Well, I don’t know about you, but I have seen enough of the current US administration the last few months to come to a conclusion about where the USA is headed: extreme socialism that would make a Canadian and a Briton cringe.  I grew up in Canada and don’t remember seeing the kind of socialism that Caesar Obama is proposing.

First there was the let’s “spread the wealth around” comment during the 2008 election campaign.  Then there came out the subtle details in his plan to raise taxes on the “rich” and to give that money to the lower socioeconomic classes.  It is contrary to the laws of the gospel to forcibly take money from one group and to give it to another.  Even the laws of tithing and fast offering are rooted in the eternal law of agency – you must choose to give.  If you want to help the poor (and you should), you choose to do so.  Only by exercising your agency to give can you qualify for blessings that come from helping the poor.

Second is the tight regulation and control of businesses that the Obama administration is considering.  The latest legislation being considered is granting the federal government the right to take over businesses that are becoming financially unstable.  Well, a basic tenet of socialist Keynesian economics is that the economy must be controlled at the federal level.  Another tenet of Keynesian economics is that the recession can be remedied through excessive government deficit spending and tax increases – this is exactly the Obama administration’s approach to solving our current recession woes.  (BWT, estimated budget totals for 2008-2010 show federal government public debt rising 63%.  Those sorts of numbers make former president Bush look like a miser by comparison.) 

Ok, up to this point I was willing to give Caesar Obama a break.  Sure his economic policies smack of socialism, but at least they did not sound like measures adopted by Hitler and Stalin, right?  Wrong.  

“ALL HAIL HERR OBAMA’S AMERICORPS!”

That’s right, I said Americorps.  During the 2008 campaign Obama called for the formation of a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, [and] just as well-funded as the military.”  You may want to go back and re-read that quote just to make sure that the impression it left was not your imagination.  

The first thing I thought of after hearing about Americorps was: It sounds too much like the Hitler Youth Corps and the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA), aka “brownshirts”.  The SA was an assault detachment that facilitated Hitler’s rise to power during the 1920s and 1930s by bullying and intimidating the opposition.

I can already hear the opposing voices to my views.  “C’mon Dave. You’re crazy to compare Obama’s Americorps to Hitler’s SA!”  Oh, really!?  Then let’s take a look at Dave’s Top Ten List of signs that the Obama administration is speeding toward unmitigated fascistic socialism, shall we?  Last week the Democrat-controlled congress recently approved the following measures regarding Obama’s Americorps: 

#10.  Expand Americorps enrollment from 75,000 to 250,000 people.

#9.   Under the Americorps program, consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people [in America].”

#8.   Possibly requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform Americorps service, including elementary age children.

#7.  Consider designing Americorps so that it “combine[s] the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service.”

#6.  Establishing “campuses” that serve as Americorps “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents”.

#5.  Elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life.

#4.  Call for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps” (Can you say “SS”?).

#3.  Calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”  (Can you say 'indoctrination'?)

#2.  Community service learning to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the number 1 sign that the Obama administration is hasting socialism in America . . . !

#1. . . . Consider providing “uniforms” for all Americorps participants!

(Fanfare music playing)

Indeed the Constitution of the United States of America may be hanging from a thread in the near future.

 


Comments

Bruce Johns

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 4:32:36 pm

Thanks for posting that. That is really spooky. The cult-of-personality associated with Obama is the saddest thing I've witnessed in our government in my 50+ years.

 

Jared*

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 6:01:35 pm

You should seriously consider providing references and links to your assertions. As it stands, I suspect your reference is a chain email for the following reasons:

1. These kinds of scare tactics are common in chain emails.

2. For a previous chain email, and the Obama quote in context, see http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html

3. Orrin Hatch is a co-sponsor of the Senate bill.

4. The bill has bipartisan support; it passed the Senate today 79-19. This means that over 50% of the Republicans in the Senate voted for it.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12003930?source=rss

4. Serious comparisons of U.S. political leaders to Stalin or Hitler, as a rule of thumb, are ridiculous.

 

Mike

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 7:30:42 pm

The current version of the bill has been stripped of the section outlining a mandatory service requirement, which, for the present, keeps Americorps as a "voluntary" program (even though the "volunteers" will be paid). However, that "section could be restored during the Senate-House conference committee meeting. A new, separate bill containing that language has since been introduced in the House."

(see http://is.gd/p6h6/SanFranciscoExaminer)

Latter-day Saints should be fighting tooth-and-nail against any mandatory service because such a requirement could majorly hinder the Church's God-given mission to preach the Gospel. We've already suffered through the only-one-elder-from-each-ward compromise that the Draft Board and Church reached during war years decades ago, and a mandatory service requirement for Americorps might include similar limitations on youth who desire to give full-time missionary service.

As Christ taught in 3 Nephi 21, the Church's missionary work is a primary reason for the USA's existence (see v. 2-4). Not that we would expect the US president to consciously help the Church, but his policies could soon deeply challenge the Church. We are tempted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because he seems to have good intentions, but, as we all know, the road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 8:54:31 pm

Bruce Johns,

Yes, it is scary.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 8:59:55 pm

Jared*,

I don't need to provide web links because all the supporting information I post is based on sound research and legitimate sources, not chain mail garbage. You are free to research the facts if you like (e.g., statements by congress) and if they are wrong, let me know. As for the Sieg Heil bit, that is merely personal opinion based on sound facts that I have collected.

As for Mr. Hatch, I hope the Utah electorate does to him what they did to Chris Cannon - kick him out on his butt. Anyone who dreams up the DREAM act legislation is out of touch with Utah voters. Utah needs new blood in the senate.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 9:01:41 pm

Mike,

Thank you for those valuable insights. Americorps definately has ramifications for the church's goal of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.

 

Jared*

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 3:40:37 pm

"I don't need to provide web links"

Well, it's up to you. But providing references is a basic part of scholarship, and is doubly important in the internet age, if you wish to be taken seriously. Just a suggestion.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 4:01:51 pm

Jared*,

IMO, serious scholarship does not refer to web pages; it refers to articles in peer-reviewed journals and other published/printed resources. When my students turn in research papers, I do not accept web page references.
Yet I don't have problems with other people like yourself providing links on blogs. In fact I appreciate it at times.
Anyway, a blog just doesn't seem to rise to the same level of scholarly research. Just my opinion.

 

Jared*

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 6:42:08 pm

My point is that references/links allow readers to judge your credibility in conveying and analyzing information, or to evaluate the sources of your information. (Given that on the internet anybody can write anything, I would think that the value of this would be clear.) They are also a courtesy in that they help people quickly find more information on the issue.

 

LCruz

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 3:57:57 am

Well at least the gospel teaches us how to agree to disagree with our fellow man regardless of their political or personal beliefs. I for one, as a faithful LDS member, can not rationalize how President Bush's and his staunch supporters who erroneously and selfishly believe that we had to invade a country and allow it's innocent civilian by-standers be slaughtered by the ten's of thousands all the while they had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in NYC?! Where in the gospel do are we taught to make decisions like that?? That is not Jesus' way. There has to be a better way and I'm sure God wants us to use our minds to figure it out instead of just fighting.

Oh and by the way...if you haven't been keeping up on the economy the last past 8 years...thank the Bush administration for setting helping to create the mess in the first place. Obama's just trying to fix the problems left behind by Bush.

It's sad that a lot of members still don't "get it" and still can't empathize with people who are not as well off as they are.

Obama is not socialist. Socialists even say that about him.

Mormons truly do believe in socialism anyway. Read up on it if you haven't because we do believe in giving up all our earthly possessions to help our fellow people on earth. The only reason we don't practice this know is because we are still too greedy to do it. We still can't see ourselves giving up our stuff for the greater good (everyone; mormons included).

 

Dave C.

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 8:53:53 am

LCruz,

I believe that George Bush is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. He rushed into Iraq, screwed up the occupation of Iraq, and abandoned fiscal conservatism the day he took the oath. He must assume much of the blame for out current situation.

A major difference between governmental socialism and gospel socialism is that the government compels you to give, and the gospel asks you to give. The former is stealing; the latter is acting with compassion.

My guess is the "socialist" don't see Obama as a socialist because he is not socialist enough. IMO, anyone who is for socialized medicine, government run businesses, Americorps, and spreading the wealth is more socialist than not.

 

Jack

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 5:06:05 pm

Off topic--

Dave, why aren't you listed on LDSblogs anymore?

 

Dave C.

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 9:44:40 pm

Hey Jack,

Mormons and Science is still listed at LDSBlogs under the "science" category.

Thanks for stopping by.

Cheers!

 

Jason C

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:57:49 pm

Dave, I am currently reading a book written by Ezra T. Benson, called /The Red Carpet/. He does excellent work exposing how socialism is creeping into Western governments, and how antithetical socialism is to the gospel and the Constitution. If the info you are relaying is true, comparison of Obama to Stalin/Hitler may not be as ridiculous as it seems, and Benson would be rolling in his grave.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 5:18:41 pm

Hi Jason!

Yes, Ezra Taft Benson and a few other general authorities from his generation, when the cold war was in full force, seemed to realize better than we do the dangers of rampant socialism and communism. I feel that the goals of mankind's socialism is antithetical to the goals of the gospel.

 

Doc

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 7:48:50 am

"up to that point I was willing to give Caesar Obama a break." - Sure, I'm sure you were president of his fanclub.

Seeing as how this blog is about science, I am interested in the data behind this conclusion. Did you test it, did you control for bias? How might your own political proclivities make you eager to believe there has to be something sinister in a politician who takes different stands on economic issues than you do?
For every Ezra Taft Benson, there was a Hugh B. Brown. How have you accounted for those apostolic voices who opposed the claims of Benson?
Finally, here is a quote that I think has the backing of history behind it-

"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear." - Bertrand Russell

Or if you prefer a prophetic voice, how about,

"Imagined danger always causes the most trouble." -Brigham Young

 

Dave C.

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 8:59:07 am

Doc,

You're right. I am not in the Obamanation fan club.

Yes, this blog is about science, which is why I wrote a post about political science. The idea that science is limited to traditional experiments in controlled settings is, IMO, a narrow view of scientific activity.

If you have opposing voices among general authorities then please share them; that is what this blog is about.

Bertrand Russell was a farce. I've read several of his works and was unimpressed by his inability to critically analyze his own ideas. As a philosopher, he was mediocre at best.

Example of Russell's brilliant philosophical work: "The [Christian] church's conception of righteousness is socially undesirable in various ways - first and foremost in its depreciation of intelligence and science. The defect is inherited from the Gospels. Christ tells us to become as little children, but little children cannot understand differential calculus, or the principles of currency, or the modern methods of combating disease."

I completely agree with Brigham Young's quote that imagined danger causes trouble. (Thank you for bringing that to the table.) Nothing I wrote in this post is imagined. It contains personal opinion founded on factual information. Obama's socialist leanings are a reality.

Ciao!

 

Doc

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 9:39:29 am

Socialist leanings=reality, yeah sure, okay, fine.
Socialist leanings equal Adolph Hitler/Caesar/end of Western Democracy- Call me crazy but I don't think so. That is not political science it is political dogma.

On that I do have a quote from Hugh B. Brown,
"Both religionists and scientists must avoid arrogant dogmatism . . . . Even in our own church men take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. But this free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men remain humble and teachable."

I don't buy into many of Russell's ideas, but I think it is self evident that fear turns mankind into one irrational, ugly animal.

 

Jason C

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 8:56:46 am

Dave, allow me to say what comes to mind when I read 'Doc's' comments...

I believe that despite what threats may lie further down the path of socialism, there is no need to be irrational or ugly. Furthermore, I do not think we are dealing with a mere "imagined danger", but a very real one.

Might I suggest Doc pick up a copy of the Book of Mormon and explore the themes therein related to secret combinations (that now seek to overthrow the freedom of all nations), the promise/curse of those living in the Americas contingent upon adherence to righteous principles, and the way that Satan/the devil functions.

The reality is that the fight for mankind's agency/freedom began in the pre-existence and still rages on today. There is no need to fear, but there IS a need to remain vigilant. Because socialist policies are reminiscent of Satan's methodologies (being good through force), vigilance demands our care and attention as we approach them.

The bottome line is that, according to Joseph Smith, one day the Constitution will hang by a thread. It seems Doc would call the American founders ugly irrationals because they included the 2nd Amendment. I do not believe the right to bear arms was born of fear, but of vigilance.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 9:28:28 am

Wonderfully said. We are in the latter days when a lot of unseemly things will be happening in rapid succession. Calm vigilance is needed.

 

Doc

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 7:45:56 am

Forgive if I can't view democratic, moderate, weak socialism as a secret combination, as the <a href="http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ea469d9ff732f110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1">translator of the book</a> advocated for a much stronger presidency, and National bank, and other "socialist" policies in his own presidential campaign.
Could it be that corporations grinding the face of the poor, organized crime, gangs, etc. are at least as likely candidates for secret combinations as "socialists" of all shades?

 

Larry

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 1:01:10 pm

Stop watching Glenn Beck

 

Dave C.

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 1:15:33 pm

Larry,

I don't watch or listen to Beck's shows. I can't stand him, really.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics