Romney refuses to call Obama a socialist

December 20, 2011 05:52


Obama is a socialist. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” A socialist is “one who advocates or practices socialism.

O’Reilly asks point blank if Mitt thinks Obama is a socialist:

Accuracy in Media was one of the earliest to recognize and expose the socialist/Marxist early connections of Obama with posts like Conservatives Behind the Curve on ObamaThe Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part One , The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Rage, Part Two , and Exposing Un-American Activities.

A Townhall.com article by Terry Jeffrey the Editor-in-chief of CNSNews.com cries ‘Hannity’s Right: Obama Is a Socialist‘. Mr. Jeffrey points out that Hannity has been claiming that Obama is a socialist for some time.:

Obama, for example, practiced socialism with General Motors.

Last year, he directed the government to take 60 percent ownership of GM. Congress had not enacted legislation authorizing him to do this. He simply took money out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which had been appropriated to buy assets from financial institutions (not manufacturers), and bought the federal government an auto company.

Obama’s greatest socialist act so far, however, is the national health care system he signed into law last month.

Recent books expose like Stanley Kurtz Radical-in-Chief research the socialist past of Obam. Another book, Dupes by Paul Kengor, makes use of Obama’s communist mentor, Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis which was first exposed by New Zeal blogger Trevor Loudon.

Even the mainstream Forbes ran an article proclaiming Obama as a Fabian Socialist as early as the day before the 2008 election. Considering what has happened in the two years since this was written it is amazingly prophetic:

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change.

That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That’s Obama’s world.

He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.

It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.

And now the popular American Thinker site ran an article by Dupes author Paul Kengor relating the interview with Obama’s fellow Marxist from his days at’Moscow of southern California’ Occidental College:

Kengor: You said that Obama was introduced to you at Occidental College as a Marxist? Because you were one [a Marxist] at that point?

 

Drew: Yeah, that’s embarrassing for me, but I studied Marxist economics when I was at the University of Sussex in England. I had a junior-year scholarship over there and I did my senior honors thesis on Marxist economics when I was at Occidental College. And I also founded [the] Democratic Student Socialist Alliance, you know, under a different name, in 1976.

 

Kengor: John, now you had told me before, and I’m reading from my own book here, “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met him in the fall of 1980. [Quotation from above continued.]“

 

Drew: Yeah, that’s exactly right. Obama believed, at the time I met him — this was probably around Christmastime in 1980 — because, you know, I had flown out during Christmas break from Cornell, where I was doing my graduate work. Young Obama was looking forward to an imminent social revolution — literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a kind of socialist utopia in the United States. I mean, that’s how extreme his views were his sophomore year of college.

 

Kengor: And you would know this because you were a comrade, so to speak.

 

Drew: Yeah, I was a comrade, but I was kind of more what Michael Savage called the “Frankfurt School” of Marxism at the time. I was, you know, I felt like I was doing Obama a favor by pointing out that the Marxist revolution that he and [our friends] were hoping for was really kind of a pipe dream, and that there was nothing in European history or the history of developed nations that would make that sort of fantasy — you know, Frank Marshall Davis fantasy of revolution — come true.

And there was the slip up Obama had with Joe the plumber during the election where he revealed his true philosophy of ’spread the wealth around’. And he is doing plenty of that. Every major bill Obama supports is a transfer of wealth. They either take directly from those who have money and give it to others or he uses deficte spending to force future generations to pay it. As Alan Greenspan said “Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.”

Obama and his Socialist Democrats know this. Yet Mitt Romney still refuses to call Obama a socialist. Is he afraid he will hurt Obama’s feelings? Is he afraid he will be called a racist? Or is it that since Romney is a Progressive and a progressive is essentially a socialist that Romney just doesn’t know the difference?

Rick Perry has called Obama a socialist. Gingrich has called his policies socialist. Bachmann has said Obama “has ushered in socialism.” Is Romney clueless or afraid to fight?

By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com



Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere: