SOVIET UNION NO DEFINITIVE EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF SOCIALISM

Some people continue to hammer away as if the Soviet Union was socialism and that the collapse of the Soviet Union showed the failure of socialism. (See: December 31, 2008, The Fraud of Government Intervention, By Robert Tracinski, RealClearPolitics and TIADaily.com.) You will hear no more antichrist garbage anywhere. You will hear no more one-sided propaganda. You will hear only the garbage coming out from those bought and paid for as think-tank boys who are in the hip pocket of the billionaire plutocrats. You will hear nothing about all the real communistic places in the world that have shown many times over the giving and sharing economy is not Stalinism and is also vastly better than the system this greed-monger loves. This guy does nothing but beat up a straw man. Let him take on someone real for a change. Come on Robert Tracinski. Come over here and identify yourself and debate. Let's see if you can substantiate any of your garbage about real communism rather than the dead dog under Lenin.

First of all, the Soviet Union wasn't socialism. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship under one person, first Lenin then Stalin. That was state-capitalism. Stalin's grip failed only upon his death. The Soviet Union slowly fell apart largely due to the Cold War arms race that spent them into the ground. It drank them under the table, but the current U.S. hangover has come home to roost.

The Soviet Union was run by bosses who controlled the various sectors. Those bosses were not socialists. They lived as well as the capitalist millionaires. That's not socialism. I'm no defender of socialism, but I'm sick and tired of all the laissez-faire capitalist liars running around especially being printed in the major newspapers saying that the Soviet Union's collapse proved socialisms failure.

The Scandinavian countries have been social democracies for decades and have a better history than does the U.S. on all sorts of the most important measures. Until the greedy, swine as Jesus calls them, started buying their way into power in those nations, those nations were doing much better. The more those nations turn to doing what the greedy ones in the U.S. want them to do, the worse things will get and the more the greedy swine will say that that is due to the Scandinavians not turning enough to exactly what has caused the global collapse and that's greed.

I just did a post the other day entitled, "THE INHERENT TREACHERY OF AVARICE (CAPITALISM)." Read it. Don't be stupid. Don't listen to the greedy ones who always, always ruin everything.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.