Archive for the ‘Obama Socialism’ Category
By Ben Hart
Lost in the avalanche of Obama scandals over the past week (IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate, and reporter-phone-records-tapping-gate), was an admission by Barack Obama that, yes, he is indeed a socialist (at a minimum).
The admission appears in a report by the New York Times where Obama is quoted as telling his inner circle that he often dreams of ”going Bulworth.”
Here’s the revealing quote buried deep in the NYT piece:
In private, he has talked longingly of ‘going Bulworth,’ a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought.”
So what does Obama really mean by “going Bulworth”?
Bulworth is portrayed as a hero in the film because he came out of the closet and boasted that he was a socialist, out to destroy the capitalist system. He would be unhindered by pragmatic political concerns from pursuing his mission. To Bulworth, the enemy is capitalism.
When Obama tells his inner-circle that “going Bulworth” is what he really wants to do, he’s saying his facade of political pragmatism is a lie — a calculated lie for the purpose of winning elections.
But now that he no longer has to worry about elections, he’s free to do what he really wants.
Bullworth is Obama’s socialist hero. Now he’s “going Bulworth.”
Using the IRS to punish his political adversaries is part of Obama’s way of “going Bulworth.”
Obama’s agenda is Bullworth’s agenda — destroy capitalism and transform America into a socialist country, apparently by any means necessary.
This “going Bulworth” admission would be a lot like if President Reagan had said “I’ll be going Dr. Strangelove in my second term.”
Can you imagine if Reagan had ever said something like that?
It would confirm the liberal suspicion that Reagan was so anti-Communist, such a hardline Cold Warrior that he might welcome (might even start) a nuclear war against the Soviets.
This would be big news. We would wonder, with good reason, what his plans for us really are.
Of course, we had to wade through 17 paragraphs of non-news (fluff) before we reached Obama’s bombshell “going Bulworth” quote in the New York Times article.
Either the editors at the New York Times did not fully understand what “going Bullworth” meant. Or they did, and just didn’t want to draw attention to Obama’s statement.
During his 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised he would “fundamentally transform” America.
Now we know what he means by this. He means move America’s from a capitalist economic system (which has produced more prosperity than any nation in history) to a socialist system. Socialism always creates poverty and misery.
What’s unclear is the degree of socialism Obama and the fictional Bullworth want.
Is it French-style socialism where 57 percent of the economy is the government? Or is it Mao Tse Tung-style socialism, where 100 percent of the economy is the government?
Obama hasn’t told us.
By the way, even French-style socialism isn’t so good. We now learn some French citizens are being taxed at more than 100 percent of their income.
No wonder French millionaires are fleeing France in droves.
By the way, can you really love something you want to “fundamentally transform“?
This is what Obama says he wants to do to America.
If I were to tell my wife that my goal is to “fundamentally transform” her, would she take that as a compliment?
Most likely, she’d file for divorce.
Of course, constitutionalists have known all along what Obama’s true agenda is. His mom was a socialist. All his key mentors and associates throughout his life have been anti-American socialists and Marxists, including his mentor when growing up Frank Marshall Davis (Communist Party USA member); William Ayers (Weather Underground founder, bomber of the Pentagon and NYC police headquarters); his America-hating pastor of 20 years Jeremiah Wright.
Obama had the most left voting record in the U.S. Senate — to the left of the likes of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy, to the Left even of the self-described Socialist Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.
So the fact that Obama is a socialist (or worse) is no secret to anyone who has followed his life and career. Now that he’s no longer concerned about reelection, he admits it.
And he’s using the massive weapon of the federal bureaucracy he runs to make it happen.
We are just now learning that Obama’s use of the IRS and the Justice Department to target the Tea Party, conservative organizations, conservative donors, Christian organizations, reporters and journalists Obama doesn’t like, even Billy Graham, is the tip of the iceberg of what’s happening.
The IRS was targeting organizations that have the keywords “Tea Party,” “Constitution,” or “patriot” associated with them.
In the world of Obama and his IRS, it’s apparently suspicious if you’re a “patriot” who talks about the “Constitution.” And if you are a “Christian” “Tea Party” member who talks about the “Constitution,” you might as well turn yourself in to authorities for hard labor at a prison camp in northern Alaska.
It’s now clear Obama and his gang are using the full machinery of the federal government to crush dissent and punish his critics.
Obama is going way beyond anything Nixon tried. Nixon was a piker compared to Obama.
President Obama revealed a lot about himself when, on the campaign trail the other day, he made this statement:
If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Obama is a believer in government, not in the private sector, not in businesss.
Obama steered virtually all stimulus dollars to plug holes in state and local government (to prevent layoffs of government workers) or to his pet “green energy” projects, mostly run by his big donors (i.e. Solyndra)
Now, obviously what Obama is saying makes some sense on one level.
We certainly need government. We need police. We need roads. We need regulators. The free market cannot operate without rules and laws. No one (with perhaps the exception of a few Ron Paul supporters) is saying we don’t.
We also need government when an enormous amount of resources is required to achieve a single focused objective — i.e. win World War Two.
We can’t expect the private sector to do something like that.
We also need government to conduct other big worthwhile projects — such as build the Hoover Dam or land on the moon in the 1960s (something we haven’t done again in half a century).
Obama’s rhetorical style is to posit straw-man arguments and knock them down — that is, to misrepresent our true views.
He says conservatives (and those who love freedom) are anti-government, that we just want a dog-eat-dog society where everyone fends for themselves — sink or swim, survival of the fittest.
But that could not be farther from the truth.
Conservatives are strong believers in government. Conservatives are not anarchists. Conservatives believe in ordered liberty, not chaos, not everyone fend for himself Road Warrior-style.
Conservatives believe government should be very strong where it’s supposed to be strong. Conservatives believe government is needed to do jobs that the private sector is not set up to do, can’t do, or can’t do very well.
America’s founders did an excellent job of outlining the proper responsibilities of the federal government in the Constitution of the United States.
But to say, as Obama did, that “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that — somebody else made that happen” is like saying the New York Giants did not win the Super Bowl last year, the referees made that happen, or NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell made that happen.
Certainly referees were necessary to the playing of the Super Bowl. Also a stadium had to be built. The NFL brass had to decide to hold a Super Bowl on a specific date in a specific location. And there must be rules for the conduct of the game. But to suggest that, because of all this, the New York Giants did not win the Super Bowl (someone else did), is pretty silly.
People pay to watch the game. People pay to watch the players play. They don’t pay to watch the referees. Obama wants to emphasize the referees, not the game.
The main game in America is capitalism.
Capitalism is why America grew to be so prosperous so quickly.
Capitalism is what creates the products we buy, generates the wealth, and pays for all this government. Government doesn’t create wealth. The private sector does.
We could not have won World War Two if America had been a poor country.
Obama thinks wealth is a finite and constant resource that needs to be spread around evenly.
But if that were true, America would continue to look like it did in the 18th Century.
Instead, just about everyone in America today (including the poor) has a computer, a flat screen TV, a car, a washer and dryer, a refrigerator, and very few Americans go hungry or homeless (unless they have a drug abuse or mental health problem).
The rising tide of capitalist-generated prosperity lifts almost all boats.
Yes, Jesse Jackson is right when he says some boats remain stuck on the bottom and need some help. Fine. But that’s a small percentage. Maybe 10 percent, maybe 5 percent if you really look closely.
But capitalism has been very good for 90-95 percent of us.
Even the bottom 5 percent in America are far better off than if they lived a century earlier.
But Obama has an almost Medieval view of the world — an age when the world looked exactly the same for hundreds, even thousands of years — a feudal, anti-capitalist world where there was no discernible progress from century to century.
It was grinding poverty for everyone – unless you were royalty or a high-level church figure.
Capitalism and capitalist institutions (such as enforceable contract law and banks) changed all that — also the PROTESTANT ETHIC & THE SPIRIT OF ENTERPRISE (as Max Weber called it).
Obama doesn’t understand capitalism, doesn’t like it. He thinks it’s more noble to work for a non-profit or for government.
But who has done more real good for the world — the RED CROSS (one of the world largest non-profits) or Bill Gates and Microsoft?
I would argue Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Bill Gates made the world a better and more productive place by creating software for personal computers that almost anyone can afford. He created hundreds of multi-millionaires (his employees and shareholders). And now he’s set up his own non-profit foundation that’s exponentially bigger than the RED CROSS — because of the profits he made from Microsoft.
Plus, of course, the RED CROSS could not exist without donations. Where do these donations come from?
The same place taxes are generated to finance government — the private sector.
But Obama tells us “the private sector” is doing fine now. It’s government that’s hurting, in his view.
But if the private sector really were doing fine, government would not be hurting. The tax revenue would be there.
Obama doesn’t seem to know where the golden eggs come from. He just continues to keep trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
He sees the goose that’s laying the golden eggs as the enemy.
In one of his memoirs (“Dreams of My Father”), Obama talks about a job he had briefly in the private sector. He wrote that he felt like “a spy behind enemy lines.”
Obama actually sees the private sector and business as the enemy.
Obama has spent his entire life working for far-left non-profits (like the notorious vote fraud organization ACORN) and for government.
Even Communist China and most of the Communist World has woken up to the fact that its capitalism that creates the wealth. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are the only true Communists left in the world — well, except also apparently Obama.
While the Communists have abandoned Communism, Obama still clings to Socialist rhetoric that was common in the 1930s. He sounds like a relic from a bygone era.
He blames ATM machines and other forms of automation for the slow economy.
He’s like a Flat Earther who refuses to let observable facts alter his thinking.
Obama doesn’t understand the American Dream, and doesn’t like it much.
He thinks everyone should be working in soup kitchens and the like.
Then he wonders why his polices aren’t creating any new jobs, aren’t generating any economic growth.
If Obama were running the NFL, there would be hundreds of referees on the field — so many you’d have a tough time finding the players. And the rule book would be thousands of pages long — to ensure fairness, of course. A flag would be thrown on every play.
And then NFL Commissioner Obama would wonder why the game has become so difficult to play, and why so few people want to play the game or watch it anymore.
That, in a nutshell, is what he’s doing to the U.S. economy.
His ObamaCare law is 2700 pages. His administration has just produced 13,000 additional pages of ObamaCare regulations under the 2700-page law.
Obama is very good at that — creating more rules, regulations and bureaucracy. That’s what he knows how to do. That’s what he loves doing.
He is now in the process of hiring 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare. He is now building 159 brand new government bureaucracies to administer ObamaCare.
Paradoxically, the more government has grown, the more responsibilities it has taken on, the less capable it has become in undertaking big projects.
When was the last time the U.S. government undertook a project on the size and scope of the Hoover Dam?
In what truly is the ultimate insult, American astronauts are now going into space on Russian rockets because we cancelled our space program. We have a government today that’s enormous, but really can’t do much.
It took America one year and 45 days to build the Empire State Building in 1929-1930.
It took us 11 years to build the new version of the World Trade Center. And now it’s just one building instead of two. We’ll call this World Trade Center minus one tower.
We’ve become a pathetic country, unable to do much anymore.
We’ve become a world laughingstock.
Most Conservatives, of course, believe in a safety net for the disabled and those who are incapable of providing for themselves. We don’t want people starving on the streets or granny kicked out of her house into the snow. We believe there should be a floor through which no one should fall, but there should also be no limit (no cap) on what one can earn.
We’re still a relatively rich country (not nearly as rich as we used to be). We can afford an intelligently designed safety net that has incentives for able-bodied people to get off it.
We’re happy to rescue the defenseless, but we don’t want to subsidize the lazy and clueless.
We don’t think the safety net should be gold-plated and lavish. Or why would anyone want to get off it? Why work if you don’t have to?
The safety net is not supposed to become a hammock.
But Obama has now (on his own) gutted the welfare reforms that Bill Clinton signed into law, including the requirement that you at least try to find work. That requirement’s gone. Now you can just sit on the couch, watch TV, and call that work.
He’s also running TV ads in poor communities urging people to get on Food Stamps.
In the World According to Obama, going on Food Stamps is good and noble, but working in a business is working for the enemy.
At every turn, Obama undermines the work ethic and competitive spirit that are essential to capitalism and a flourishing free-enterprise economy.
Instead of admiring a Michel Phelps and celebrating achievement, Obama’s first instinct is to tie a cement block around his ankle to make the race more fair.
And then he wonders why businesses are keeping trillions of dollars in cash parked on the sidelines until he’s gone . . . or setting up factories in places more hospitable to capitalism, such as in Communist China.
STANLEY KURTZ-NATIONAL REVIEW: On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
BEN SAYS: The WASHINGTON TIMES article below is good on how Obama’s new campaign slogan, “Forward”, has extensive ties to Communism. But the TIMES article leaves out Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” and MSNBC’s “Lean Forward” ad campaign. Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” killed 45 million Chinese over a three-year period (1958-1961). So MSNBC doesn’t quite want a “Great Leap Forward” (like Mao). MSNBC just wants to “Lean Forward” — that is “lean” toward Maoist Communism. But Obama apparently wants to go all the way. Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan “Forward” is the name of Vladimir Lenin’s publication. It’s also the name of a number of other prominent Marxist magazines and journals. “Progressive” is a variation of the “Forward” Communist theme. Progressive is a kinder, gentler version of “Forward.” Obama apparently prefers “Forward” to “Progressive.” “Forward” is serious.
WASHINGTON TIMES: The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new
campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.
Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”
“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.
The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.
The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.
There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.
East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).
Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).
Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.
Obama Channels Karl Marx, Mao: Says limited government that protects free markets ‘doesn’t work, has never worked’
CNS NEWS: In a speech delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets “speaks to our rugged individualism” as Americans, such a system “doesn’t work” and “has never worked” and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.
“‘[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us,” said Obama. “If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger.
“Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers,” Obama continued. “But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
“Now, it’s a simple theory,” said Obama. “And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.
“It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression,” said Obama. “It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
“Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history,” said Obama. “And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class==things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.
POLITICO: Former President Bill Clinton says now is not the time to hike taxes.
“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,” Clinton told Newsmax in an interview Tuesday. “This has been a dead flat economy.”
Clinton, who is hosting the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting in New York City this week, said that until the country’s debt is reduced, he doesn’t believe cutting or raising taxes or boosting spending are the solution to bringing the country to a full employment economy.
This should surprise no one.
WND: It may be early in the campaign season, but the Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for the 2012 election.
While noting he is disappointed with “some aspects” of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid.
In an article last week at People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, Webb discussed the need for a third party consisting of the so-called working class and labor as well as “racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight.”
Webb, however, recognized that such a party is not likely to emerge by next year.
“Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion,” he noted.
Webb said that for communists there are major differences between Democrats and Republicans. He urged his supported to continue to back the Democrats.
GM dealerships are buying Chevy Volts, reselling them as used cars and then taking $7,500 tax credit.
A tax credit is the government writing you a check.
Obama Volt sales have averaged a dismal425 per month for the first four months of 2011 — even though GM has the capacity to build 17,000 Volts per year and even though the government (that is, the taxpayer) is paying you $7,500 to buy the Volt.
That’s how awful this car is. This is crony capitalism at its worst.
Government Motors Stock Down 22% Since Post-Bailout Public Stock Offering
After much fanfare over its public stock offering last fall and a peak in January of $39.48 per share, General Motors stock has been in a tailspin downward for the last five months months. It closed today at $31.84. Ouch!
President Obama calls the GM bailout one of the big successes of his Presidency.
GM hasn’t been helped with reports of shoddy workmanship from it’s labor union workforce.
For example . . .
Steering wheel falls off Chevy Cruze. Worse than the Yugo?
WALL STREET JOURNAL: Imagine turning your car’s steering wheel, or giving it a gentle tug, and having it break away from the steering column. Now you’re speeding along holding the suddenly useless wheel.
It sounds like a vision from a cartoon, or every driver’s nightmare. And it happened to at least one driver of a 2011 Chevrolet Cruze compact car last month, and General Motors Corp. is recalling 2,100 of the cars as a result.
While the recall affects a relatively small number of vehicles, it is an unpleasant development for Chevrolet, which has been riding high on the success of its new small car. Chevrolet sold 50,205 Cruzes through the end of March. That’s well short of the 76,821 units Toyota sold of the Cruze’s main rival, the Corolla, but it is ahead of the 37,379 Cobalts Chevy sold in the same period. The Cruze replaced the Cobalt and is supposed to be a departure from that uninspired model.
Here’s the Video
Meanwhile, almost no one wants the electric-powered Obama Volt because it’s very expensive and only has a range of 40 miles per charge. Plus an enormous battery takes up much of the back seat.
Here was my assessment of the “Obama Volt” last summer
Looks like my predictions about the Obama Volt last summer have proven correct.
Reminds me of those old Soviet car factories that produced all those cars they couldn’t sell, or the hilarious Communist-built Yugo.
No doubt, ObamaCare will work something like that. You’ll go into the hospital to get your tonsils removed and come out of surgery missing a leg.
MICHAEL GOODWIN-NEW YORK POST: First I did a double take. He said what? I read it again and the shock waves followed.
A beleaguered Presi dent Obama has told aides it would be so much easier to be the president of China, The New York Times reports.
There are two ways to read the remark, which is attributed to anonymous aides. One is that Obama resents the burden of global leadership that comes with the American presidency. The other is that he longs for an authoritarian system, where he need tolerate no dissent.
Under either or both interpretations, his confession carries a dose of self-pity that means Obama has hit a wall.