Obama and socialism

I warned people close to me (mother, sister, etc.) that Obama was a socialist and they laughed at me and (quite lovingly, because they’re my mom and my sister) called me “extreme.”  I wonder if they would have laughed at Al Sharpton too, now that he’s finally let the cat out of the bag:

Al Sharpton isn’t the only one coming out of the woodwork.  David Leonhardt, writing with the New York Times’ approving imprimatur, spells out precisely what’s going on:

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Read the rest of Leonhardt’s euphoric socialist economic polemic here.

Stop me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the liberal media and the pundits go ballistic when all of us said that Obama’s statement to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth” was a purely socialist notion?  They just think it’s a good thing that it should be the government’s responsibility to, hmm, let me see if I’ve got this right: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”  Quiz those pundits and media-crities and they might suggest some authors for that famous expression.  Was that Adam Smith who said that?  No.  Reagan?  No.  Jefferson?  No.  Tell me that it was Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism, and I bet they’d be surprised.

Finally, all the pieces have come together, and the MSM is still urging us to avert our heads and not to listen.

I’m sorry this post is incoherent, but I’m irritated, and still trying to get my thoughts organized right now.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Remember the outrage by the lamestream media when the lone courageous newswoman Barbara West, in Florida, interviewed Joe Biden? Gasp! She called zero a socialist! http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html

    Book, have your family watch a single hour of Glenn Beck. that will spell it all out for them. You can also read David Horowitz’s site Discover the Networks that ties it all together. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Marxists, through and through.

  2. says

    Apropos Glenn Beck (whom I’ve never watched either), my spouse’s only exposure to him is Jon Stewart, which said spouse watches religiously.  Every time he’s done watching, he tells me “Your Fox/Glenn Beck/Palin/Republicans/Tea Baggers [sic]/etc. are insane zealots/nut cases/racists/wackos/religious fanatics/etc.”

    When I’ve suggested to him that one could easily compile a video of Stewart’s twitches, moans, screams, obscenities, and foolishness, and make him look every bit as ridiculous as the conservative’s Stewart targets, my husband poo-poos that notion, secure in the belief that the Left’s behavior is sufficiently perfect to rise above crude satire.

    So, no, we haven’t seen Beck.

  3. Marguerite says

    My daughter works at an independent book store and has many regular customers.  One came in this a.m. and they were commiserating about increased taxes driving the teetering business over the edge and the fellow’s tanning salon also.  Then daughter giggled and said that Obama managed to get a tax that only applied to a business serving white people.  Isn’t that racist?

  4. says

    Check this out.
     
    http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjljYjA3YTYzMjU2ZjA5Yzg1MmM2YjIzZjEyN2ZjZjk=
     
     
    People knew what Barack was all about. Because his wife told us.
     
    People didn’t listen because they thought they could ignore the wifey. Probably something your husband would agree on, Book.
     
    Barack Obamawill require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed. – One Guess Who

  5. JKB says

    More than three decades ago?  So that would put it during Carter’s administration?  How is now similar to then?  That’s right it was the last time the Dems tried to do economics with their price controls, rationing and high taxes.  Clinton doesn’t count since he was interrupted before he got going and Reagan had primed the pump for good economic times.
     
    On the other hand, Carter did prime the pump for Reagan.  A legacy that after 30 years this is suppose to start negatively affecting.

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    I am afraid that the frog is just awaking to the fact that the temperature is boiling. Don’t be so sure that all this will be reversed with the next election or any election after that, JKB.
    The democratic process is at risk and these people have already addressed the obstacle that democracy poses (at least, in their minds). Carter may have been inept, but there is no evidence to suggest that he ever thought the he could, should or would destroy the democratic process in our country. Two next steps to look for will be the addition of millions of illegal aliens to the voter rolls (Something that Gore did very effectively to help secure Clinton’s 2nd election) and the disenfranchisement of military voters (something at which the Dems have already had a lot of practice). Throw in voter intimidation, SEIU thuggery, a “new” ACORN,…
    We have quite a fight ahead of us.

  7. says

    Hi Bookworm,  I just came by to see how things were going here.  Sometimes I just shake my head.  This is one of those times.   Yes, the American people elected Obama.  “We shall overcome.    Some day.”

  8. Charles Martel says

    No, Helen, a small majority of the people (69.5 million–53 percent) who showed up to vote in November 2008 elected Obama. That leaves the 230.5 million people who did not vote for him, so your assertion that “the American people elected Obama” is, like so many of your assertions, deluded.

    What would be wonderful if just once you would shake your head and a coherent, non-racist thought would fall out.

  9. Mike Devx says

    Helen is correct, in that Obama did win the election.  And elections have consequences.  Mainly: He who wins, gets to govern.
     
    But she neglects the flip side of the coin: What if the winner governs NOTHING at all like he campaigned?   I believe Helen is part of that 35% (or so) of Americans who are happy with Obama is doing, and she will remain happy with it.  It fits her.  But that other 18% of Americans who believed in parts of the campaign and took a wild stab at “Hope and Change”?  Over and over the polls are showing that they are becoming very unhappy with what they’re getting.  Many of them are even becoming angry.  (And of course the MSM doesn’t want them becoming angry!)
     
    One part of the Democrat problem is that they are engaging in naked, raw power politics.  I would warn those, like Helen, who find this acceptable.  The Republicans committed a similar catastrophic mistake during the Tom DeLay Congress (approximately 1998-2002).  They threw away all principles and engaged in naked, raw power politics themselves.  Selling their souls to special interests in attempt to construct “the permanent majority”, they achieved neither permanence nor a majority, and within a few short years were utterly despised by many Americans, leading directly to the repudiation of the GOP in 2006 and 2008.
     
    The crass power politics of Pelosi and Reid and Obama is quite similar.   In fact they seem far, far WORSE to me.  Time and facts will tell the truth of that.  2010 may be too soon for the revulsion to fully surface among that 18%, and even among some of the Helen Losse 35%.  But it’s coming.
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply