Friday, July 23, 2010

President's socialist takeover must be stopped

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner at The Washington Times

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

Read the entire frightening article here.


ambrosiajr said...

I'm kind of surprised that you would post crap like this. Its not like most of this hasn't happened before, is it. I guess Franklin D. was a socialist too. As was Johnson and even Nixon to some extent. C'mon Art.

All this needed was a birther segment, along with saying that President Obama was sent here by aliens from Mars for a world takeover.

A. Smith said...

FDR was a socialist.

there are different degrees of socialism and FDR and Obama both fit within the Rubric.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about socialism as an economic system and political philosophy. For socialism as a specific stage of socioeconomic development in Marxist theory, see Socialism (Marxism).
Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind.[4]
Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.[7] Socialists characterise full socialism as a society no longer based on coercive wage-labour, organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the productive sphere. Reformists and revolutionary socialists disagree on how a socialist economy should be established.
Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[8] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production.[9][10] They argued that this would allow for economic output (or surplus value) and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production.
Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[11]
Libertarian socialists (including social anarchists and libertarian Marxists) reject state control and ownership of the economy altogether, and advocate direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
Contemporary social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise

Anonymous said...

What utter nonsense! Bush leaves us in the worst economic crisis since the depression, 2 wars (one should never have happened)and the writer wants to impeach Obama?
Printing this garbage is about a responsible as listening to Glen Beck.
Lets face it....there are an awful lot of stupid people out there and you just introduced us to another.
Why not call Obama a Nazi, Communist and Muslim too while you're at it? Oh, and lets not forget he wasn't born in the USA.
Maybe the idiots out there don't know that Hawaii is a state.

A. Smith said...

No he was born in the USA and he is not a communist or a Nazi.
I do not think religion plays much of a part in his life.
He hasn't done anything impeachable.
that all being said he is a socialist

db said...

Christie wants to take over AC ...does that make him a socialist as well? said...

How do folks who know so little about political philosphy get to have their own newspaper columns?

If you want to call Obama a socialist, you'll get me to agree when my health care is free and my kids go to college for nothing (which will last until the whole thing becomes top heavy and collapses).

His nationalization of various industries is most akin to the economic system of fascism, known as "corporatism."

He's no socialist.

A. Smith said...

Facism is actually a variant of socialism.

The Chinese are actually Facist socialists now.

Nazis where "National Socialists"

Obama wants free health care and college. That is what he is trying to move us towards.

Obama is clearly a socialaist. said...

A. Smith,

Communism is also a form of socialism, just a very rarified form. While fascism springs from the same well, the two are very different.

What fascism and socialism have in common is government control of production (through ownership and/or regulation).

Where they differ: What ultimately gets done with the profits.

While socialism also socializes the profits back to the people, Corporatism keeps the profits federalized in the government.

Obama has already done that. When some banks started paying back bailout money, did he pay down the debt? Nope. He used it for other federal projects.

He did NOT socialize the money (give it back to the people in the form rebates, goods or services).

Clearly he's a Corporatist (the correct term for economic fascism).

Certainly not a socialist.