I came across a piece, over the weekend, by Jillian Becker over at “The Atheist Conservative” entitled: “Obama can only fumble and fail”. It got my attention. The author, Ms. Becker, says of Obama: “He seems to be stuck with adolescent ideals, a blue-eyed view of what is desirable and possible that few sane people over the age of 21 can normally continue to hold.” Right away she had my rapt attention! A bit further into her piece she says: “Now, just as Europe has learnt too late that socialism does not work, he would bring socialism to America.” My first thought was that I had found my long, lost sister! We recommend you read Ms. Becker’s article, in its entirety at:
Altho Ms. Becker and I share no kinship our thoughts on Obama certainly do parallel each other. We, here at IoF have been saying for some time that Obama is bent on bringing European style socialism to America.
Granted, it’s been a while since I was in school. But back in those days the Public Schools still taught that socialism was evil. Since we were at war with socialism, at the time, and remained so for 40 years until our soviet foe collapsed and imploded, under the weight of it’s own failure, my generation knew that socialism was a cancer to any country that had the misfortune to adopt it’s statist/collectivist form of government.
Nowadays, however, the institutions of higher learning are riddled with socialist and Marxists professors and our American students are taught the joy of socialism and how it is far superior to capitalism and they are encouraged to embrace it.
I took a look at several dictionary definitions of socialism just to see how it was defined today. I was surprised to find that even today, most dictionaries, though taking a “middle of the road” stance on the definition, seem to agree on one thing about socialism. That is that socialism is the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism. (That is something I was taught in high school.) Those same dictionaries also agree that socialism is a political and economic theory or system in which the community owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange collectively. Here the word “community” means the state.
Now, we urge you to keep this in mind as you listen to Obama’s speeches. All his implied promises are impossible to keep unless the state owns all the “means of production, distribution, and exchange”. That, my young friends and youthful readers is socialism.
According to an article by Steve Kincaid entitled: “Obama's International Socialist Connections” and published on GOPUSA’s site at:
Obama’s socialist connections go all the way back to at least 1996 when he was endorsed by the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States. Plus… Obama also campaigned for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
I leave you with this question: Why would the Democratic Party so willingly offer up… and back to the hilt… a known socialist candidate when they have avoided the label “socialist”, as best they can, for so long? Of course, one cannot get inside the heads of the leaders of the Democratic Party but I have concluded this: The Democrats wanted to be rid of the Clintons so badly they were, and are, willing to risk the wrath of the American People at the polls by backing a socialist as their candidate for President rather that allow another Clinton acess to the White House!
Wait! Before you toss my musing aside as worthless… think about it. Think about it long and hard. You may find yourself coming around to the same conclusion, however reluctantly.
Is America ready for a Socialist in the Oval Office. I’m not! How about you?