Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

I have taken a bit of criticism over the past few weeks because I have defined President Obama’s proposals as socialist. In the interest of fairness, I have decided to explore socialism and it’s definition to see how closely aligned Obama’s proposals are to socialism.

To begin we must first define socialism. According to Yahoo, socialism is defined in one of two ways. First it is “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” It is also defined as “the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

I am tempted to just end this article now because I believe that those 2 definitions sum up what the Obama administration has proposed in just their first few weeks in office, but what would be the fun in that? Let’s take a look at some of the proposals to come out of Washington since January 20 and see if they fit the socialist mold. One last note before my liberal minded friends begin the catcalls about Bush, Bush definitely started the socialist ball rolling with his own meddling in the free markets, but he is gone now and we are dealing with this President and his socialist agenda.

The automotive industry bailout, while passed during Bush’s last days, has shown some true socialist tendencies. Since the bailout, the White House has fired the CEO of General Motors and the new CEO has been given notice of what the administration expects him to do. The White House insists that they do not want to run the auto industry, but yet they have fired the CEO of GM and they are demanding that the auto industry manufacture the least profitable models. A report has come out of GM showing that the most profitable models that they manufacture and sell are Sport Utility Vehicles and trucks, but yet they are being told to come up with a plan to manufacture more hybrids and electric vehicles. Shouldn’t the free market decide which vehicles it wants the auto makes to manufacture?

President Obama recently made a terrifying statement, at least to anyone that was paying attention. He stated that they will change the laws to allow the government to “seize control” of troubled companies and sell of their “toxic assets” to other companies to save the financial markets. Exactly how would the omniscient government decide which companies to seize? What right does the government have to swoop in and seize control of a company that a private citizen has built? What constitutes a troubled company?

The last proposal that I want to analyze is his proposal for reforming health care. He has proposed universal health care for all Americans. The argument is that there are too many uninsured Americans and because they are uninsured, they are not receiving proper medical treatment. First of all, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in need of medical care. If you do not have insurance and you are involved in a car accident, do you really believe that the ambulance will not deliver you to an emergency room for medical treatment? Secondly, why does anyone believe that the same inefficient government who runs the Social Security Administration will do a better job with you health care? Does anyone love going to stand in line at a government institution? When was the last time that you were pleased at the service you received when you called the IRS? The same government that was so upset with the AIG bailouts, even though they specifically approved them in the stimulus bill that they never read, you want to decide whether or not you deserve cancer treatment after the age of 65?


Socialism has been tried around the world and it continually fails to deliver on its promises of equality. Mark J. Perry, of the Foundation for Economic Education has cited what he believes to be the fatal flaw of socialism. He says, “It is a system that ignores incentives.” Margaret Thatcher once quipped that the result of Britain’s socialist agenda was they eventually “run out of other people’s money.” Winston Churchill saw the differences between Capitalism and Socialism this way, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Ben Franklin is reported to have responded to the question of what type of government do we have, with “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It has taken more than 200 years of politicians slowly chipping away at our freedoms to get to this point, but I think we can safely say that we are now on the verge of losing the Republic in favor of Socialism.

The Unconstitutional Road To Socialism

Since the election in November, there has been a myriad of proposals and statements from a whole host of liberal groups and politicians that if enacted will change our way of life in the United States. The problem being that many of the proposals bear very little resemblance to what the Constitution states is the role of government. The framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the role of the federal government is to be a limited one. They did not envision that the politicians of today would be creating a government that would have a hand in controlling virtually every facet of our lives.

The arguments for the nanny style government range from, “The framers couldn’t understand what our world is like today, so certain aspects of the Constitution are not relevant any longer”; to “The government should provide everything for us, because their job is to protect and provide for us”. The founders of our great nation realized that they were fallible men and could not possibly realize all of the trials that would face us as a nation in the future. That is precisely why they included a process to amend the Constitution to account for the changing times.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God and as such is not susceptible to being rewritten. Some professing Christians say that portions of the Bible are not relevant today, because our world is a much different place than it was during the time of Jesus. These Christians want to pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible, but completely ignore the parts that seem to hard for them to live in their everyday lives. The principles taught in the Bible are just as applicable in today’s world as it was 2000 years ago.

The logic of those who want to “cherry pick” what is applicable from the Bible is the same logic of those who want to reshape our country into something vastly different from what was intended. Once you start down the road of silencing your critics on the radio, or nationalizing our nation’s health care system, or our banking system, it becomes even more difficult to turn the process around. How do we decide which parts of the Constitution are no longer applicable today? Do we say that freedom of speech is not applicable on talk radio but is fine in the newspapers? At what point do we say that critical speech in the newspapers is no longer legal? The same holds true for the Bible, if the biblical prohibition of adultery is not applicable in our times, then what about stealing? Or murder? Of course a cursory look at the headlines will reveal that many politicians are knee-deep in scandal and corruption, which line their pockets with someone else’s money.

Our Constitution was a written more than 200 years ago with the idea that our government would be as silent as possible. The founders allowed future generations to legally change the Constitution to keep up with the changing of the times. Unfortunately, those in power have decided that they can circumvent the process and strip certain freedoms from all of us. If they truly believe that these changes need to be made, they should follow the constitutionally mandated process of amending the Constitution. For those that want to change the Bible, you can try to rewrite the Bible, but the absolute truth of the Bible and it’s Author will be the final judge.

What Can We Learn From The Pilgrims?

In remembrance of the first Thanksgiving, I thought that it would be appropriate to take a look back at what the Pilgrims were thankful for and what they had learned in their first few years in “The New World”. The story often told throughout the liberal academia is that the inept Pilgrims celebrated Thanksgiving by holding a feast in honor of the Native Americans for their help in surviving their new surroundings. A look at the actual writings of Governor William Bradford sheds a slightly different light on the real story of Thanksgiving.

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they had entered into a contract that stipulated that they would share everything that was harvested with the community at large. All property was community property. All crops were stored in a central storehouse for the entire community to share. We all know the story of what life was like during that first winter in the “New World”. Many succumbed to disease and the cold temperatures of New England. Bradford realized that the “social experiment” of collectivism had failed. He quickly reorganized the community into a free market society. In his words, “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.” Bradford understood that the incentive to work hard to reap the rewards of your labor was lost under a socialist society.

The Pilgrims learned that in order to not only survive but also to succeed in their new home they needed freedom; freedom to work in a vocation of their choosing, that would provide for their families and their futures. The Pilgrims would not sit idly by and watch their neighbors starve to death if their crops did not come in; they would help where they could, but they expected each man to provide for his family. They discovered that the harvest was much greater under the free market system than the harvest seen under the socialist system.

Another aspect of the Thanksgiving story that is conveniently forgotten is the simple fact that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to their Creator for His grace in providing a bountiful harvest and his protection. In our world of political correctness there is a fear of mentioning anything that could resemble a Christian reference. Of course, educators are hamstrung by the notion of separation of church and state. The fear of mentioning God in the classroom has led to the edited version of our country’s origins. The Pilgrims fled England because of religious persecution. They desired a country where they could worship God in a manner that they wanted. This desire is what led to the statement in our Constitution that the government would make no law hindering a religion or establish a state religion. In my copy of our founding documents, I have been unable to find where it prohibits the mention of God’s name in our schools. How does a teacher accurately discuss the Declaration of Independence in class when it mentions the Creator?

This Thanksgiving weekend, take time to relax and reflect on all for which you are thankful, but do not forget where our country came from and the lessons that they learned along the way. In this season of corporate bailouts, I would hope that our leaders in Washington realize what the Pilgrims learned nearly 400 years ago. What incentive will these corporations have to restructure their business if the government consistently bails them out?

Socialism Is Not Called Fairness

Millions of dollars have been spent over the course of this presidential campaign season to persuade the voting public that one candidate is better prepared than the other to lead our nation. The campaign promises have ranged from cutting taxes, to raising taxes only on the rich, and to nearly 1 trillion dollars in new spending. Through it all, the mainstream media has exposed themselves as nothing less than political partisan hacks. From Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews fawning all over the Obama campaign, to the Los Angeles Times reporting that they have a video of Obama toasting the spokesperson for Yassir Arafat in 2003, but not releasing the video. Since the media appears to be intent on carrying Obama into the White House, I thought that I would do their job for them.

On abortion, Senator Barack Obama has an extreme record of voting against the sanctity of life. NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, has awarded Senator Obama a 100% rating based on his voting record while in the U.S. Senate. Obama is on record as saying that his first priority as President will be to make the Freedom Of Choice Act a law. This bill would go a long way in repealing the abortion laws in virtually every state. Obama also voted twice against a bill before the Illinois state senate that would have required that a baby that was born alive after a botched abortion receive medical attention. The existing law allowed these babies to be left to die in the soiled laundry room. In some cases, these babies lived for several hours, fighting for every breath before finally dying alone in the dark. Obama has tried to deflect the criticism of his extremist abortion record, but his voting record is clearly on the side of killing innocent babies.

On taxes, Obama has campaigned around the country on his promise to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000. Then over the weekend he made a comment at a rally that anyone making more than $200,000 would see a tax increase. Now this week, both he and Biden have made references to no one making less than $150,000 would see a tax increase. At this rate, by Election Day the figure will be down to $50,000. He has said that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. If the tax rates go back to what they were in 2001, then all taxpayers will see a tax increase. Obama has also said that he will raise the capital gains taxes, even though history has shown that raising capital gains taxes causes the revenues received by the Treasury drop. In this economy, why would anyone want to stifle economic growth?

As we found out this week, Obama has a long held belief that the government should spread the wealth around. A few weeks ago, Joe the Plumber became a household name by asking a simple question of Obama. He asked if Obama’s tax plan would increase his taxes if his plumbing business made more than $250,000. Obama’s reply was that he believed that if we “spread the wealth around”, we will al be better off. The Obama campaign’s reply was not to refute his socialist ideals, but to attack Joe the Plumber. Obama has said that McCain calls his proposal socialism, but he calls it fairness. I believe Karl Marx thought it was fair as well and we saw how that turned out. If Obama is elected, I fully expect to see him come on TV in February, channel Bill Clinton and bite his lower lip, and tell us that he really tried to cut taxes, but could not find any way to do it.

Obama has tried to tie McCain to Bush throughout the campaign, but he fails to recognize that he is inextricably tied to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Reid and Pelosi are presiding over a Congress with the lowest approval rating in at least a century. At times their numbers have dipped into single digits. Their leadership has led a do-nothing Congress into an economic crisis where their party has stood in the way of reforming the 2 major contributing corporations. Obama and his party leadership are on record stating that if they are given the requisite majority, they will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. The doctrine simply states that any broadcast must present both sides of every issue. This is a clear and direct attack against conservative talk radio. The left has tried to venture into talk radio with Air America, but that quickly failed. The left has decided that if they cannot compete in the arena of ideas, then they will simply silence their opposition. If they are successful in implementing the “Fairness Doctrine” once again, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will not disappear from the airwaves, they will simply move into satellite radio where the FCC has no control. That is until the left decides to take over that medium to silence their opposition once again. For all of his rhetoric about change, Obama has voted 96% of the time with his party.

November 4, 2008 will be a historic election day no matter who wins. It is my sincere hope that the American people are intelligent enough to see the difference between empty campaign rhetoric citing change, and proposals that will bring socialism to our doorsteps. Although the media has declared this race over and Obama has already held his first “Presidential address” to the nation, the election is not over until we go vote on Tuesday.

American Workers Do Not Need Democracy

In early April, Senator Barack Obama spoke before a gathering of the AFL-CIO and made a promise to the labor union to ensure that the Employee Free Choice Act becomes “the law of the land”. This bill will strip the rights of employees to cast a private ballot either for or against forming a union. The bill enable union bosses to increase membership by simply having 51% of employees turning in signed cards stating their desire to form a union. This process will be steeped in fraud. It sets up the scenario of union thugs to intimidate employees into signing the cards. The private ballot is a proven effective method of determining each employee’s desire.

Union membership has declined at an astonishing rate over the past 50 years. In 1958, nearly 40% of the American workforce was a member of a union. Last year, the percentage was down to less than 7.5% with a significant number being government employees. The EFCA is a scheme designed to swell the membership rolls of the unions. The Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed the bill last year, but the Senate failed to pass it when the Republican minority blocked the efforts of Obama and the Democratic leadership. Now Obama promises to ensure it’s passage if he becomes President.

Obama claims that this bill will do nothing more than change the process of union forming, but his own past statements continue to haunt him. Obama has said that, the bill “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card checks”. Why would Obama favor a process that strips the private ballot right from the American worker? I thought that Obama claimed he was the candidate for the little guy? His co-sponsorship of this scheme is a clear indication that he stands with the union bosses and not with the workforce. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace conducted a survey of union households and the results are clearly at odds with the union bosses and Obama. 80% of all union households surveyed support private ballot elections. When asked specifically about the EFCA, 70% are opposed to the bill.

What I find amazing is that private elections are widely seen as one of the essential elements of our Democratic system, but with this bill, Senator Obama is showing that he believes that private ballots are overrated. If he had simply voiced his support for the bill, it would be bad enough, but the fact that he has co-sponsored the legislation sheds a much brighter light on his ideals. Last week, he admits that he wants to “spread the wealth around”, and now we see that he is willing to throw away the private voting rights of American workers. I would call him a socialist, but we are now told that that term is a racist code word. Should I just call him a Marxist?

Obama's Lack Of Experience And New Ideas Is Beginning To Show

As I watched the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, I was reminded of the countless practice and training of the athletes for this one moment in time. The Olympic participants are the best in their particular sports from their native countries. They have sacrificed much to reach their full potential. Probably because I have a slightly warped mentality, I found myself making a correlation to politics, and to the current presidential race.

An inspection of Senator Barack Obama’s political biography provides a glaring lack of practice or training. Mind you politics does not generally require the years of sacrifice and rigorous training that preparing for the Olympic games demands, but it odes require some preparation. The past few weeks have highlighted Obama’s extreme lack of experience and shown hints of his socialist leanings.

Senator Obama suggested that by simply having all of us inflate the tires on our cars and have them tuned up, we could save all of the oil that we would get by drilling. First of all, from where did he conjure the numbers? As I walked to my car this week through a parking lot, I didn’t see hundreds of cars with flat tires, I saw hundreds of cars with inflated tires. I realize that some of these cars may have tires that need a pound or two of air, but that would not equal the amount of fuel savings that Obama is promising. In order to buy into Obama’s fantasy, one must assume that the vast majority of the automobiles in the United States are driving around on flat tires. Even then, that would not equal all of the oil in ANWR, or the oil on the outer continental shelf. It appears that once again, Mr. Obama is not aware that his words are heard and can and will be verified.

Another pillar of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s energy policy is to create a “windfall profit tax” for the oil companies. He would then use the money from the new tax to give every family in the United States a $1000 check. The idea of a “windfall profit tax” is not a new concept. Actually it was tried once before by the economic geniuses of the Carter administration in the late 1970’s. Does Obama believe that a failed policy from 30 years ago will have a different outcome? One other note on his proposal, the latest round of economic stimulus checks that most of us received over the past few months cost those of us who actually pay taxes $159 billion. How mush profit does Obama believe that the oil companies are making? The last time I checked it was nowhere near even $100 billion. His proposal is pure and simple socialism. It is a redistribution of wealth plan in his usual flowery rhetoric. His proposal, if it ever came to fruition, would create an even greater energy crisis, and more than likely see the oil companies either pass along the tax to the consumers, or change their business structures to avoid the tax altogether.

Obama was recently asked, by a twelve year old, why he was running for President. After stumbling for words, which he is prone to do when not reading from a teleprompter, he began to explain that the United States is not as great of a country that we once were. Mr. Obama’s handlers need to explain to him that most Americans are patriotic and do not like being told that our country is not the greatest country in the world. We realize that we have room to improve, but we are the freest and greatest country on the face of the earth. Of course, when you consider whom the Obamas have called friends over the years, you begin to understand why they are not proud to be Americans.

Barack Obama has a very thin political resume and his inexperience is beginning to show. It is becoming increasingly evident that his campaign and his surrogates are ready and willing to throw the race card whenever they believe it will benefit them politically. For all of the rhetoric about Republicans being the racist party, it was the Clinton campaign that started with the race issue and the Obama campaign has just continued to use it. I guess it is easier to distract with race than to allow any type of real discussion of Obama’s outlandish and foolish proposals.