Category Archives: Political Insights

How The Democratic Party Violates the Second Commandment

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

We are not to worship anything other than God.   Whatever man puts his faith in and sets up as a guide that influences his actions is what he worships.   Therefore, the person who believes the highest authority we are answerable to is government, worships government.

The Second Commandment simply states that, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” (Exodus 20:4)  Meaning, we are not to have idols or anything we put before God.

It goes hand in hand with the first commandment with the difference being, the first commandment is speaking spiritually of God alone being worthy of worship.  Whereas the second commandment is referring to the physical world and worshiping something man made, or tangible, such as government.

Where do the two parties stand when it comes to God? On page ii of the 2016 Republican Party Platform it states, “Every time we sing, “God Bless America,” we are asking for help. We ask for divine help that our country can fulfill its promise. We earn that help by recommitting ourselves to the ideas and ideals that are the true greatness of America.”

Conversely, the 2016 Democratic Party Platform says on page 17, “Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible.”

The difference between the two platforms is the Republican Party turns to God for divine help for America whereas the Democrat Platform says that faith comes in many forms and the government will help where possible.  Where the Republicans seek God and his help, Democrats say there are many gods.

In the New Testament, Jesus had this to say about the second commandment.  Matthew 22:37-39 says, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

How do the two parties go about loving our neighbor?  Notice that there is no financial litmus test on who we are to love.  If we love our neighbor, it goes well beyond helping the poor.  However, for the purpose of this article let us limit our discussion to how the two parties help the poor.

First, let us realize there are two different definitions of poor we are dealing with here.  The Bible’s defines a poor person as a person who cannot help themselves. Specifically the widow, fatherless, or physically handicapped. The Bible does not define the poor as someone who has less money, or someone who lives under the government defined poverty line.  The latter is how our government defines poor.  But since we are talking about government, we will use the governments definition in this article.

The question then becomes, whose responsibility is it to help the poor?  Is it the individuals responsibility to help the poor, or is it the governments?

We can see how compassion is practiced by members of both parties by how they want to help the poor and less fortunate.  Republicans tend to give of their own personal belongings to the needy without coercion and out of an inner motivation of compassion.  Whereas, Democrats tend to believe the government needs to help the poor and needy and to do so they take, through taxation, what belongs to someone else and then redistributes it in an effort to help those below the poverty line, or in need, as defined by the government.

In a nutshell, the conservative sees compassion as an individual choice.  Whereas, the liberal sees it as a collective and compulsory duty of our government.

Former President Barak Obama incorrectly used the Bible in an attempt to justify welfare programs to help those deemed poor by the government.  He would say we are to be our brothers keeper.  Meaning, in a Democrats way of thinking, that it is up to the government to provide for our needy brother.

The “brother’s keeper” story is found in Genesis 4:9 and it is the story of Cain killing his brother Abel.  When God inquired of Cain the whereabouts of Abel, Cain answered, “I know not, am I my brother’s keeper?”  Cain didn’t ask God that question expecting the answer to be yes.  He knew the answer would was “no,”  because he correctly knew that God never called us to be our brother’s keeper.  That phrase, “brother’s keeper,” in today’s parlance is akin to saying, “That’s not my job.”  Cain was right, it wasn’t his job.  Biblically speaking, we are not our brother’s keeper.

That doesn’t mean we are cold and callous to those in need.  Quite the contrary, it is part of our personal responsibility to help those in need.  We are not to leave it up to the government.

When we believe it is the responsibility of government to provide for the needy, we are transferring that responsibility from the individual to the government.  That is a convenient way for the Democrat to say they care, when in reality they don’t care enough to do something themselves.

God says we are personally responsible to love our neighbor as ourselves.  He doesn’t say, the government is to love your neighbor, you are the one with that responsibility.

I am not my brother’s keeper.  I am my brother’s helper in time of need.

The Democrat Party violates the second commandment because it denies God and places its faith in the government as demonstrated by their practice of using government welfare to fool people into thinking they are helping the poor.  After all, which is more compassionate?  The number of people a party can add to the welfare rolls, or the number of people a party can free from the welfare rolls.  Welfare keeps people where they are, it does not cause them to rise above their circumstances.

Keeping someone poor is not love.

The Danger Facing America

Posted on by

I recently was talking to a man born and raised in Hong Kong who was asking questions to clarify the differences between Democrats and Republicans.  He seemed to have a mixture of the two and didn’t quite understand which side his thoughts were on.  During this conversation he asked something that took me a few moments to wrap my mind around because his way of thinking was so foreign to me.  He thought nationalism and being a patriot was dangerous.  

The way he spoke I identified this as being a liberal thought, but I still didn’t understand why the liberals thought love for country was dangerous.  So I asked him to explain his thought process.  He said it was because in Nazi Germany people who loved their country did horrible things to their enemies, both foreign and domestic.  He went on to say that Kamikaze pilots in WWII dove their plans on suicide missions into American ships out of love for their country.  So what is to stop an American who loves his country from also committing heinous acts of brutality against enemies both foreign and domestic?

That was a very good question and a few years ago I would have answered his question differently, but now because of the violence coming from the left that is not being condemned by Democrats, I had to agree it could happen in America too.

I asked him if he was a Christian and he said he was.  So I asked him which laws Christians are to obey first, God’s laws or man’s laws?  He said Christians are to obey God’s laws first.  I then asked if God’s laws would permit us as individuals to commit heinous acts against our enemies both foreign and domestic?  He said no.  To which I asked, which political party has as their basic core belief morality as defined in the Bible?  He answered, “The Republican Party.”

I then asked which political party in American was currently carrying out acts of violence against those they disagree with.  His reply was the Democratic Party.  I asked him why that was and he wasn’t sure at first, then answered, “Because they don’t base their morality on the Bible.”  I agreed, the morality of the Democratic Party is based on Humanism which says that morality is defined by the individual and society.

All patriotism is not bad, as it was in Nazi Germany and Japan during WWII.  I gave as an example the British Empire on which the sun never sat.  They didn’t commit mass outrageous atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanjing.  Places colonized by the British Empire were given their freedom and advanced as countries under British rule.

America saved Europe and the Pacific region during WWII and we have been a force of good in the world by fighting tyrants and those who would destroy their own people.  We did so because we had as our core the beliefs of Bible and its morality.

However, as the left has abandoned those beliefs and turned wholeheartedly toward humanism and socialism, we do have reason to fear what could happen should they come to power again because they do not have a higher moral authority than that defined by society, and thus the government, which they would control.

Americans used to wander how Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s could come to power in Germany.  The German Worker’s Socialist Party (Nazi) came to power because they bullied and intimidated their enemies into silence.  Does that sound familiar?  It should because the same thing is beginning to happen in the United States of America!

It has become clear that the Democrats will do anything to regain power as evidenced by not only their silence, but by their very words which not only fail to condemn the violence, but they actually encourage it.  As the woman picked to lead the Democratic Party as their Presidential candidate said in October of 2018, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

If this hadn’t come on the heels of a socialist shooting up a Republican Congressional softball practice, the calls for the harassment of Trump administration officials and Republican Senators and Representatives, the death threats received by Justice Kavanaugh and those who voted for his confirmation, the attacks on Republican candidates and their staff; then I might give her the benefit of a doubt,   However, there is no doubt the Democrat Party is currently encouraging violence against Republicans.

If the right instigates violence or threats, Republicans condemn it.  When the left does the same, the Democrats not only refuse to condemn it, but they actually encourage it!  Just ask Maxine Waters.

As long as those in power believe in a higher authority than society or the government, then patriotism and love for country should be encouraged.  However, when a party that has no higher authority to answer to other than itself, then fear that party and see it for the danger it truly represents.

The Democrat Party now openly favors socialism.

When socialism turns to violence and intimidation, it becomes fascism.  Fascism gave us the Holocaust.

When socialism turn deadly it becomes Communism. Communism gave us Gulags and tens of millions killed by their own governments.

If you are a Democrat, bring your party back from this dangerous precipice.

If you are a Republican, stand up and recognize the threat that is now facing us!

How To Talk To A Trump Hater

Posted on by

By Bill Hawkins

The mere mention of the name Donald Trump sends some people into a rage that has to be seen to be believed.  I have been doing political canvassing and I’ve witnessed this emotional fury first hand after knocking on a door and saying the word Republican.  Suddenly arms start flailing and words are slurred angrily as the emotional whirlwind sends up a cloud of hateful rhetoric that threatens to engulf everyone within ear shot.

 

The haters I’m speaking of are not protesters who think they are being cool by acting the fool.  These are seemingly normal people who happen to listen to a little too much left-wing media which distorts their power to reason and think objectively.  They have fallen for the left-wing media tactic of emotionalizing every issue so as to cloud the truth.

What do you do when you find yourself to be the brunt of such an assault?  At first, not being used to encountering such levels of intense hatred, I wasn’t sure how to respond.  However, after being verbally accosted by about ten or so of these unhinged people, I developed a way to at least get them to listen for a few moments.

Here’s what you do when you encounter a Trump hater.

  1.  Calm – Take the exact opposite demeanor and smile calmly as if you’re intent on listening to their complaints.
  2.  Release – Allow them to vent until the pressure has been released enough that they need to come up for air.
  3.  Issue – At that moment, say, “I’m curious about something.  Do you mind if I ask you a question?”  You may have to wait a few more moments as this sometimes leads to the hater needing to release more pressure as they throw another fit.  Once they have calmed enough to allow you to speak, ask, “What specific issue upsets you about Trump?”  The hater at this point will look confused and may take a little time to try to think of a reply, but since their hatred is not based on issues, they will offer a weak argument based on deceptive media reports.  You may make a quick reply to whatever issue they come up with, but only say enough to let them know you know the truth behind the matter.  Do not start arguing issues.  The hater at this point always launches into another tirade against Trump by saying it’s the man they hate because they don’t like how he speaks and how he doesn’t act properly.
  4. Empathy – Tell them you understand and empathize with them.  This will get them to listen long enough to plant a few seeds and here’s how.  Immediately after showing this empathy, and before they have a chance to launch into another vicious attack on Trump, say, “You may not like how Trump speaks, but he has done one thing no other Republican has been able to do in our lifetime – not even Ronald Reagan!”  At this point they’ll try to launch into another tirade, but hold up a finger and say, “One second.”  Believe it or not, they will listen because you have been showing them respect by listening to them.
  5. Socialism – This is the key part of the entire conversation.  Say, “Trump has been able to expose the Democrats for who they really are.”  Then proceed to list as many points of evidence as you have time for.  I begin by saying, “We’ve always known the Democrats are really socialist, but now they’re admitting it.”  Follow this with your own list of evidence depending on what you are most familiar with.
  6. ! – As you notice them begin to jump back into the conversations, laugh and say, “You have to admit one thing, the Democrats are trying to out-crazy each other.”  You’d be surprised how many times the hater concedes that very simple point.

Remember, you are not trying to win an argument.  You are not trying to put them in their place.  You’re simply trying to open their mind long enough to plant a few seeds.  The idea is to get the hater to think, so that maybe they will start to see the truth instead of believing every lie fed to them by the left-wing media.  Be sure to keep a calm, friendly and smiling demeanor and by the time you’re ready to leave, you will do so as friends instead of enemies.  One woman even hugged me!

Next time you run into a Trump hater, try the CRIES! method of responding, then let me know how it went by commenting below or sending me an email.

How The Democratic Party Violates the First Commandment

Posted on by

As mentioned in “Political Correctness:  The Religious Doctrine of the Left,” Liberalism-Socialism-Communism is attempting to replace our historical foundation of morality with their own version that directly opposes the Ten Commandments.  To see how those very same Ten Commandments are the basis of law in America, one need look no further than the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court building has at the center of the sculpture over the east portico an image of Moses holding the two tablets of the Ten Commandments; these are also engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court. 1

The left has been trying, through our courts, to have the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings saying that it violates separation of church and state.  Which incidentally, the left has created as the basis of their assault on Christianity by inferring it violates the Constitution, when separation of church and state isn’t even in the Constitution!

Let’s look at why the Democratic Party, who hosts liberals, socialist and communists, opposes the Ten Commandments one commandment at a time, beginning with the first commandment.

The first commandment says, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The left rejects God and in his place has established government as the highest authority over mankind.

What about liberal Christians who regularly attend church?  God addresses this in II Timothy 3:5 when he says, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:  from such turn away.”  A person becomes a Christian when they ask for God’s forgiveness and accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, that is how the Bible says a person must be saved, and therefore become a Christian (Romans 10:9).

Liberal “Christians” often either deny the deity of Jesus Christ, or deny the power of God.  Either way, they are either not Christians or they have been led astray as it says in verse 6 of II Timothy chapter 3.

The second part of the First Commandment says, “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  The left; however, has established the government as its god.  Why?  Because when a person denies God, then the highest authority becomes man.  Meaning the institution that governs man becomes in essence, god.

The first two tenets of humanism as defined in the first humanist manifesto says, “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.  Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.” 2

Since humanism is not based on truth as defined by God, then truth can be ever-changing to a leftist.  To account for this, humanist recognizing that fact update their beliefs as they change.  Still, in the third humanist manifesto published in 2000, they continue to hold to an unguided process

of change and denying the existence of God. 3  One thing that hasn’t changed, and seems to be a core belief of the left, is that there is no God, or at the least, they deny God’s power in the governance of mankind.

You may know those first two tenets as evolution, which is the basic foundation of the left since it denies God and therefore, establishes evolution to explain our origin.

Which political party in America supports evolution and fights to keep creation from being taught in our government schools?  Yes, it’s the Democratic Party.

Therefore, if you are a Christian that supports the Democratic Party, then you are in direct violation of the First Commandment.

Where do you stand on the second commandment?

 

 

 

 

The Religious Doctrine of Socialism

Posted on by

At what age does a person know the difference between right and wrong?  In religious circles, this is known as the age of accountability.  Legally, there is no standard definition, but one of the questions asked as to when people can be declared insane, is do they know the difference between right and wrong.

However, what is more important than knowing the difference between right and wrong is knowing who defines right and wrong.

Lawmakers would be the first people who would come to mind when answering that question, but how do lawmakers choose what is right and wrong?  Is it a mere matter of a majority vote?  If the majority votes to legalize murder, does that mean murder is no longer morally wrong?

Which brings us to the even more important question – who defines our morality?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is stealing wrong?  Is it a simple matter of anything that harms another is wrong?  If so, then why is it wrong to cheat on a test?

Traditionally in western cultures right and wrong is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.  In other words, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

However, what happens when someone chooses not to believe the Bible?  More importantly, what happens when millions of people choose not to believe the Bible?  Are they then held to the standards of a book they don’t believe has any authority?

As long as lawmakers make laws based on the moral authority of the Bible, then they have to, or else they would be committing a crime.  So then, how would these millions get themselves out from under a morality they don’t believe in because they choose not to accept the authority of the book that morality is based upon?

The obvious answer is – they create their own standards of right and wrong based on what a majority of those millions say it is.  They do this by electing lawmakers that share their belief that morality is situational and to be determined by the group, and not God or the individual.

Which brings us to another question – how do they determine what the group believes morally when it’s not based on the historical tradition of the Judeo-Christian ethic?

In religion, the standards of belief is known as doctrine.  Merriam-Webster defines doctrine as a principle, or position, or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.  Conservatives hold to the historical tradition of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Liberals are attempting to destroy that historical tradition through their own doctrines known as political correctness.

What then does the liberal, or socialist, hold to as doctrine?  Some would say the Communist Manifesto since it is a form of socialism; however, it is an extreme form that many socialist would say went too far.  Is there a book the liberal and socialist can turn to?

The answer is yes, it’s called the Humanist Manifesto.

That does not mean the Humanist Manifesto is a book of doctrine, anymore than the Bible is a book of doctrine.  The doctrine of churches, or belief system is based on teachings within the Bible.  The doctrine of liberalism, or socialism, is based on the principle of the Humanist Manifesto.

You may better understand the doctrine of the left as political correctness.  Merriam-Webster defines political correctness as conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated.  Whose political sensibilities are being offended?  The sensibilities of the left, or socialist, is the answer to that question.  They are offended by the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Political correctness is couched in the emotional issues of fairness and helping those who cannot help themselves because they are dominated by the majority.  Of course, that’s what the left uses to shame anyone who opposes their doctrine by calling them hate mongers and insensitive to the rights of others.  However, is that what political correctness is all about?  Making right past wrongs?

No, because to support political correctness is to be insensitive to the rights of those who hold to the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It can even be said that the politically correct crowd hates the Judeo-Christian ethic because before it can be replaced, it must be destroyed and replaced with their own doctrine.  The doctrine of political correctness.

Therefore, the question of who defines our morality becomes even more important because there is a concerted effort to destroy our historical tradition based on the Bible.  What does history tell us about attempts to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic?

They tried it in France in 1789 and it became known in history as The Reign of Terror when 50,000 people were executed for opposing those who abolished Christianity and tried to destroy all aspects of it from public life.

They tried it in Russia in 1917 and imprisoned people deemed enemies of the state.  It is estimated that 100 million people died in the attempt to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic.

They tried it in Nazi Germany where six million people were executed in an attempt to advance the socialist state of the German Workers Socialist Party, or Nazi’s.

They tried it in China, and are still trying it, to the tune of an estimated 40 million killed.

Not all socialist countries kill their enemies, but they do deny their rights, marginalize them, or imprison them and attempt to reeducate them.

In my upcoming writings I will compare the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian ethic with the doctrine of political correctness so we can see just how much the left is opposed to traditional morality and why.

The Implementation of Socialism In America Since 1900 – Part Two

Posted on by

In part one we went through the first six goals of socialism for this country as espoused by Eugene V. Debs, considered by many to be the father of socialism in this country.  We saw that approximately 75% of those goals have already been achieved in America, so now let’s move on to the remaining six goals and see how socialism has progressed.

7.)  Useful inventions to be free, the inventor to be remunerated by the public.

This is the one goal of socialism that has not yet been implemented.  As a person who has applied for a patent, I for one, am glad.  This would surely curb creativity and entrepreneurship by disincentivizing our citizens.

8.)  Labor legislation to be national instead of local, and international when possible.

With the Department of Labor being a cabinet level department since 1913, it is safe to say this goal has been achieved in America at a 100% level.

9.)  National insurance of working people against accidents, lack of employment and want in old age.

Worker’s compensation, unemployment and social security encompasses these three specific goals within goal nine.  It is safe to say goal nine had been achieved at a 100% level.

10.)  Equal civil and political rights for men and women, and the abolition of all laws discriminating against women.

This has gone so far that we now have many people saying there is reverse discrimination in this country.  Not only did we outlaw discrimination based on gender, but the left has gone so far as to force sexual orientation rights on this nation.  They have done so by using their usual tactics of intimidation to force equal rights in a way not even Eugene V. Debs foresaw.  If there was a way to award more than 100%, this goal would surely qualify.

11.)  The adoption of the initiative and referendum, proportional representation, and the right of recall of representatives by the voters.

Local representatives on the state level can be subject to recall; however, that is still not the case with representatives on the national level.  Proportional representation, what you may know as parties gaining seats based on percentages, is still not the system used in the United States.  The purpose of this goal was to give the socialist party a chance to force its way into the two-party system.  However, this goal is no longer necessary since the socialist have nearly taken complete control of the Democrat Party, as evidenced by Bernie Sanders and the state of the party as of July 25th, 2018.  Sanders garnered 43.1% of the vote while running unabashedly as a socialist in the Democratic primary for President.  Therefore, since this goal has been replaced by the socialist inroads into the Democratic Party, we will award 43% for the success of said goal.

12.  Abolition of war and the introduction of international arbitration.

This goal was first realized in the world with the League of Nations after World War One; however, the United States failed to go along and so the league died.  However, after the Second World War, another attempt at international arbitration came through the United Nations, which the United States now supports.  War, of course, has not been abolished because in order to do so would mean having to use force, which of course, requires war.  Therefore, let’s award 50% of this goal because international arbitration exists in theory, if not always in practice.

Just as we determined the percentage of socialism which had been achieved in the first six goals of socialism, which we determined to be about 75%, now let’s look at these final six goals to determine how successful socialism has been in America.  Goal seven =  Failed.  Goal eight = 100%.  Goal nine = 100%.  Goal ten = 100%.  Goal eleven = 43%  Goal twelve = 50%.

Approximately speaking, that means 65.5% of socialism’s goals have been achieved in the United States in these remaining six goals.  When combined with the previous six goals, that means 70.25% of the goals of Eugene V. Debs has been achieved in this country! When one of the goals not mentioned here, national health insurance, is taken into consideration, I think you can see that over the last hundred years socialism has reached far beyond mere economics to begin enslaving the American people into a system contrary to the founding of our country.

The Implementation of Socialism In America Since 1900 – Part One

Posted on by

Why is the word “socialism” so hard to define?  Truth is, it’s not the word that is hard to define, it’s the meaning that some people don’t want to accept that makes it difficult to define.  Not that a definition can’t be found, because it’s really very simple.  The problem comes when those who support socialism don’t accept it’s definition because the word still carries a negative connotation in America.

The left, who is so fond of labeling others, don’t like to be labeled themselves.  However, instead of trying to come up with a politically correct definition that pleases everyone, let’s just seek the truth and call it as it is.  To put it simply, socialism is the government control of society.  Wait, you say, I thought it had to do with government control of production and distribution?  That is economic socialism.  However, socialism is more than an economic system, it’s a system that seeks to control all aspects of society.

Before the cold war ended shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the number one enemy of the United States was communism.  Communism is an extreme form of socialism.  The only difference between the two is that communism uses force and violence to achieve a socialist state, whereas liberalism uses peaceful means to achieve a socialist state.

Years ago in an antique store in Florida I bought a magazine called “The Independent” dated August 23, 1900.  One of the articles was by Eugene V. Debs entitled, “The Social Democratic Party.” Eugene V. Debs is often called the founder of socialism in the United States.

Eugene V. Debs

Eugene V. Debs

Let’s dissect this article and see what has come to pass in America since this article was written over a hundred years ago.  Mr. Debs had 12 goals he thought must be achieved in order for socialism to be implemented in the United States.  We will take a look at each of the twelve goals to determine just how much of the dreams of the founder of American socialism has come to pass.  Incidentally, just because some of these were stated by Mr. Debs, it doesn’t mean that it’s automatically a bad idea.  For example, goal one was supported by many, not just the socialist.

Socialist Party1.) Revision of our Federal Constitution in order to remove the obstacles to complete control of government by the people irrespective of sex.

In 1920 the 19th Amendment to the Constitution accomplished this through granting the right to vote to women.

2.) The public ownership of all industries controlled by monopolies, trusts and combines.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 effectively prohibited monopolies and trusts in America.  To grant public ownership of all industries would in fact create a monopoly controlled by the government.

3.) The public ownership of all railroads, telegraphs and telephones:  all means of transportation and communication:  all waterworks, gas and electric plants, and other public utilities.

The government has moved into what used to belong only to private industry, such as manufacturing power (The Tennessee Valley Authority) and transportation (Amtrak).  Economically, the United States is still a capitalist country, therefore, government reaches into the private business world through regulations, which grants government a high degree of control over the production and distribution of products.

4.) The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal, and other mines, and all oil and gas wells.

As stated in number 3 above, our government, through regulation, affects these industries in ways that seeks to control production and distribution.  An example, in the coal industry the Environmental Protection Agency issues permits, and revokes permits, based not so much on the environment, but more out of government desire to control the industry.  As President Obama stated in January 2008, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”  Here the government is affecting an entire industry and consumer prices for their political agenda, with alleged global warming being the excuse that justifies this attack on our capitalistic system.Socialism versus Capitalism

5. The reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the increasing facilities of production.

In 1900, when Mr. Debs wrote the article, the average number of hours worked in manufacturing in this country was 59.1 hours a week, according to a 2006 report by Michael Huberman and Chris Minns.  We now have labor laws that sets the work week at 40 hours, with numerous other regulations concerning wage and hour issues.

6.  The inauguration of a system of public works and improvements for the employment of the unemployed, the public credit to be utilized for that purpose.

Have you ever heard of the New Deal?  In our present times, President Obama called it a stimulus.  The point being, this is another goal of socialism which has been achieved.

Let’s take a look at these first six goals of socialism (I will cover the remaining six goals in Part Two) to see how much has been implemented in this country since the article was written in 1900. Number one = 100%.  Number two = 50%.  The government does not own all industries, but it does own some and through regulation manages the rest.  Perhaps 50% is not a high enough percentage, but the number isn’t meant to be totally accurate, just representative of the general.  Number three = 50%, for the same reasons as above in number two.  Number four = 50%, for the same reasons as in number two and three.  Number five = 100%.  Number six = 100%.

So we see that three of the first six goals have been fully met, and the remaining three have been partially met.  Meaning it’s safe to say that approximately 75% of the first six of twelve goals of socialism has been met in this country since 1900.

If you would like to be notified when Part Two of this article is published, please subscribe to this page.