Mediaboss Marketing

During the leaders debates, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh wasnt forced to explain his support of crushing basic freedoms, superseding parental rights, and protecting the safety of immigrants who commit serious crimes over that of Canadians.

He explained when pressed whod pay for stuff he promises to lavish on Canadians if hes PM.

The billionaires, silly!

One problematic reality in the way of Singhs fantasy is the shortage of taxpaying billionaires to pick up the tab of the breathtaking billions his extreme plans would cost.

Maybe Singh could import billionaires along with the tankers of oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere thatll arrive with greater frequency to keep Canada running if he succeeds in his quest to shut down its energy industry.

Clever. Dangle shiny objects of free everything in front of voters universal pharmacare plan, dental and mental health coverage while ending private, for-profit care. Simultaneously, get them too resentful of those selfish rich folk to notice your plan has more holes in it than a sieve.

Theres nothing original in Singhs ploy to seduce voters with promises of cradle-to-grave handouts. He echoes the empty vows hard-core socialists always make before they destroy quality of life and country. History proves they all fail.

Think dictator Fidel Castro who made similar promises. When he died in November 2106, hungry, sickly, bitter, oppressed Cubans rejoiced.

Not Singh. He tweeted: He saw a country wracked by poverty, illiteracy and disease. So he led a revolution that uplifted the lives of millions. RIP #FidelCastro.

Is it plausible Singh, a slick former criminal defense lawyer, didnt know about Castros death squads, imprisonment of homosexuals, or promises of education and healthcare that never materialized?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also expressed his deep sorrow over Castros death.

These toxic twins Singh and Trudeau agree on a lot, especially the destruction of Canadas energy industry, and tend to prop up one anothers unpopular policies.

Different parties, same ideals.

Trudeau made unkept promises to deliver Utopia but still ratcheted the national debt to an astounding $1.1-1.3 trillion. Singhs making impossible promises of Utopia on steroids thatll drive it higher. He makes U.S. President Joe Bidens spending policies look like Reaganomics in comparison.

Singh put a price tag on his grandiose election promises after Canadians already started early voting claiming $166 billion in projected revenues of the $214 billion over five years needed for his programs would come from tax hikes for Canadas wealthiest residents and businesses.

There was a time when the super-wealthy paid more of their fair share. Thats what we want to return to, that the burden should not be shouldered by the middle class, by working people. It should be those at the very, very top, said Singh.

Inevitably, the middle class will pay. They always do. Programs always cost buckets much more than what theyre pitched at.

They include: health care $68 billion; reconciliation with indigenous peoples $30 billion; initiatives to fight climate change and support energy workers in the transition $26 billion.

Revenue would also come from plans to implement a 20% foreign home buyers tax and eliminate oil and gas sector subsidies.

Last month, Singh promised to eliminate a whopping $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas companies and redirect the savings to the renewable energy sector.

The problem with that is the oil and gas industry doesnt get $18 billion in subsidies. It does pay high taxes, and particularly in Albertas case, props up the welfare programs Singh loves with equalization payments.

Singh declared war on the fossil fuels industry. Hed finish the job Trudeau started in destroying Alberta. Shockingly, races are hairline tight in some ridings, including Edmonton Centre and Edmonton Griesbach, between Conservative and NDP candidates.

After how former NDP premier Rachael Notley decimated the province, why are Albertans, other resource-rich provinces, and First Nations who want to get their energy projects going, even toying with voting NDP? Imagine if Singh declared his intent to destroy Ontarios auto industry or Quebecs aviation industry?

Singhs cradle-to-grave socialism that will harm middle-class Canadians and small businesses is hardly all that should worry Canadians.

Singh promotes division by accusing Canada of being a place of racism saying Muslims are not safe in this country without offering proof because there is none.

What else does he support?

Vaccine passports,

A government-enforced stay-at-home order to combat COVID-19,

Pouring more money into the wasteful United Nations and World Health Organization,

Citizenship tests for immigrants covering very basic and simple topics to demonstrate their understanding of Canada,

Canadians struggling to get programs funding for their children in school should pay for free English courses for immigrants,

Immigrants that commit serious crimes in Canada should only be deported back to where they came from if it is safe for them to return,

Even if the federal government doesnt improve its ability to screen out potential terrorists, Muslim immigrants shouldnt be banned from entering Canada,

Government should regulate online hate speech,

Children under 18 should be legally able to receive gender-transition treatments, banning parental authority,

Transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in events even though males have an advantage over females,

Foreigners residing in Canada should have the right to vote,

Decriminalizing drug use.

Meanwhile, Canada could lose an important trading partner and ally with Singh as PM. Singhs support for Sikh separatist groups and his criticism of New Delhis human rights record resulted in him being the first western politician to be denied entry into India.

Singh denounced terrorism. But after winning the leadership in 2017, he stirred controversy by appearing on CBC and refusing to denounce Talwinder Singh Parmer, believed to be the mastermind behind the 1985 Air India bombing.

Oh, and Singh, that personable, seemingly harmless guy appearing on the TV ads, says it shouldnt be illegal to burn the Canadian flag.

Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standardlslobodian@westernstandardonline.com

Read more:
SLOBODIAN: Singh lives in the fantasy world of a socialist - Western Standard

Beijing When Xi Jinping took command of the Communist Party in late 2012 and proclaimed "only socialism can save China," it was largely ignored as the perfunctory mention of an antiquated slogan not to be taken literally in a modern-day, market-powered economy.

But sweeping new policy moves from crackdowns on internet companies, for-profit education, online gaming and property market excesses to the promulgation of "Common Prosperity" show Xi's seriousness in steering China back toward its socialist roots.

Having done away with term limits in 2018, China's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong is pushing what some observers describe as a mini "revolution," curbing the excesses of capitalism and shedding negative cultural influences of the West.

The effort, touching everything from school curricula including the newly required study of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" to tighter regulation of the property sector and a squeeze on what the government sees as unwholesome entertainment, has rattled investors and prompted officials and state media to try to assuage markets.

On Wednesday, for example, the official People's Daily sought to reassure the private sector that support for it "had not changed" that recent regulatory actions were meant to "rectify market order," promote fair competition, protect consumer rights and "perfect the socialist market economy system."

But the intent, observers say, is clear.

"Xi wants to address a very contemporary issue the way in which neoliberal reforms have made China much less equal and bring back the sense of mission that shaped early Maoist China," said Rana Mitter, a professor of Chinese history and politics at Oxford University.

That inequality, as well as the vast wealth and power accumulated by some industries, threaten to undermine social stability and ultimately the party's legitimacy if left unchecked, some analysts have said.

The timing of the reforms reflects confidence that China can solve its problems through its own hybrid system instead of following the model of the West, whose shortcomings from managing COVID-19 to the chaos of the U.S. election and withdrawal from Afghanistan are repeatedly depicted in China as evidence of systemic decay.

"The state control model did seem to serve China well in the fight against COVID," said Chen Daoyin, a political commentator who is based in Chile and was formerly an associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

Xi is confident of striking a balance between government and markets, and between power and capital, Chen said.

"The danger is when the state can't resist reaching out its visible hand it creates unpredictability and political risk for capital," Chen said.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and other leaders stand above a giant portrait of late Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong on July 1. | REUTERS

The Hong Kong market, where many Chinese technology firms targeted by the crackdown are listed, has lost over $600 billion in value since July, with investors whipsawed by new regulations and scouring old speeches for clues as to what may be coming.

Xi's activist populism also demonstrates confidence that he can afford to alienate elites who fall on the wrong side of his policies as he solidifies his case for a third five-year term not that there is any visible competition.

But his calculus goes even beyond that, analysts say.

"Xi is an ambitious leader with a grand vision who genuinely wants to go down in history as the man who saved the party and made China strong," said Yang Chaohui, a lecturer in politics at Peking University.

China's State Council Information Office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Under Mao, the earliest iterations of party doctrine aspired to free people from the exploitation of capital, destroy private ownership and defeat American imperialism.

Deng Xiaoping, Mao's successor, took a pragmatic turn, allowing market forces to incentivize production and unleashing four decades of breakneck growth that fueled massive wealth accumulation but also deep inequality.

This summer's reforms are enabled by Xi's consolidation of control since taking office: He unleashed a massive anti-corruption campaign, eliminated space for public dissent and reasserted Communist Party power with himself at the "core" across all aspects of society.

With that power, Xi is addressing a spate of societal woes, from people not having enough babies and an unhealthy obsession with educational achievement to young adults so stressed by the rat-race that they would rather drop out and "lie flat." New rules curb young people spending too much time playing online games and too much money promoting their idols.

"Xi has set out to tackle the problems that cause anguish for the common people, such as corrupt officials and the rich-poor gap," said Chen.

While many in China express scepticism that Beijing can get people to have more babies or make big-city housing more affordable, some of the moves appear popular: Many parents welcome an easing of the educational burden and the new three-hour-per-week time limit on children playing online games.

"Championing the common people gives him a moral high ground to consolidate his authority within the party and makes it hard for his political opponents to attack him. After all, who can be against social equality?"

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

PHOTO GALLERY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Read the original here:
Xi's reforms revisit China's socialist roots while tightening his grip on power - The Japan Times

Socialism is a political theory. It is also an economic theory. This structure advocates for production, distribution, and other economic exchanges to be owned or regulated as a whole by a community. If employed as a government structure, Socialism would have all businesses owned by the government, have all property owned by the government, and all resources owned by the government.

Then the government would distribute those resources throughout the population so that basic needs could be met.

Socialism is often confused with Communism, but the two structures are very different. Socialism encourages the democratic ownership and distribution of societys means of production, attempting to balance the scales so the poor have access to the same resources as the rich.

Here is a Socialism pros and cons list to take a look at the various potential benefits and challenges that this structure provides.

1. It creates a system without classes. How many different classes are in a capitalistic society? There is a wealthy class. Theres the Middle Class. There are the elites. In 2017, the Trump Administration even began referring to the Educated class. In Socialism, all of that goes away. Because it is a community-based system, equal opportunities are presented to everyone. It doesnt matter how wealthy they are, what their skin color happens to be, or whatever other label might be used to create division. It strives for equality by any means necessary.

2. It eliminates the socioeconomic gaps. Have you ever heard the phrase, It takes money to make money? In Socialism, the community takes over the governing of production units and distribution. These units are then presented to the workers. As distribution needs increase, work needs increase, and that allows profits to increase for everyone on an equal basis instead of a trickle-down basis from the top.

3. It creates balance. Many of the disparities that are seen in society today come from communities that are out of balance. People with more wealth can access better healthcare options than those who are poor. Households with high annual incomes can eat better foods than households with low annual incomes. Socialism strives to reinforce the idea that everyone is created equally and deserves a community that with treat them with equality. This creates a greater balance between people within the same community.

4. It improves the standard of living. Because resources are distributed in an equal fashion, there is no poverty in Socialism unless there are no resources to distribute. The goal is to raise the living standards for those who are struggling. It is true that this comes at the expense of those who are well-off, but is it truly ethical to be living in comfort and luxury when right down the street someone else is living in deplorable conditions?

5. It encourages skill enhancement. People within Socialism are commodities because of their ability to work and produce. Each person can contribute their strengths to the betterment of the general society. That allows for more people to work, which encourages economic growth, with the goal of improving personal circumstances by promoting the communitys welfare first.

1. It has never been implemented in its true form. The issue with Socialism is that implementing it as imagined is virtually impossible. Someone must supervise the distribution of resources, which means there is a lot of power and responsibility placed in that position. It is easy enough to manipulate the distribution lines to benefit a few at the expense of many. That is essentially how Communism works: having the people work to improve the government while being given only the basics for survival.

2. It can be easily manipulated. The people in charge of distribution are not the only ones who can manipulate the structure of Socialism. The news can be manipulated to create certain political leanings. The law can be manipulated to prevent people from confronting corruption within the system. Each area of manipulation takes a person further away from having control over their own life and puts them into a position where they must defend it to keep it.

3. It creates a race to the bottom. When implemented historically, those who have pursued Socialism have redistributed wealth in an attempt to create balance. That wealth never really makes it to those who are living in poverty. The primary criticism of Socialism is that it doesnt improve living standards for the majority. It simply lowers the living standards of those who have means to have them come closer to living in poverty without raising the poor up.

4. It encourages worker incompetence. In a perfect scenario, a community would utilize the natural skills and strengths of each worker, assigning them to the job that they are most capable of performing at high production levels. In reality, jobs are often assigned in a system of Socialism based on the greatest needs of the society. That means if there is a food shortage, youre going to be a farmer, even if you kill everything you try to grow. This creates a level of professional incompetence in some industries that can be difficult to overcome.

5. It can reduce the workforce. The bottom line for many critics of Socialism is this: that it encourages laziness. If a person knows that they will receive payments for food, housing, and clothing, then there is no incentive to keep working. They can collect the payments, have their basic needs met, and enjoy life without the worry of a work day. This can affect the morale of those who do work, since those who dont work earn the same amount as those who do. That is why Socialism tends to negatively impact economic growth unless there is a requirement to work.

6. It limits innovation. Under a system of Socialism, the goal is to meet the basic human needs first. Then the goal of satisfying the local economic demands is implemented. Only then, after these two areas of concern have been addressed, will trade with other communities be considered. Because of this structure, innovation is discouraged in Socialism because the work efforts are dedicated to distributing output for essential, self-survival purposes only. There is no incentive to innovate because there is no guarantee of success, which Socialism demands.

Socialism is a planned economy that can be implemented with several variations. At its core, however, it is a structure that wishes to satisfy human needs, meet economic demands, and create true equality. It may not be a top-down structure, but it can easily be turned into that type of format, which is why there is such a hesitation to implement this type of community structure.

See the rest here:
11 Socialism Pros and Cons List Vittana.org

By Julie Roys, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Tuesday, July 12, 2016Julie Roys is host of a national talk show on the Moody Radio Network called "Up For Debate."

Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy. But, would he support socialism?

Increasingly, Americans think he would. In fact, a recent Barna pollfound that more Americans think Jesus would prefer socialism (24%) than those who believe he would prefer capitalism (14%). The other 62% responded neither or not sure, but the poll still reveals a disturbing trend.

Last Saturday, Micah Conkling, a Christian writer and podcaster, argued on my radio programthat socialism is the political and economic system that best fulfills the Golden Rule. Not surprisingly, Conkling is a Millennial, the most pro-socialist generation America has ever known. According to a recent Reason-Rupe survey, 53% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably, compared to less than a third of Americans over 30. Similarly, Gallupfound that 69% of those under 30 said they would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate.

I understand why Millennials are wary of the current system. They've witnessed a consistently declining economy; one of the most partisan eras in American history; the fall of the twin towers; and a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were never found. I agree with them that our political system desperately needs reform. But, socialism is not the answer. Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it's actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches.

Here's why:

1.Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.

His website declares: "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."

This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material.

To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.

This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world and teaches that mankind's greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talentsshows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That's because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.

2.Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.

As Karl Marx, famously said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren't industrious by giving them the fruits of another man's labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Interestingly, Marx mooched off othershis whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.

As Aristotle once noted, "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives."

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.

As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have "a reputation of good works." (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.

3.Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policiesto a little girl by saying, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn't endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn't endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that's saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That's not Christian; that's stealing!

But, socialists don't believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn't either. That's preposterous.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can't even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us. So, for an economic and political system to be Christian, it must protect private ownership and allow individuals freedom to allocate their resources according to their conscience.

4.Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.

Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."

Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.

In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . ."

But, Sanders and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They're creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detailin his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family.Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the "The Communist Manifesto," once wrotethat the society he envisioned would be one where "the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair."

Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a "revolution" in childcareand for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he's a proud supporter of gay marriage what Kengor calls "communism's Trojan Horse" to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it's a dystopia. That's because there's nothing Christian about socialism and there's absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.

Julie Roys is a speaker, freelance journalist and blogger at http://www.julieroys.com. She also is the host of a national radio program on the Moody Radio Network called, Up For Debate. Julie and her husband live in the Chicago suburbs and have three children

Read more from the original source:
5 Reasons Socialism Is Not Christian | Opinion News | The ...

By Jim ThompsonHCP columnist

(Continued from last week.)

From the beginning, I have labeled this series the Drama of Socialism. Like any good play or movie, we have started, over the last few weeks, by identifying the players.

If this were a play, movie or book, the characteristics of the players would now unfold, and we would see their emotional makeup. If I took that route, this series would last for months as the author develops the personalities of the players. You likely dont have the patience for that and neither do I so well spend our brief time this week talking about human emotions and then, using them in the subsequent columns, finally reveal how this all fits together.

The key human emotions in our narrative are, in no particular order: greed, ambition, fear, compassion, lust, charity, love, hate, concern and jealousy.

I suspect you are familiar with all of these, in yourself and others. Being human, we often view ourselves as possessing the kinder and gentler ones, such as compassion, charity, love and concern. At the same time, many of us are quick to assign greed, lust, hate and jealousy to others. Ambition and fear fall somewhere in the middle.

Fear is an interesting one. There are acute fears (such as I have when I find myself on a roller coaster) and chronic, gnawing ones that may be resident with us all the time, ready to rise when triggered by certain events or emotions.

Some think that hate is the opposite of love. This is not true. The opposite of love is indifference. If you actively hate someone or something, you are engaged with that person or thing, just like when you are in love with a person or thing. Indifference is disengagement and is definitely opposite of love.

There is another feeling or longing that we also need to discuss this week. That is the characteristic we will call aspiration. When one aspires to something, we say they long for it. Aspirations may be daydreaming or be a definite path with intermediate goals.

For instance, if one aspires to be a doctor, there is a prescribed set of hoops one must jump through, likely starting in about the seventh or eighth grade (good grades, disciplined study habits and so forth), followed by years of prescribed schooling and deprivation from activities ones peers may be following.

Many aspirations have little room for shortcuts and many often involve talents. To be an opera singer, for instance, one must have talent (vocal cords, a sense of timing, perhaps perfect pitch) plus a willingness to devote an extraordinary amount of time to practicing. (How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice. Practice. Practice.)

People of my generation become amused when the younger folks talk about work/life balance. Show me the baseball pitcher or basketball star that has work/life balance. Perfection does not fit with the work/life balance paradigm.

Universally, atheist or not, we all aspire to our own little piece of heaven here on earth. And that aspiration is what leads us to socialism, capitalism or some other "ism" as our adopted creed and target.

Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.

Read the original here:
Socialism the pitch and the purpose, Part 6 - The Highland County Press