Obama socialism past present and future

contender6030

New member
This may have been posted before,if so please point me toward the discussion and my apologies.
Obama has big plans to be the modern day Robin Hood (steal from the "rich", give to the "poor") I for one do not plan to stand for having my success milked away by the Gov. while the potheads of the world do nothing to advance themselves.
Please take time to read and spread it to those that either are to caught up in the American Idol candidate or just choose to IGNORE the info.:barf:






http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...02137342405551

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 7/28/2008

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.


During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
 
This needs to be read, and understood, by anyone who is considering voting for Sen. Obama.

People on this forum who say they probably will vote for Sen. McCain, but are also considering voting for Sen. Obama, simply do not understand how much of a Socialist Obama truly is.
 
It seems that we need the people living in dirt poor African Marxist dictatorships to like us. And the way to do that is to make sure there is nothing to envy about us.
 
Here is a good article about the battles that have been going on between the factions in the Democrat Party. It seems that the moderate "DLC" faction has been pretty much routed by the left-wing Marxists. I wonder what will become of this country if they are in charge of all three branches of government?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13612

Few outside the Democrat party understand what has just happened in the historic primary season that recently ended. But in those primaries, the party made a fundamental decision that marks a dramatic turning point in American politics.

Bill Clinton swept up the Democrats in 1992 based on the new politics of the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC), which he headed. The DLC sought to remake the Democrats based on recognition of what had then just happened in the real world of American politics. Reagan's Republicans had won three straight national elections, thrashing unreconstructed liberals like Mondale and Dukakis in landslides.

The DLC sought to accommodate what they saw as the valid components of the Reagan Revolution. The historic battle between capitalism and socialism was over, and capitalism had won. The Democrats had to modify their policies and their rhetoric to recognize that. Most importantly, they had to accommodate the essential vision that led to the political success of the Reagan Revolution -- the American people overwhelmingly favored the policies of economic growth over the policies of taxation and redistribution ("It's the economy, stupid").


BUT THE DEMOCRAT IDEOLOGUES, what Howard Dean later described as the Democrat wing of the Democrat party, hated and despised what they saw as Clinton's sellout. It was these people who, once Dean self-destructed, nominated the ultraliberal John Kerry in 2004. Right after departing service in Vietnam, Kerry had actually falsely accused his fellow American servicemen, on an international media stage, of committing war atrocities. Somehow, the Democrats to this day cannot understand why that came back to bite him.

The great showdown for the soul of the Democrats came in the 2008 primaries. Barack Obama, the most left-wing of all elected national Democrats, ultimately captured the hearts of the Democrat ideologues. Hillary never really believed in her husband's neoliberal DLC policies. Personally, she herself was still with Eleanor Roosevelt and the Old Left of the 1930s. But recognizing the political success of her husband's vision, and the political failures of the more left-wing candidates, she tried to project neoliberal responsibility and rhetorically hearkened back to the DLC successes of her husband's administration. That made her the target of the Democrat ideologues, resulting in her defeat.

Elections have consequences. Obama's left-wingers have now completely routed the DLC out of today's Democrat party. Make no mistake about it. The New Left is now in charge of the Democrats, with Obama, Pelosi and Dean at the helm. This is not your father's Democrat party, or Bill Clinton's.
 
Obama is very, very clever in hiding his socialist roots. I think he is allowing the Muslim rumor to continue to circulate to hide the bigger skeleton in the closet, his clearly far left socialist orientation. The IBD article nails it, ”stealth socialism.“

He uses positive buzz words to hide his real agenda. ”Fair tax rates“ means whatever he thinks is fair, which is a tax increase for the majority of Americans. ”Common sense“ gun laws. Whose ”common sense?“ His, of course, and he has voted consistently to remove or restrict gun rights. He backed the DC ban until Heller. ”Vigorous diplomacy“ means he will give away American ideals and money to try and buy friends. He backs the UN initiative to tax Americans to give money to the UN.

I suggest, if you are thinking about voting for B. Hussein Obama, that you read one or two of his books first, and think about the code words he is using for what he really envisions, a totalitarian socialist USA.
 
Your getting closer to nailing ...

... it Gretsky.
a totalitarian socialist USA

Perhaps a more direct modification on the label is in order ...

A pseudo Marxist ... United Socialist States of America. :barf::barf::barf:

This is what the "enlightened one" dreams for in his sleep.


.
 
Some people will refuse to lift their head out of the sand because it's dark and cool in there. They don't have to confront their wrong headedness. Some people actually wish we were more Marxist in the US. They think this would be "more fair". They are the die hard Obama supporters. They will not be turned from the dark side. We need to focus on the folks who have their head in the sand but take it out to look around once in a while before sticking it back in. We may be able to save them from themselves and convince them that Obama is not the change they've been waiting for, even though Obama says, "We are the change we've been waiting for". Translation: "I'm the change I'm trying to convince you that you've been waiting for."

Sweet home with no Obama,
Where the skys are so blue.
 
It seems that IBD is running a series of editorials titled "The Audacity of Socialism. Today's editorial is called "Obama's Global Tax". It seems Obama has sponsored a bill called the Global Poverty Act. It seems like having the plot of Atlas Shrugged happening in real life, right in front of my eyes.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302222641317480


We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats — from fascism to Nazism to communism — defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.

Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources.

Here are the cosponsors of this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]
 
Last edited:
Look at the RHINO's on the list of sponsors. Olympia Snowe.:barf: Chuch Hagel.:mad: Richard Luger.:eek: Susan Collins.:rolleyes: Gordon Smith.:barf:

Would someone tell them to switch parties already. Spineless republicans like those 5 should really be democrats. :D
 
Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish

Of all the statements I have read about Obama, that just might be the best one yet.

It seems Obama has sponsored a bill called the Global Poverty Act. It seems like having the plot of Atlas Shrugged happening in real life, right in front of my eyes.

Obama's crowd are big on the World Citizen thing. Which means Global Taxes, whether people realize it or not. Which means there is 100% chance I will not vote for any of them.
 
Obama does have the most analytical mind, though - consider this -

Now this is just Minnesota funny.
The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win.. There was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would win the election.

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between the two candidates to determine the winner.

After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota .

There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. With their catch for counting and verification by a team of neutral parties. At the end of the first day, John Mc. Returned to the starting line and he had ten fish.

Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up the next day.

At the end of the 2nd day John Mc. Came in with 20 fish and Obama came in again with none.

That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, 'Obama, I think John Mc. Is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating.'

The next night (after John Mc. Returns with 50 fish), said to Obama, 'Well, tell me, how is John Mc. Cheating?'

Obama replied, 'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice.'


:D
 
And yet he appears to be supported by most Americans!


Not sure that is true the media and polls tend to go the way the poll takers wish, and a great many Americans don't voice an opinion nor vote.

My concern is his "supporters" or handlers and leaders in other countries
who appear to wish him elected and that is who I refer to.
 
And yet he appears to be supported by most Americans!

For what polls are worth. Personally, I seem to get phone poll calls at dinner time, hapy hour, when I'm feeding the dogs - or whenever I'm doing anything more important than responding to poll questions that invade my privacy.

Too bad being on a state and national "no-call" list doesn't filter out political calls - among other calls not filtered.

At any rate, I just hang up - depriving them of my opinion - which is usually the oposite of the leaders in polls. I suspect many others do that - so - polls are not very worth looking at - much less taking seriously.

:barf:
 
Back
Top