sure of him self, he believes that tell the electorate that his lying is understandable and acceptable if there is a higher purpose. One has to wonder if the electorate will actually buy into this or will they finally wake up and ask themselves, if the President was lying about this, what else has he been lying about and have we been duped by this closet collectivist from the beginning. Only time will tell.

How We got Here and How ObamaCare is a Microcosm of the Liberal Agenda

With the roll out of ObamaCare it's worth looking again at the Great Recession; where after 5 years the left is still blaming Bush. As a matter of fact the blaming of Bush is as close to having an economic policy as the Democrats have come up with. The recession is due to some $800 trillion in toxic derivatives that are still held by many banks and is slowing down bank to bank transfers (recently the Federal Reserve allowed BofA to move $75 trillion of these toxic derivatives to accounts that are covered by FDIC (which means us tax payers); it was illegal but the Fed can do whatever it wants despite the law. http://onespeedbikerpolitico.b.... The reason this hit the average citizen so hard is because these toxic assets were tied to mortgages, destroying 10 years of accumulated wealth of the middle class, most of which was home equity. And it was the Democrats that pushed the American Dream act via Franklin Rains and it was ram rodded through congress by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, but as he have seen Blaming Bush is not a productive economic policy.

If there was any hope for an end to the recession, it was dashed by ObamaCare. If you have paid attention, Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the rich,  extended the Bush tax cuts for 5 years and agve workers a holiday on a percentage of their payroll taxes (which pay for workers Social Security). To his credit Obama did make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those with incomes over 400,000, he simultaneously ended his payroll tax holiday, so the end result was less in the average workers paycheck. But Obama also raised numerous taxes in 2010 and redistributed $500 billion from Medicare, both to fund ObamaCare, even though ObamaCare wouldn't be rolled out until 2013. And with that roll, it turns out healthcare plans can not be kept (after repeated promises by Obama) and most new replacement plans will double, especially if you are young (18-34)  as they are mandated to buy the same full boat health plan a 40-50 year old with a family would need. This is a redistribution of healthcare costs; from the late Generation Xers and the Millennial generation, to the Baby Boomers. ObamaCare is a microcosm of the liberal agenda; it's one size fits all; it was lied about from the very beginning; it offered more than it could ever deliver; when changes are made rule of law is replaced with the wants of political cronies; and it is all being paid for by someone else's money.

Why Republicans Won't Acquiesce to Obama and More Lies Spoken by the Left

One of the most disingenuous arguments from the left is that because President Obama won the  election, conservatives should just shut up and let President Obama follow through with his agenda. Obviously this argument is not meant for Democrats when a Republican wins an election; lest not forget the shellacking the Democrats took during the mid-term elections after President Obama won the 2008 Presidential election; in one midterm election the Republicans took 60 seats from the Democrats. This would seem to have been a strong message for President Obama to slow down his fundamental change of America, but as is known he actually doubled down on his liberal policies. The you have the Bush presidency where as early as 2001 the new Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschel gleefully announced he planned to use the Democrat's new control of the senate and it's one seat majority,  to block Bush's future policies . Then in 2005 Harry Reid's admitted intention to "block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory." Democrats Are United in Plans To Block Top Bush Initiatives. And who can forget Reid's famous "This war is lost" speech and then he lied, trying to walk it back saying it was taken out of context, apparently oblivious to Youtube 

So no, there is and has never been a mandate for the losing side of the Presidential or Congressional elections to acquiesce and let the winner do it's will. But once again this is the nature of the liberals whom re-write history, always pushing their collectivist agenda, and in any liberal endeavor the first casualty has always been the truth.