Could We Have Obama Forever?!?!?!?!?

One of the key aspects of Marxism is doing away with private property for any class. What actions or words of Obama indicate that he is a Marxist? What of all the actions and words he has said which can reasonably be construed to indicate that he is for private property?

 

No, not without a constitutional amendment.

 

Obama has worked more actively than any other American President to date to bring government (centralized planning) control over American business, health, education, and personal freedoms. He has obviously not "arrived" as yet, but he is decidedly working toward a full Marxist position. Hugo Chavez applauded his efforts at nationalizing businesses.

We have not yet seen the items enacted into law under his administration -- most being deferred until after the 2012 elections for some reason or another. I shudder when I think about how many thousands of pages of legislation he has signed into law -- things that no one in the public have yet seen or read.

Then, there are the people he has brought on as advisers. Several have dropped out of his administration after it was discovered that they were fully Marxist in ideology, but others remain. Why bring in Marxist-leaning advisers if one is not moving in that direction?

He has managed to pull off centralized health care, and in that bill also assumes the right to determine many otherwise private life issues, such as deciding if a patient deserves the right to medical care at end of life or otherwise.

Bill Ayers -- a known communist and founder of the Weather Underground, is one of Obama's best friends and political advisers.

His college days saw his involvement in Marxist thought:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02...y-days-as-an-anti-apartheid-student-activist/

Finally, he is fully supported as the candidate of choice for the CPUSA (read their site!). They love him and he is their candidate of choice for POTUS.

Note that Marxism doesn't have to mean a dictatorship, but many (even here) wonder if that is indeed the future direction of America.

 

Don't want Obama for a second term? Don't support big-government "conservatives"!

We need a true limited government conservative Republican. Yes, and I mean one that actually cares about civil liberties. No stinkin' police state.

If Obama had to run against a true limited government conservative who could call him out on all facets of his statist policies, he would get crushed.

A statist Republican who preaches fear and campaigns on warrantless wiretapping and mongering for new wars will present no challenge. The people can already expect all this from Obama.

 

We already have an established government. Let's not start associating Obama with one of the founding fathers!

 

I wonder what the socialists think about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqYEiQDnlts

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/...oter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2010/08/13/a/678745523-american-socialists-release-names-of/

http://www.cpusa.org/obama-state-of-the-union-he-got-the-ball-rolling

http://contraries.net/communist-party-usa-pac-chair-endorses-obama/

http://www.cpusa.org/2010-elections-unity-can-win/

There is plenty of evidence out there that President Obama is not all that he purports to be -- and sadly -- also more than he purports to be. Every ounce of his background and his actions point to fulfilling a Marxist worldview.

Question for the doubters... Just how "Marxist" must one be before we can use that label? Look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

 

Let's just call him a "statist" and be done with it.

 

Who owns General Motors? Who fired its CEO?

 

China will shortly if Obama gets his way.

He took this U.S. company supposedly because it was important to save it for the U.S. - American jobs and national security reasons don't you know.

Now he wants China to buy it.

 

The government owns a controlling interest in GM. Government from the beginning of our country has owned various businesses. Thus owning a business does not mean that the government or its leaders are somehow against private property. And as the one with controlling interest in the GM, the government use its legitimate power (the same power any controlling stockholder(s) would have) to fire the CEO.

Now, if the government had taken over GM forcibly then you might have a point. He did not "take" GM - in fact the old GM still exists under a different name. Instead he allowed the company to reform under the old name and provided most of the capital necessary to keep it going (or so it is hoped). This in no way indicates an attempt to abolish private property. It might indicate a willingness to bring business more under government control, but thats as much a characteristic of Facism as anything.

 

Sort of like the Sopranos.

 

Focusing on GM is a red herring...

Waiting until we see a red flag above the White House is a straw man...

Obama is an avowed Marxist, who spoke favorably for that position all of his life, engaged in Marxist-supported social agencies for his livelihood, supports Marxist-driven labor unions at every turn, and has, for the most part, Marxist friends and advisers.

That he is now covering his earlier tracks with double-speak about what is "good for America" is no surprise. That is one of the tactics used very successfully by Marxists everywhere. Just read the CPUSA.org* website and see how they crow the same exact language. Their and Obama's plan for America dovetail almost perfectly.

*CPUSA = Communist Party of the United States of America

 

Nah, just print more money to pay the debt.

HankD

 

Did someone say "print money?"

Check out the FRED graph on the US monetary supply:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred...ion_date=2010-10-04&mma=0&nd=&ost=&oet=&fml=a

That ought to be enough to make most anyone wet their pants...