So Barack Obama Isn’t Just A Socialist In Word, But In Membership, Too
October 9, 2008 / 1:24 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierYesterday, a few readers protested because I said that the current candidates used socialist rhetoric. In the comments, I even pointed to socialist actions. That view was derided as being ignorant of the meaning of socialism. Given what Van Helsing reports today, my post seems even more restrained than it first appeared:
The DSA and its New Party were socialist in the same sense as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — i.e., they were communists, reviled as extreme even by the Green Party. From American Thinker:
The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within.
That sounds like the Obama/Ayers strategy, all right.Now the New Party has joined the huge crowd under Obama’s bus. There are enough skeletons under there already to keep journalists busy for years, should they ever develop a sense of curiosity.
More at No Quarter, which also has a time line.
Here’s the thing: anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Karl Marx or socialism, hears the language of a socialist every time Obama speaks. He was schooled in it and marinated in it while coming up through his political career. It is the language of discontent, of government solutions, of screwing the rich, of fairness, of egalitarianism. The fundamental belief, and Obama has this in spades, is that life is not fair and that government can make life fairer. America is unfair. There is also the belief The Greedy and Powerful keeps people down and The System needs to be used to balance this out.
Socialist language soothes in times of trouble. Socialists make promises they simply can’t keep, but when has that ever stopped any politician? Socialism also doesn’t work–well, it doesn’t work well, because it fundamentally ignores human nature. Thus, my joking about not paying my mortgage.
What the government pays for, it reinforces. When a hard working person can make the same amount of money if he doesn’t work, guess what the smart person does? If Barack Obama taxes small business owners, what will the small business owner do? They will STOP hiring or they will let employees go. In response, the socialist government will make laws making it harder to fire people. What will employers do? Stop hiring and start looking for cheaper work forces with less hassle. What will the socialist government do? Require businesses to stay in the country. Cost of goods will inflate. People will have less disposable income. The economy will stall. What will business owners do? CLOSE UP SHOP.
This cycle is so easy to predict because it happens every time it’s tried. And yet, Barack Obama looks across the Atlantic with admiration and Hope and CHANGE! The Germans know a socialist when they see one. One can only hope, Americans do, too.
Even more interesting to me: Why don’t the socialists ever pay more than their fair share? Why do Obama and the rest of his liberal ilk even hire an accountant? Whatever percentage of their hard earned dough they get, why don’t they send it to the Federal Government and earmark the money for the government program they believe is so underfunded? Liberals give far less in charity, mainly because they believe a social safety net should be part of the government not dependent on individuals giving charitably. So, they force people to pay taxes for questionable programs. So fund the programs yourself. Give more in taxes.
But no. Barack Obama, when he made his millions from his book, did what every greedy capitalist does–he bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for his nice family. He ignores the fact that everyone is free to do the same thing.
He succeeded, but he’s ashamed. It’s not enough for him to privately help those who are in need. No, he wants to force everyone, because he believes everyone is as “selfish” as him, to pay. And yet, right now, he could put his money where his mouth is. He could give extra in taxes. Maybe he believes, like the rest of us looking at a mortgage and kids education, that he doesn’t make enough yet to be so generous. But see, those are evil capitalist thoughts.
With the money Obama has made with his campaign, he’s finally got enough money to be a socialist. The rest of us can’t afford his generosity.
16 Responses to “So Barack Obama Isn’t Just A Socialist In Word, But In Membership, Too”
By WayneB on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Not only a Socialist, but according to his books, he actively avoided becoming friends with Whites, so he wouldn’t look “like a sellout”:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
By steve on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
1. The chain of links is impressive! But just becasue a bunch of right wing political sites call something neo-marxist doesn’t mean that it is. Find me something tangible from a neutral source- or something formt he party platform that calls for the abolishment of free enterprise. Let’s face it: if I had saeid John McCain was part of some unsavory group, and my only proof was that KOS and C&L said they were unsavory, you’d correctly call BS. They were a leftist party - w/i the Armerican system - to be sure. That’ snot Marxist or socialist.
2. Hasn’t this guilt by association thing gone far enough? What about McCain being allied with Nazis? (not that I buy that, mind you, but isn’t turn about fair play?) How is it that the evil left-leaning MSM goes on and on about Ayers butisn’t talking about one of the candidates having selected a traitor (or, at the least someone who’s married to a traitor) as their running mate? What could be more unpatriotic than clamoring for seccession? (And imagine if that was Michelle Obama and it was a black seperatist grou…I think we know what would happen)
The truth is, Alaskan politics is probably a little weird, and most of those folks just think Alaska should get more for it’s natural resources and naren’t seccesiontists. Just like McCain’s group (the name escapes me) to stop commnunism in central and South America may have attracted some Nazi nut cases, but their purpose was not invalidated by the idiot’s presence.
This is all BS. But, again, selectively wanting to apply it to a candidate you dislike is intellectually dishonest. I hope you can see that.
By steve on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Good job Wayne! I think it’s perfectly fair to pick on candid statements of a person looking back on their identity struggles as a racially mixed adolescent. Way to go.
By WayneB on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
steve - Can you point to a credible source that says he has denounced his behavior of that time, except some of the more egregious drug use?
I’m all for understanding that someone makes mistakes when they’re young. But you have to admit that they were mistakes, and I haven’t seen any indication that Obama admits to any mistakes until they are rubbed in his face.
By Naqamel on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
So Obama’s membership in a Socialist Party, and the proof thereof, is just “a bunch of right wing political sites” calling something neo-marxist”?
It is now plainly evident that you will not accept any proof for Obama’s communism.
Or are you just arguing without reading the source again?
By steve on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
OK, Wayne B. He’s a black seperatist who’s “palling around” with whites to become president. To help accomplish this goal, he writes candidly about these feelings when he was a kid, but wink,wink - nudge,nudge - he doesn’t officially denounce this because he still feels this way.
Not that I don’t that he didn’t specifically denounce his adolscent angst, as most people do in press releases. He may well have. But I’m willing ot cede this poitn because it deosn’t matter - EVERY kid (and especially a mixed race kid w/ no Das) has all kinds of mixed up thoughts and feelings. No one should have to tell you that.
What other paranoid dreams run about here? Or is Obama becoming POTUS and immediately wiping out free enterprise and instituting white slavery enough? Sheeesh….
By steve on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
“So Obama’s membership in a Socialist Party, and the proof thereof, is just “a bunch of right wing political sites” calling something neo-marxist”?”
Exactly. I named my standard of proof, now meet it.
By steve on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
“Or are you just arguing without reading the source again?”
I like this “reasoning”, becasue it basically says that incredibly partisan politically interested people/groups/websites are what should pass for sources - and for grand assertions like saying Obama’s a socialist and is in league with the likes of Hitler.
Gee, I wonder what politically interested adversaries of Obama will say about him? Bad things? Good things? Whatever they are - we oughtta trust them!
So Obama’s a black-seperatist communist Muslim terrorist according to these “sources”? Well, that’s all reasonable and intellectually honest.
And just think - my only problem w/ McCain is that I don’t agree with his policies!
By Naqamel on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Steve: Here’s the proof. A 1996 Release mentioning Barack Obama running as a New Party candidate in the Democrat party.
Link
So, Barack Obama was at one point a member of the New Party, a party so far to the left that even the Green Party didn’t like them.
That’s the proof; you have failed to refute any of it. Instead, you fall to the ad hominem fallacy (again) of attacking the messenger and not the message.
The burden, Sir, is now on you. Prove that Barack Obama is not a socialist.
By Glynn W. on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Simple question Doctor. Why won’t you answer it? After McCain and Bush nationalize the banks - and McCain offers to BUY everybody’s house(!) why do you call Obama socialist?
You have no standards. It’s just name calling. The “Right” stands for absolutely nothing.
Shameful.
By Mr. Chuckles on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Glynn-
Because she can’t. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with politicians, both left and right. The difference between the left and right pundits is that the right will never admit when it is wrong. 8 years of Bush and nary a word from the likes of Shammity, Limpbaugh, skeletor Coulter and right wing bloggers about the abundance of mistakes, blunders and greed of this administration. I believe that they are so embarassed by Bush that they would rather sweep him under the rug and pretend that he was never here. They want a mulligan by foisting McCain as something new and “maverick”, when there is no indication that he will be any different than the boy king. Malkin denounces the bailout bill and then spins it of course into a democratic backed bungle even thought Shrub and his cronies are the ones who put this little corporate welfare plan together (I am extremely happy, BTW, that the execs at AIG got their little retreat after we gave them $85B - we wouldn’t want them to suffer, after all. 3 guesses as to which party the top brass in that org. is loyal to).
The right will never admit that Bush and co. have been a colossal f**k up and have now ushered in a new era of lowered standard of living expectations for future generations. It is highly possible that the recent financial crisis may be irreversible - there is no stimulus on the horizon. Republicans will not go against their own, however, no matter if the ship is sinking. Bush should have been thrown out of office 4 years ago, but unfortunately the best the dems could muster was a laughable candidate in Kerry. MANY financial experts saw this coming, but the repeated mantra of the “fundamentals are strong” from all of the right wing bloggers and pundits as well as a complicit media convinced Americans to keep gorging at the credit buffet. Repubs, if not entirely responsible for this debacle, at least need to own up to their complacency regarding the warning signs that were present 5 years ago. McCain in particular (since he is a POTUS candidate) SHOULD be under intense scrutiny for his repeated dereg stance. Rank and file neorepublicons (certainly can’t call them conservatives anymore) will never call him out. As an independent I will tell you that there is enough to disgust me on both sides, but given that McCain intends to stay the course (straight into the iceberg) I will be forced to vote for a less than ideal candidate in Obama. And yes, I will be more than willing to criticize his performance when it is merited for all of you who will cry hypocrisy at my comments.
Oh, and Glynn, you’re wrong. The rebublican party does stand for something - greed, lies, corruption, complicity, apathy and debt.
By WayneB on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
steve - if he actually believed it was wrong to behave the way he did when he was younger, he would have said it in the book. I actually offered a LOWER standard of proof that he doesn’t feel that way than I actually believe in for myself, because I try to give people a break. Since you can’t point to such a declaration, I’ll take that as acknowledgement that he still feels that Marxist Professors are among his preferred associates, as well as feeling uncomfortable associating with white people in his drive to further his career, even white radicals, because he has to be the “Black Man” instead of merely a human, and denigrates other multiracial individuals because they don’t identify as Black.
Again - I gave greater leeway than I would for myself or people I know in such a situation, by asking for some credible source. If it were someone I was directly associated with, I would call them on it if there were no disclaimer INSIDE THE BOOK. And I would expect others to do the same for me.
By WayneB on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply
Glynn - It looks to me like Melissa said, right at the beginning of this post:
“Yesterday, a few readers protested because I said that the current candidates used socialist rhetoric. In the comments, I even pointed to socialist actions.”
Sounds to me like that indicated BOTH of them. This particular post was specific to Obama, yes, but just because the opportunity presented itself, as she also pointed out, right at the beginning of the post.
By Raymond on Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
The posters above are mostly correct. Both are socialist. Democrats 100%, Republicans 99%. Sad to see the arguing over shades of grey. Its a downward spiral which we are already in the vortex. I read about “Rules for Radicals”. The idea is that in a democracy that its a pyramid and power comes from the most people. This chase $40K/yr and lower people and you win. Simple strategy that is working well. Too bad the next step is a new form of goverment.
By DjK on Oct 11, 2008 | Reply
steve,
Calm down.
Oskar Lange, a proponent of Socialism in the 1930s wrote:
““The real danger of socialism, is that of a bureaucratization of economic life.”
Now read about all the bureaucracies that Obama wants to create: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#jumpstart
I wouldn’t call Obama a socialist in the classical sense, “socialism” as such has failed. But Obama is definitely socialistic, “neo-socialist” if you will.
By Howard on Oct 24, 2008 | Reply
THE PERFECT STORM FOR A DEPRESSION …
A far left Media …
A far left President …
A far left Congress …
A far left Senate …
A far left Supreme Court …
This would eliminate all the checks and
balances that our democracy is based upon.
Barack Obama formed his political and economic
ideology, and his radical associations, during the
TWENTY YEARS … yes, that’s TWENTY YEARS … when
he followed Marxist Black Liberation Theology, in
Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American, racist church.
And, now, with our country on the brink of depression,
Obama wants to impose new laws which would change
America into a third world country.
You may be upset with George Bush, but in spite
of Obama’s slogans, John McCain is NOT George Bush …
so don’t over react to Obama’s 600 million dollar
Propaganda campaign designed to highjack America !!!
A vote for Obama is a vote for changing America beyond
recognition … and, it would be a vote for voter fraud,
a corrupt media, socialism, and the end to America as we know it.
Keep America free, strong, safe, and American …
Elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.