Proof that Obama is a Socialist

Michael Stuart Kelly · April 8, 2010

Proof that Obama is a Socialist

In the Objectivist-libertarian world, we all know that President Obama is a socialist in everything but name. But the mainstream?

Obama made a mistake and tried to brush off Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh by name on national TV, and said, "This is based on what, this notion that Obama is a socialist, for example? Nobody can really give you a good answer." See Obama saying this here:

Beck took up the challenge and presented his evidence. It is quite compelling and goes into depth. For instance, he gives the political-thought profile of Obama's parents and people who were major influences as he grew up and progressed in life.

Beck made a whole show about it on April 6, 2010. See it here. (There's a trick to see the whole show. Right click anywhere on the video and choose "Watch on YouTube." This is the first of 4 videos. After you see it, then take the title of the video and copy it to the YouTube search box directly above. Delete the very last number in the title (1) and replace it with 2. Then perform the search. YouTube will present the video as a search item and you can watch it by clicking on it. Then do this for 3 and 4.)

Now Beck keeps a page on his site for collecting facts: Is Obama a socialist?

Here is the bulk of that page as of today. I expect is will grow as people send in things, so be sure to go to the link if you want to see more than what I post below.

The response:
Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)
*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
- Obama Sr. on socialism (Link)
- Overview of the paper (Link)
*Harvard educated economist
*Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
*Demonized corporations
*Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)
Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)
*Communist sympathizer
*Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
*Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
*Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
*Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
*Left Barack Obama Jr.
Mentor
*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link)
*Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents
College & Church
*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (
)
*Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link)
*Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)
Career
*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (
)
*Voted for TARP (Link)
*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
*Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
*Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link)
*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
*Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
*Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link)
*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link)
*Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (
)
Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration
*Wife Michelle Obama said "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
*Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
*Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
*Carol Browner, socialist
*Robert Creamer, socialist
(You can watch Glenn debunk Obama's claim HERE) Help add to this list. Send us news and videos we may have missed, please include sources. Email us here...

If anyone needs facts for their arguments outside of the forum about Obama being a socialist, I believe this is a good resource.

Michael

Peter · April 8, 2010

Michael, that proof would be devastating if Obama cared. I have never seen a President lie about nearly everything and not be called out by the mainstream press.

The antidote to his political poison may be right in front of us: Paul Ryan. Robert Trancinski has been following his thoughts as shown below. Ryan is almost too good to be true, because he has a better grasp of the philosophical arguments for liberty than Ronald Reagan.

If he could be elected President, he would need to do what Reagan began but could not accomplish.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

TIA Daily • April 5, 2010

COMMENTARY

Radicalized, Part 2

How big of a rising political star is Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan?

Here's how big: when he gives a speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, it's news.

The text of that speech was carried as one of the top links a few days ago at RealClearPolitics, and with good reason. It is an excellent example of the radicalization of the right that I've been talking about. It is a speech that employs some rhetoric and some ideas that did not used to be so prominent in speeches by Republican politicians.

Ryan begins by describing the health care bill as a new Intolerable Act and proceeds to an extraordinary interpretation of this November's election.

Paul Ryan said:

Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill—or I should say, one political party passed it—over a swelling revolt by the American people…. Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots, but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power, or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity, or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism, or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity or solid growth, between living in dependency on government handouts or taking responsibility for our lives, between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work, between bureaucratic central government or self-government, between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

End quote

Ryan's argument—which I think is absolutely correct—is that we are being called upon to re-decide America's Founding. We have reached a "tipping point" at which the American Revolution is either overthrown or begins to be restored. No wonder this has given rise to a new "tea party" movement.

Ryan acknowledges that "the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame." That's a good admission—the first step for Republicans is realizing that they have a problem.

I also particularly liked another observation Ryan makes at the end of his speech: "Ronald Reagan used to say: 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.... It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same.' We are that generation." Representative Ryan and I are about the same age, and this made me realize that he is right: we are the next generation after the Reagan Revolution. And what I think we have seen in the past year and a half is that the momentum of the Reagan-era "turn to the right" had sputtered to a halt—and that we, the next generation, need to renew it.

In a fascinating observation, Ryan shows that he understands the relationship between America's economic system and its political system—and that when the government pays for everything, it dictates every aspect of our lives.

All told, 60 percent—three out of five households in America—were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus—through government—supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

It raises a subtle but real threat to self-government when the few are paying more and more of the bill for government services and subsidies to the majority: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The next chapter is the rule of "crony capitalism," where those who pay most taxes get the privileges, and government by and for the people is replaced by government by and for the few. The end of this story is soft despotism.

We already see enough of "crony capitalism." When government sends bailout money to Wall Street firms they label "too big to fail," that's "crony capitalism." When government buys shares in General Motors, names their management, and dictates their salaries, that's "crony capitalism." When big health insurance companies, instead of competing for market, team up with Congressional Health Care writers to order every individual to buy their products, that's "crony capitalism." When thousands of small businesses have to meet bottom lines with no government bailout, well, you're too small to succeed—good luck!

What is most interesting about this speech is Representative Ryan's presentation of contemporary politics in philosophical terms. This comes after a somewhat muddled presentation of the history of "Progressivism." The Progressives were a political movement in the late 19th and early 20th century that laid the groundwork for the modern left. This focus on the Progressives instead of "liberals" as the enemies of capitalism and the American system seems to be the influence of Glenn Beck, who has made this a major theme of his radio and television shows. I view this as a sort of progress, because "Progressive" is a less vague, more overtly ideological term than "liberal." It is a step toward understanding the opposition to capitalism on a deeper, more philosophical level.

Indeed, Ryan traces the Progressive back to the influence of European universities and the German philosopher Hegel. He then proceeds into this philosophical section:

Ryan said:

Last January President Obama said: "There are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years."

He was right. So let's examine these "philosophical differences" of government….

The Progressivist ideology embraced by today's leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by "nature and nature's God." The truths of the American founding can't become obsolete because they are not timebound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.

A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it's regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.

End quote

We need to debate on philosophical ideas, and his idea is that government's "high but limited mission" is to "secure our natural rights"? It has been said that Ryan is influenced by Ayn Rand, and there you can see the influence.

A lot of people compared Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention in 2008 to the famous 1964 speech that launched Ronald Reagan onto the political scene. As I pointed out at the time, while Palin captured some of Reagan's sense of life, there was nothing in her speech remotely as ideologically substantive as there was in Reagan's. By contrast, this speech by Paul Ryan is almost the equal of Reagan's.

But of course Reagan's 1964 speech was, on the whole, better and more bracing than the actual practice of Reagan's administration, which merely slowed rather than stopping the growth of the welfare and regulatory state. So in specific terms, how does Representative Ryan propose to implement his ideas? Here, in part, is what he has to say.

Ryan said:

A new Congress will then turn to the great problem of our stagnant economy and the debt tsunami bearing down on us. The days of pretending not to notice are over. The next Congress will understand this threat and act after transparent deliberation and real debate.

I have put forward my specific solution, called "A Roadmap for America's Future," to meet this challenge. The CBO confirms that this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run—while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth.

The problem in a nutshell is this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, three giant entitlements, are out of control. Exploding costs will drive our federal government and national economy to collapse. And the recession plus this Congress' spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning….

Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current Medicare program. For those now under 55, Medicare will be like the health-care program we in Congress enjoy.

Future seniors will receive a payment and pick an insurance plan from a diverse list of Medicare-certified plans—with more support for those with low incomes and higher health costs. To reform Medicaid, low income people will receive the means to buy private health insurance like everyone else.

Under the Roadmap's Social Security proposal, everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. Those under 55 will choose either to stay with traditional Social Security, or to join a retirement system like Congress's own plan. They will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in their own savings account, guaranteed and managed by the federal government. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase, and the wealthy will receive smaller benefit increases.

End quote

All of this would be progress, which is to say that it would be better than the current system. (The only part that is totally unacceptable is the idea of personal savings accounts "guaranteed and managed by the federal government." Do you want the same people who run Fannie and Freddie and GM to be managing trillions of dollars of our retirement savings? I didn't think so.)

But notice what kind of progress it is. It is progress from a bad form of government intervention, to a somewhat less bad form of it. We go from government paying directly for all health care for the poor and elderly, to government offering subsidies for private health insurance. We go from fully government-guaranteed retirement income to partially government-guaranteed retirement income, mixed with government-designed individual savings accounts.

That's fine. I understand how difficult it would be, politically speaking, to go directly from the current system to something that is fully privatized. So if someone proposes a step in that direction, even a relatively modest step, I'll support it. And remember that Ryan is the ranking member (i.e., the top Republican) on the House Budget Committee, so his main priority is not to totally privatize Social Security but simply to ensure the solvency of the federal government—which the Democrats have put into danger.

But notice what creates the limitations in Ryan's proposal: his assumption that we have to "secure the social safety net." What happened to government being limited to securing our rights? There's where Ryan's little exploration of philosophy runs aground. What he actually wants is a middle ground or compromise between "self-reliant" individualism and the altruist/collectivist philosophy of "society's" obligation to care for anyone who might have any kind of need. You can see that compromise in one brief paragraph toward the end of the speech.

Ryan said:

The Roadmap plan shifts power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects cradle-to-grave welfare state ideas because they drain individuals of their self-reliance. And it still honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.

End quote

I was wondering why I had never really heard of Representative Ryan before—even though he's been in Congress for more than a decade—yet he is suddenly the man of the hour. He has risen to prominence because he, too, has been "radicalized" by the events of the past eighteen months, and so he is now beginning to reach for radical ideas about limited government. He is reaching for them, because they are the ideas that are required by the times. But as is common with such sudden "radical" conversions, he is not willing to give up the conventional altruist commitment to the "social safety net."

Ryan concludes that "I would welcome honest debate in the next Congress on how to tackle our fiscal crisis—and the larger debate on the proper role of government." So do I, because even the "radicalized" Republicans need to start taking that subject more seriously.—RWT

The Intolerable Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Intolerable Acts or the Coercive Acts are names used to describe a series of five laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 relating to Britain's colonies in North America. The acts triggered outrage and resistance in the Thirteen Colonies that later became the United States, and were important developments in the growth of the American Revolution.

Four of the acts were issued in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of December 1773; the British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority that had begun with the 1765 Stamp Act.

The other act enlarged the boundaries of what was then the colony of "Canada" (roughly consisting of today's Province of Quebec and Province of Ontario) removed references to the Protestant faith in the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of the Roman Catholic faith.

Many colonists viewed the acts as an arbitrary violation of their rights, and in 1774 they organized the First Continental Congress to coordinate a protest. As tensions escalated, the American Revolutionary War broke out the following year, eventually leading to the creation of an independent United States of America.

imurray · April 8, 2010

Proof that Obama is a Socialist
In the Objectivist-libertarian world, we all know that President Obama is a socialist in everything but name. But the mainstream?
Obama made a mistake and tried to brush off Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh by name on national TV, and said, "This is based on what, this notion that Obama is a socialist, for example? Nobody can really give you a good answer." See Obama saying this here:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ZJ43A2R0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ZJ43A2R0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ZJ43A2R0Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Beck took up the challenge and presented his evidence. It is quite compelling and goes into depth. For instance, he gives the political-thought profile of Obama's parents and people who were major influences as he grew up and progressed in life.
Beck made a whole show about it on April 6, 2010. See it here. (There's a trick to see the whole show. Right click anywhere on the video and choose "Watch on YouTube." This is the first of 4 videos. After you see it, then take the title of the video and copy it to the YouTube search box directly above. Delete the very last number in the title (1) and replace it with 2. Then perform the search. YouTube will present the video as a search item and you can watch it by clicking on it. Then do this for 3 and 4.)
Now Beck keeps a page on his site for collecting facts: Is Obama a socialist?
Here is the bulk of that page as of today. I expect is will grow as people send in things, so be sure to go to the link if you want to see more than what I post below.
The response:
Barack Obama Sr. (Dad)
*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits...
- Obama Sr. on socialism (Link)
- Overview of the paper (Link)
*Harvard educated economist
*Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes
*Demonized corporations
*Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)
Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)
*Communist sympathizer
*Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism)
*Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud
*Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan
*Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies
*Left Barack Obama Jr.
Mentor
*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link)
*Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents
College & Church
*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (
)
*Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link)
*Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)
Career
*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (
)
*Voted for TARP (Link)
*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill
*Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth'
*Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link)
*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler
*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG
*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare
*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man'
*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs
*Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich'
*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."
*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC
*Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link)
*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link)
*Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (
)
Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration
*Wife Michelle Obama said "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
*Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate
*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist
*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market
*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth
*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan
*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao
*Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar'
*Carol Browner, socialist
*Robert Creamer, socialist
(You can watch Glenn debunk Obama's claim HERE) Help add to this list. Send us news and videos we may have missed, please include sources. Email us here...
If anyone needs facts for their arguments outside of the forum about Obama being a socialist, I believe this is a good resource.
Michael

Sorry, can't listen to Beck. Easy rebuttal to 99% of his claims (not just about Obama) Occam's Razor. He's a conspiracy theorist. He studied Freud and Nietzsche and practiced critical theory and those are part of an argument that he's a Socialist? Maybe Rand is too - she read Nietzsche. My whole grad research seminar is... Just don't care for the associative style of arguing.

dan2100 · April 8, 2010

Sorry, can't listen to Beck. Easy rebuttal to 99% of his claims (not just about Obama) Occam's Razor. He's a conspiracy theorist. He studied Freud and Nietzsche and practiced critical theory and those are part of an argument that he's a Socialist? Maybe Rand is too - she read Nietzsche. My whole grad research seminar is... Just don't care for the associative style of arguing.

Do mean Beck is disqualified because he's a "conspiracy theorist"? I'm not saying Beck is right about most things, but I don't think the logic follows. In other words, being a conspiracy theorist doesn't automatically disqualify anyone's claims. Why would it?

Also, do you believe no conspiracies ever actually do happen?

Michael Stuart Kelly · April 8, 2010

Sorry, can't listen to Beck. Easy rebuttal to 99% of his claims (not just about Obama) Occam's Razor. He's a conspiracy theorist. He studied Freud and Nietzsche and practiced critical theory and those are part of an argument that he's a Socialist? Maybe Rand is too - she read Nietzsche. My whole grad research seminar is... Just don't care for the associative style of arguing.

Panoptic,

Those are some pretty strong and learned opinions for someone who refuses to look at what he claims to know so much about.

I'll stick with facts, thank you.

Michael

Michael Stuart Kelly · April 8, 2010

The antidote to his political poison may be right in front of us: Paul Ryan. Robert Trancinski has been following his thoughts as shown below. Ryan is almost too good to be true, because he has a better grasp of the philosophical arguments for liberty than Ronald Reagan.

Peter,

Ryan seems to be a good man, but I stand a bit outside. I don't believe the antidote for political poison is another politician. I believe it is raising general awareness on what freedom and individual rights mean.

(I know, I know. We need politicians to run the government, and some are far better than others, but I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about any one of them.)

I am really into Beck because he is a-political partisan-wise. His focus is on principles, not promoting this person or that.

I'm having a bit of a time swallowing the Faith, Hope and Charity thing, but when I see Samuel Adams, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin used to illustrate these virtues (i.e., virtues according to Beck's religion), I see meanings that go way beyond the religion. Maybe this is rationalizing a bit (I keep thinking of Rand's satire of the gasoline pumps called Faith, Hope and Charity to fill up the tank of the soul), but Beck keeps quoting a passage from Jefferson's letter to his nephew over and over:

Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear.

I think Glenn Beck is doing what no other commentator is doing right now.

I saw Sarah Palin on TV mention that most Tea Party organizers are women. I definitely see a connection between the size of Beck's 5:00 O'Clock audience and housewives, and this new finding. No one else is talking about Founding Father stuff on that scale to the housewife demographic.

Michael

Peter · April 8, 2010

Michael wrote:

I think Glenn Beck is doing what no other commentator is doing right now.

end quote

I agree, and I am even starting to like it when he gets melodramatic.

Michael wrote:

I saw Sarah Palin on TV mention that most Tea Party organizers are women. I definitely see a connection between the size of Beck's 5:00 O'Clock audience and housewives, and this new finding. No one else is talking about Founding Father stuff on that scale to the housewife demographic.

end quote

I saw her too with Congresswoman Michelle Bachman on Sean Hannitys show where he proposed they be a ticket for the Republicans and the Tea Party. I dont the Congresswoman wants second billing though.

That 5pm womens demographic has not occurred to me, but you undoubtedly have a point. I love it when Beck spells it out with the blackboard as a prop like a high school or college teacher.

I also do not place faith in one mere mortal. Ryan has to want it, and then he must be vetted and that is a gruesome future. And then if elected, would it be politics as usual? Nosiree! Not if he is the Tea Party Nominee! Reaganesque optimism is required for me to give myself over to any cause, but Paul Ryan just may have what it takes. But have no doubt, the Tea Party Movement will be monitoring and supporting his every right move after being elected.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Oh, I meant to mention that when I emailed Paul Ryan, I invited him to OL to say Hi. I told him I would give him some dough if he did 8-)

Edited April 8, 2010 by Peter Taylor

galtgulch · April 9, 2010

Michael,

I am surprised that you don't mention that our illustrious Fuhrer (I have purposely not used his name in the futile hope that I will avoid surveillance) actually fulfills Ayn Rand's definition of a fascist. I mean FASCIST! Of that there can be no doubt. His advocacy of individual mandates alone is enough to meet the criteria. Ayn Rand pointed out the difference. In socialism the State owns everything including you and the ground you stand on. In a fascist state you are permitted to keep your name on yourself and on your business but the State dictates whatever it wishes regarding how you run your business and your life. Admittedly the distinction is superficial.

Judge Napolitano has a new book out Lies the Government Told You and there is an interview with him on the Reason website. I don't think his solution to repeal the Seventeent Amendment so that the States will have a seat at the table will be enough or goes deeply enough to solve the problem:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/08/injustice-system/

If the campaign for liberty and Young Americans for LIberty accomplish drawing the attention of young people to the ideas in a handful of books which the public schools and liberal colleges keep from them perhaps there is some hope.

www.campaignforliberty.com 230,291

Greybird · April 9, 2010

Edit: Yet again, there's no point.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Greybird

Chris Grieb · April 9, 2010

Michael,
I am surprised that you don't mention that our illustrious Fuhrer (I have purposely not used his name in the futile hope that I will avoid surveillance) actually fulfills Ayn Rand's definition of a fascist. I mean FASCIST! Of that there can be no doubt. His advocacy of individual mandates alone is enough to meet the criteria. Ayn Rand pointed out the difference. In socialism the State owns everything including you and the ground you stand on. In a fascist state you are permitted to keep your name on yourself and on your business but the State dictates whatever it wishes regarding how you run your business and your life. Admittedly the distinction is superficial.
Judge Napolitano has a new book out Lies the Government Told You and there is an interview with him on the Reason website. I don't think his solution to repeal the Seventeent Amendment so that the States will have a seat at the table will be enough or goes deeply enough to solve the problem:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/08/injustice-system/
If the campaign for liberty and Young Americans for LIberty accomplish drawing the attention of young people to the ideas in a handful of books which the public schools and liberal colleges keep from them perhaps there is some hope.
www.campaignforliberty.com 230,291

Surprise: I agree with Gulch about Obama's politics.

On repealing the 17th Amendment I think it would be very difficult.

Michael Stuart Kelly · April 9, 2010

Gulch,

I agree that fascist is a better fit. But at the distance of what the general public is aware of, and what Beck is doing to raise that awareness, I'm happy if people start taking a good hard look at Obama's Marxist roots (including those around him) and contrasting that with the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

Within that context, if people want to call that socialism, I'm OK with it. Besides, fascism and socialism are kissing cousins.

Michael

BaalChatzaf · April 9, 2010

Gulch,
I agree that fascist is a better fit. But at the distance of what the general public is aware of, and what Beck is doing to raise that awareness, I'm happy if people start taking a good hard look at Obama's Marxist roots (including those around him) and contrasting that with the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
Within that context, if people want to call that socialism, I'm OK with it. Besides, fascism and socialism are kissing cousins.
Michael

A plausible hypothesis. Ernst Roehm, the head of the Sturm Abteilung in Germany was essentially a Marxist. He recast some of his rhetoric in nationalistic and racist terms, but at the core he was all Marx.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Peter · April 9, 2010

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

“A plausible hypothesis. Ernst Roehm, the head of the Sturm Abteilung in Germany was essentially a Marxist. He recast some of his rhetoric in nationalistic and racist terms, but at the core he was all Marx.”

end quote

Call them Statist, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, or Fascist they are all Totalitarians, but precision is not a vice. I noticed Rand was frequently, redirecting herself, and not in a microscopic sense either. She really did understand when her terms might not be as precise as she intended. I enjoyed Peikoff’s explanation as to why America was drifting toward Fascism and not Socialism in “The Ominous Parallels,” and I now thoroughly agree with Leonard on this issue, until the arrival of BHO. Obama clearly had Marxist mentors, and no links to Hitler, Mussolini or Amerian Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell. But he does have strong links to Marxist Black Liberation Theology, American Leftist Radicals, Castro, Lenin, and Mao.

And now an example of Randian fine-tuning.

From Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right” by Jennifer Burns, page 100:

“When she arrived in California she was working on her first non-fiction book, a project she eventually abandoned in favor of her third novel. Much as “The Fountainhead” had showcased her ideas about individualism, this book would reflect Rand’s growing fealty to reason and rationality. After three years in California Rand had redefined the goal of her writing. Once Individualism had been the motive power of her work; now she explained to a correspondent, “Do you know that my personal crusade in life, (in the philosophical sense) is not merely to fight collectivism, nor to fight altruism? These are only consequences, effects, and not causes. I am out after the real cause, the real root of evil on earth – the irrational.”

Soon after this development came Rand’s dawning awareness of the differences that separated her from the libertarians or “reactionaries” she now considered her set. At issue was her opposition to altruism and, more significantly, her unwillingness to compromise with those who defended traditional values. In 1943 Rand had been one of the few voices to make a compelling case for capitalism and limited government. In the years that followed she would become part of a chorus, a role that did not suit her well.”

End quote

(I will put that quote on the Altruism thread, not to be redundant, Michael.)

So, back in 1943 Rand was already rebuking Religious Conservatives. In “Goddess” Burns talks about a newspaper editor R.C. Hoiles who loved Rand, but peppered his support of libertarianism with quotes from the bible, so Rand dropped him from her ‘A’ list, even though he owned a chain of 16 newspapers in seven states. One dinner with him was enough, but Hoiles continued to had out copies of the Fountainhead to his friends, and family and to support her in all his newspapers. I would love to have a transcript of what Ayn said to him after the last bible quote 8-)

I would bet you ten bucks she was still polite, in spite of her reputation for lacking an internal censor.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Proof that Obama is a Socialist

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in