President-Elect Obama Marxist?

No they are Socialist Nations and I don't want American government to be anything like theirs. My ancestors faught and died to free me from them. However, that's a topic for another thread. This thread is about President-elect Obama and his political philosophies and ideas.

 

Here’s what the Communist Party USA thinks:

What does Obama say about political activism and “organizing?” Before going into detail one must recall that Obama is/was a Chicago Community Organizer in the vein of Marxist, Saul Alinsky’s community organizing network.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html

So you see Obama fully endorses the Marxist tool of community activism even to the extent of his own personal benefit.

Source: http://www.denverpost.com/dnclogistics/ci_9976737

So Obama espouses and embraces the Socialist/Communist philosophy of organizing the masses to bring about political change. Okay, I know that every politician has to do some of this in order to get elected. However, Obama took it to a new height in the 2008 election.

 

What is Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s stated goal regarding troop withdrawal in Iraq? That’s right you guessed it… They’re for it.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

Here again we see Obama in full agreement with a stated Communist goal.

 

What’s Obama’s position on universal healthcare? That’s right he’s for it:

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/TBA_2007_Health_Care.htm

Of course you realize that this is universal healthcare at taxpayer expense. So those who do not work and those who work, but pay on federal income taxes will be covered and their coverage will be paid for by all the rest of us who do work and pay federal income taxes.

What is Obama’s position on the man-made global warming hoax? He believes it and supports legislation such as the Cap in Trade Bill.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf

 

We will see below how both Obama and the Democrat Party leadership in Congress want to Socialize/Nationalize American Industry and to use the IRS to increase the tax burden on big businesses, small businesses, and the “wealthy” in order to “spread the wealth around.” This means Obama and the Democrat Party leadership favor a redistribution of wealth by taking from those who work hard in order to give to those who do not work (and/or to those who work but currently pay no income taxes).

 

Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111

Sounds like Maxine Waters is already squarely planted in the Socialist/Communist camp on this issue.

But wait what are other Democrats saying?

Source: http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?breve5209

Sounds like Paul Kanjorski wants to end the control of private ownership of wealth in America. Guess who else wants to do so? That’s right… the Communist Party USA through its proposed institution of Socialism in America (see quoted material above).

Here’s Congressman Maurice Hinchey actually suggesting we “nationalize” the oil industry: Link: http://jeremysarber.com/2008/06/23/maurice-hinchey-maxine-waters-and-nationalizing-the-oil-business/

Obama has called for a cabinet level position for a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the socializing of the Broadband Industry in America. Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/21/obamas-plan-to-socialize-the-broadband-industry/ and http://mashable.com/2008/10/21/national-cto/

 

What’s Obama’s connection to the idea economic democracy? According to Geoffrey Dunn, Columnist for Black Star News:

Source: http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5061

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obama_and_dohrn_and_ayers.html

Trade Unions were a major factor in Obama’s election win. Now he owes them and they will be expecting the payoff:

Source: http://unionrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/11/barack-obama-and-union-movement.html

 

Is Obama in favor of greatly expanded public services and public housing? You guessed it… He is and he’s involved in it up to his Chicago eyeballs: According to Lee Cary a columnist at the American Thinker:

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_and_daleys_public_housin.html

What is Obama’s position on corporate profits and the lifestyles of the “filthy rich”? That’s right… You guessed it. He wants to take the profits from corporations via “windfall profits tax” and the wealth of the “filthy rich” through increased tax burden and redistribute it to those who do not work. Remember his comments to “Joe the plumber”? According to the New York Times:

Source: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

I researched and wrote this material a month ago right after the election. However, as of early December Obama has now backed off his plan for "windfall profits tax" on big oil because the price of oil has dropped below $80.00 per barrel. The question is will he go there again if oil or some other industry begins to show big gains in profit? The root problem is that Obama embraces the Socialist/Communist philosophy that it is government's responsibility to take private profits and redistribute them as hand outs to the masses.

What’s Obama’s plan for education? You guessed it… He’s promising free community college tuition for everyone as well as more dollars for other university students.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education

What is Obama’s position on free health care? You know it… He’s for it.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/index.php

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/TBA_2007_Health_Care.htm

 

Obama on a “livable wage”:

Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007

Does Obama want to expand Affirmative Action? He has not been real clear. However, there are some hints that he would actually expand it.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/29/on_affirmative_action_obama_intriguing_but_vague/

 

So it looks like the Communist Party USA favors a massive reduction and/or the elimination of U.S. military forces and the state National Guards. What is Obama’s position regarding military spending and the reduction of military forces and military technology?

Obama claims:

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/
This sounds good. However, there is one problem. According to Glen Ford columnist for The Progressive,

Source: http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508

So here we have a major contradiction. Ford’s article makes it clear that for generations the debate over increased military spending vs. increased domestic social spending has centered on the idea that we must cut military spending in order to increase domestic social spending and vice versa. Furthermore, the historical reality bears out the fact that when the federal government increases military spending programs such as “urban revitalization, infrastructure repair, real health care reform, federal aid to schools, or affordable housing” end up with reduced budgets.

This raises serious questions with respect to Obama’s massively expensive spending promises on all fronts. He can’t pull them all off without bankrupting the nation or increasing taxes to the point that the American economy would be paralyzed. So the question remains. What’s it gonna be, butter or bullets?

 

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/

What does “rebalance” mean in this context? Does it imply or involve any type of cuts in military funding? Does it mean redirecting current military funding for some other purpose? We don’t know the answers because Obama has not been clear with specifics in this regard. Obama also states:

Source: ibid.
Notice, Obama gives specifics regarding cargo and refueling planes. However, he is vague regarding funding for new manned combat aircraft, stealth technology, manned bombers and other manned assault aircraft. Why? Is it possible that his “rebalancing” of the U.S. military would include cuts in spending for high tech manned combat aircraft?

Source: ibid.
What does “recapitalize” mean in this context? Note here that Obama makes no mention of the Next Generation Aircraft Carrier. This is the new aircraft carrier platform, currently under development, which is supposed to serve as the platform for the next generation of carriers for next 100 years. He talks specifically about developing “smaller” ships. However, he fails to adequately address the future of carrier based naval air power and how this massively successful naval warfare will be employed. Why? Does this mean he will “rebalance” and/or “recapitalize” our naval air power by cutting funding, or worse yet do away with the carrier platform altogether? We don’t know he has not been specific in this regard. The question remains. Why?

Source: ibid.
What does Obama mean by the above statement? He will “support missile defense, but…” Does he mean that if his administration feels that it is more pragmatic and cost-effective to forgo investing in missile defense research and development in favor of spending on the C-17 cargo, KC-X air refueling aircraft, and “smaller ships” he will not authorize spending for the development of new missile defense systems? Missile defense systems have already proven their effectiveness in protecting the civilian public. One need look no further than the success of the Patriot Missile Defense System used during the 1991 Gulf War to protect Israel from Iraq’s Scud Missile attacks. Can such systems be improved? Certainly, as missile defense technology advances. However, apparently Obama would at the very least restrict funding in this area based on his administrations subjective opinion as to whether or not it would be “pragmatic and cost-effective.” It sounds like he is setting us up for a reduction in spending with respect to missile defense.

Source: ibid.
This sounds good and we should support Obama in this effort.

Source: ibid.
On the surface some of this sounds good. However, these plans would introduce an entirely new level of bureaucracy, which would have to be funded from somewhere in the federal budget. Since Obama lists these ideas under his Plan for Defense one must assume that he plans on funding these proposals through the Department of Defense budget. What would be the result of funding these proposals through the Department of Defense budget? Unless specific funding increases would be made for these proposals the net result would a decrease in actual defense spending in favor of another civilian bureaucracy.

Source: ibid.

So Obama would limit or do away with our military’s ability to destroy an enemy’s communications satellites. If an enemy’s leadership cannot communicate rapidly with it forces on the ground, in a distant place, his ability to wage war is drastically reduced. Obama would willingly give up America’s ability to exploit such a weakness (which can be accomplished with absolutely no threat to human lives).

 

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama/2008/06/10/103236.html

Again, more contradiction between what Obama has said while on the campaign trail and what he has posted on his campaign website. In the above quote he declares his willingness to cut “ten of billions in wasteful spending” and then proceeded to point out specific areas of defense spending that would fall into his idea of “wasteful spending.” On one hand Obama appears to reject the Communist Party USA’s Socialist agenda for cutting American military defense funding. On the other hand, given his promised massive increased spending of domestic social issues and stated promises to cut defense spending, one hardly knows what to believe. However, since Obama toes the Communist Party USA’s line on nearly every issue of their Socialist Bill of Rights it is more likely than not that he would follow through with his promises to cut American military defense funding.

Finally, given that it has been clearly demonstrated that Obama either embraces or espouses nearly every Socialist ideal and philosophy held by the Communist Party USA it is not out of the question to refer to him as either a Socialist or a Marxist depending on how far he is willing to go in bringing these ideals and philosophies to bear upon the American system of government. Only time will tell if he is a Socialist-Democrat or a full blown Marxist. Either way American Capitalism is in for a rough ride for the foreseeable future.

 

This is not the subject of the debate in this thread. The only question here with respect to US Military spending is whether or not Obama's stated position on US Military spending falls in line with the Socialist agenda of the Communist Party USA? It's had to tell given his flip-flopping on the issue depending on who he is/was addressing. One thing is clear he can't pull off all the promised social spending and maintain the current level of defense spending much less cover any increase in military spending for R & D.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. All I know is that I have heard the news clips where he said he would let the Bush tax cuts expire. He said it not me. See this article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

I don't know about you but I have heard the news clips and sound bites where every one of those numbers has been mentioned by Obama or Biden as the cut off point for their tax increases.

Here is the greatest difference between us and our thinking. Apparently you accept the post-modern idea that truth is relative. Therefore, you are willing to say that I have a valid truth about Obama based on where I stand and you have an equally valid, but contrasting, truth about Obama based on where you stand. I am sorry but this notion violates Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction.

There is only one truth that equally applies to Obama no matter where any of us stands.

Finally, none of this is the topic of this thread. The only question to ask here is whether or not Obama's proposed tax policies line up with Socialist philosophies and ideas claimed by the Communist Party USA?