Bill Bucko

Obama the socialist

9 posts in this topic

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...302137342405551 :

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....

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....

The editorial gives details on several of O.'s socialist/communist mentors. Then:

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.

From the conclusion:

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....

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I have an excellent addition to your link. Doesn't Obama really strike one as strongly for the "middle-ground", the quintessential centrist, vague and fuzzy-feely "community organizer? The question may arise, whether there is something more concrete to this designation:

In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.

This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...elieve-in.thtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

"The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree" was the first thing that came to mind, myself.

As much as I dislike McCain and Palin's duty driven religiosity (and it is wrong for Objectivists to attempt to rationalize away that that exists), Obama is (literally) radically worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 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....

This is an example of how the progressives deceptively manipulate language systematically and deliberately with anti-concepts. "Fighting chance" may be meaningless, but it is intended to play off conservative emphasis on national defense, evoking emotions of patriotism. "Security" is another one now used by progressives.

Likewise, calling seizures for transfer of wealth "investments" to make America "competitive" is supposed to distract you away from the plundering and increase in government spending as you feel positive emotions associated with an improved "economy" -- without revealing the nature of the "economic" transaction formerly known as looting or the nature of the proposal to expand government power and control.

I have seen such terms, especially "investment" as a euphemism for government spending, frequently abused this way for years by the progressives running Maine. It is no surprise to see them show up in the Obama campaign.

Such dishonest rhetorical manipulation counting on people to not think clearly in defined terms is a deliberate and systematic part of their war on Americans through corruption of the language in which people think. It is not an accident or casual one time trick someone happens to invoke. They actually think about these things as part of their strategy that they consciously use nationwide as the word spreads to the followers, and you can see this in the results. It is just as much a part of their epistemological warfare as the Obama campaign theme of sloganeering for "change" without specifying changing what to what for what purpose.

The article calls this speaking in socialist "code" because their followers all know what the translation is, but it is far more insidious than that. They not only try to hide their goals, but want to spread anti-concepts to make it cognitively impossible for the victims to conceptualize what they are after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God entities beyond the GOP campaign have picked up these "self-evident truths" :rolleyes: and are running with them.

The best the McCain can up with is sputtering over "lipstick on a pig."

Sheesh... if the McCain campaign (so far) is the best that America can muster against Obama, then we deserve Obama...

<Brad slaps himself for being bitter ;)>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank God entities beyond the GOP campaign have picked up these "self-evident truths" :rolleyes: and are running with them.

The best the McCain can up with is sputtering over "lipstick on a pig."

Sheesh... if the McCain campaign (so far) is the best that America can muster against Obama, then we deserve Obama...

<Brad slaps himself for being bitter ;)>

As I said in some other thread, where's Pat Paulsen when you need him? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank God entities beyond the GOP campaign have picked up these "self-evident truths" :rolleyes: and are running with them.

The best the McCain can up with is sputtering over "lipstick on a pig."

Actually that was Obama's line. But as comedian Denis Miller put it, he couldn't possibly have meant what he did -- practicing Muslims would not joke about pork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It exists but is irrelevant, because we are protected from it by the Constitution. We are not, however, protected from Socialism by the Constitution.

As much as I dislike McCain and Palin's duty driven religiosity (and it is wrong for Objectivists to attempt to rationalize away that that exists), Obama is (literally) radically worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It exists but is irrelevant, because we are protected from it by the Constitution. We are not, however, protected from Socialism by the Constitution.
As much as I dislike McCain and Palin's duty driven religiosity (and it is wrong for Objectivists to attempt to rationalize away that that exists), Obama is (literally) radically worse.

Maybe you can point to one Supreme Court Justice that today fully understands what the Constitution was created for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites