Quantcast

By - January 13, 2012

Communists Argue, Obama’s Not A Socialist

Socialists from the Socialist Party USA are taking exception to Rick Perry calling Barack Obama a socialist.  It’s not that they are trying to protect Obama,  quite the opposite-he’s not socialist enough, basically calling Obama another corporatist.

PolitiFacts does try to come to Obama’s defense by claiming:

 ‘Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist. … Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Obama administration sold many of them — such as its shares in GM — as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them.’

Perhaps in the truest form Obama is not a socialist, but that is only because that pesky Constitution does not allow for it.  It is better to describe Obama as a new-age socialist.  Take for example the GM take over.  What PolitiFacts failed to mention is that although Obama sold off the shares of GM and Chrysler, who was it that got 51% of those companies?  Was it the creditors, as the law would require so as to claim some of what they are owed, No.  Obama made sure the Unions got 51% ownership of the auto companies.  The government can not, per the Constitution nationalize a company but with a little twist of the law Obama made sure the auto companies would be owned by democrat supporting unions.  A true socialist can’t allow an industry to come under the ownership of a law abiding government that would set the companies loose to capitalism, no they must make sure any company acquired have to be under the thumb of the liberal/socialist democrat party.

The Constitution also prevents the government from taking private property, enter the EPA.  The EPA has been taking private property for years in the name of wet lands or a 2 inch fish or they try to overtake the Texas economy in the name of the clean air.  The EPA recently told an Idaho couple they couldn’t build their dream home on their land because it was on a wetland (even though there was no evidence the land was wet ever).  Most of the members of the Supreme Court chastised the EPA for their ruling. 

The EPA is Obama’s ability to reach beyond the laws to control people and corporations.  Quite often the EPA goes over the edge as it did just recently.  The EPA is now going to fine oil companies for not using a fuel that isn’t even in existence.  The EPA is going to require the use of cellulosic biofuels by oil companies, this is a fuel derived from wood chips, corn cobs and plant stems.  The problem with the idea is the only company attempting to make the fuel in any quantities, Range Fuels has gone bankrupt because they couldn’t make the fuel affordable.  If you are wondering if Range Fuels is another Solyndra, you would be correct.  Range Fuels received millions of our tax dollars to make this impossible fuel.  Obama needs to control corporations though, especially energy companies (because where are we without energy?  It’s about controlling us) so the rule that required oil companies to use this non-existent fuel goes on and when the companies fail to use the fuel, they are going to be fined millions of dollars with stiffer fines every year this fuel is not being used.

Obama recently made a non-recess appointment to a newly developed agency, the Consumer Protection Agency.  This new agency has no oversight, outside the President and the director is supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, unless the President un-constitutionally appoints them without Senate oversight.  This new agency will answer only to Obama.  Do you think this agency is about consumer protection?  Most likely this new agency will be another bureaucratic nightmare to small and large business’ throughout the US.

Obama is said to want Internet ID’s for all users of the Internet, but is suing states that require ID’s to vote.  See any hypocrisy there?  To a socialist this make complete sense.

Socialism and the Constitution can not occupy the same country at the same time, it’s simple physics.  What is a socialist to do then?  He does as Obama does, controls the country from inside, with unions and agencies with a liberal/socialist ideology that will force the socialist will in the name of saving various things…the children, the polar bears, or the environment.  These are more permanent in a Constitutional republic than a single socialist administration and accomplishes the same goal.

Maybe Obama isn’t a pure Socialist by definition, but try this definition…Obama is either a New Age Socialist or a Liberal Corporatist Socialist, you pick the best definition.

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Leave a Reply