The Obama Watch
None Dare Call It Socialism
It is what it is, Pilgrim.
In toney, left-wing circles it’s considered rude, as well as prima-facie evidence of yahooism or worse, to suggest that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the merry majority in Washington today are socialists. Conversations with liberals either end or get testy when this word comes up. The charge of socialism, they huff, is too outrageous to even consider.
A primo example of this came on one of the yak-yak shows Sunday morning where uber-liberal Bob Woodward of the “Washington Pest” pronounced that calling Obama a socialist is “not even in the ballpark” (Bob apparently being unaware that Obama’s ball park only has a left field).
Closer to home I have a dear friend who’s a trial lawyer in Tampa where I live and who voted for our rookie president (in accordance with a strict work rule of the trial lawyers’ union). He tells me he quits reading commentary on the current scene when he encounters the world socialism. My guess is he would put his fingers in his ears if I brought the word up in conversation, though he is, taken all around, a most gracious fellow.
Some of the more acute on the left realize the socialist label is apt enough and only ham it up in this wise because they know most Americans — saving a large fraction of those in academe, most of the media, Hollywood, the mainline clergy, most foundations, the education industry, environmentalists, and the literati — don’t fancy socialism, or politicians who promote it.
Of course most of this lefty behavior is based on attitude rather than analysis. It’s more a matter of etiquette than polemics. The folks tuning out references to socialism are treating the word as a mere insult and don’t bother to parse whether this is or isn’t an accurate designation for what the current post-everything administration is all about.
So, is it? In trying to sort out this thorny problem of political definition I look for guidance to — as I often do in dealing with life’s more perplexing questions — one of John Wayne’s movies. The Duke doesn’t let me down.
In 1959’s Rio Bravo, the Duke is the sheriff and Dean Martin plays his deputy, a guy who’s quick and slick with a gun when he’s sober. In one scene, Martin’s character asks the sheriff if he thought he, the Martin character, was as good and as fast as another gunman. The Duke takes a thoughtful beat, as he was so good at doing, and replies, “Well, I’d hate to have to make a living on the difference.”
Well now there you are. Thanks again, Duke. What Obama and his legions are doing may not exactly be socialism, which is usually defined as government ownership of the means of production. But when you try to contrast socialism with what Obama and his crowd have put through and what they’re whooping up, if you seek to isolate real differences between socialism and Obamaism, it would be awfully hard, as the Duke phrased it, to make a living on the difference.
Consider. The Obama administration and its congressional courtiers have put the federal government into the domestic car business in a big way. They’ve gotten “health care” legislation through both federal houses that goes a long way toward nationalizing the one-sixth of the economy, they put the national debt on steroids, and they’re going for the homerun in cap and trade legislation, which would take decisions on how much and what kind of energy can be used in the economy from the private sector where they belong and turn them over to politicians and bureaucrats.
Cap and trade, if enacted, would effectively Sovietize the United States. America under cap and trade would have a command and control economy run (into the ground) out of Washington. As for America’s long run of affluence and liberty, it would be time for Dandy Don to sing, “Turn out the light, the party’s over.” Cap and trade America would be grotesquely different than what America is and ever has been.
Likely what’s happened is that modern socialists have gotten smarter, or at least cagier. Contemporary socialists, in contrast to those boring old Mustache Pete socialists of decades ago who wanted to run factories and mines and mills and stuff, have figured out that actually owning the means of production is a lot of trouble, and takes away valuable time that could be more (excuse the expression) profitably spent dominating the culture. Far easier to allow some poor sod to have his name on a title somewhere and think he owns the factory (or restaurant, or car dealership, or contracting business, or, or, or…) and just make all the important decisions for him. Call this soft-socialism, smart-socialism, or perhaps just lazy-socialism.
Plus there’s the matter that people who own businesses often face losses. Better to take the profits in taxes and let the “owner” absorb the losses.
As we’ve seen, this goes well beyond economics. Government making all the decisions — economic, political, cultural, sexual, religious, personal — is what socialism is all about. Under socialism everything is political.
The depressing tendency toward over-regulation, a fact of life at least since the New Deal, has gone into warp-speed with the new Washington crowd. This bunch recognizes no limits in telling business “owners” what they can produce, how much of it and when, with what kind of and how much energy, who they must hire, what they must pay employees and what conditions of employment they must provide.
As we watch Obama and his merry band annex more and more of our personal and economic freedoms by putting more and more under the federal thumb, how much comfort can be taken by saying, “Well, at least it’s not exactly socialism?” Socialism vs. Obamaism may not be a distinction without a difference. But it’s certainly a distinction with such a trifling difference that there’s not nearly enough there to make a living on.
Could any of this be why Obama’s approval rating is now well below 50 percent and his disapproval rating is higher than any Gallup has ever measured at the beginning of a president’s second year? Could it also be why Republican Scott Brown is looking like a possible winner tomorrow in Massachusetts (where you could get all the state’s Republicans on a single school bus and have room left over to seat the New England Patriots, in uniform)?
About the Author
Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Larry Thornberry
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/18/none-dare-call-it-socialism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Nuts to Nutter
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Richard Baker| 1.18.10 @ 6:16AM
Ok, then let's call it Baby Boomer Tyranny. That just about covers it, I reckon.
Katherine Lambert| 1.18.10 @ 10:08AM
Yes some dare call it socialism - His name is Larry May. Larry May of Terry, Miss, drove 36 hours, spent 800 he doesn't have to support Scott Brown, Purple Heart, he woke up 6 months ago and realized he had let his country down........... we're all waking up!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
darcy| 1.18.10 @ 4:53PM
Great YouTube reference, Katherine; it's amazingly encouraging to SEE and HEAR Americans awakening from their slumber (and the false sense of security many people had, thinking naively that Constitutional protections were adequate to save us from tyranny -- not realizing that the Constitution has been under assault since at least WWII).
But now that O and his crowd of whoring corruptocrats are in full overreach mode, the PEOPLE smell the stench of a rotting republic and WILL take out the TRASH -- by any means, if it comes to that!
If enough people wake up and VOTE OUT the bribers and liars, we can have a velvet revolution; otherwise it's not going to be pretty.
Jon| 1.18.10 @ 7:00PM
How about crony capitalism, or liberal fascism. Those would work. I had a nephew who went bonkers before the election when I said this was socialism and he declared that word banned. I think even he might not argue now.
ned| 1.19.10 @ 11:10AM
"whoring corruptocrats" - outstanding use of the language... I LOVE IT!!!!
Tex Expatriate| 1.18.10 @ 3:09PM
Larry Thornberry puts forth a humorous essay, I suppose, because we all already know Obama and most of the Democrats in the national party are either neocommunists or neofascists. As for knowing people who are socialists, I don't know any of them any more. I told them I didn't associate with socialists, and would not do business with socialists. I haven't missed a one of them since, and I still have more valuable friends than I need.
Grant| 1.18.10 @ 7:48AM
When one considers some of the more sinister aspects of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda, mere "socialism" doesn't go far enough.
The Mescaline Left feeds on buds and human fetuses. Their God-King demands only a simple offering: earth and water.
Charles Martel| 1.19.10 @ 3:07AM
Good one, Grant. I swear, in that audio clip of Obama taking about the Supreme Court's failure to address "redistributive change", whenever I hear him use the phrase "actual coalitions of power", I hear Xerxes in "300".
Tomorrow in Massachusetts, the voters will reveal that even a god-king can bleed.
+++
Ret. Marine| 1.18.10 @ 7:54AM
What you are describing in this article is commonly called fascism, any system of Government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and labor are regulated by a strong National Government, while all opposition is rigorously suppressed. This pretty much sums up the change thing this pretender-n-thief was promising, and hoping many of his minions could not tell the difference between the words "socialism, commuunism, or a dictatorship. Let's "hope" the Mass. citizens have figured this out and "change" the landscape of this corrupt admin.
DJ Elliott | 1.18.10 @ 12:05PM
Fascism is also called Nazi-ism.
NAZI is an abreviation that means "National Socialist".
As in Hitler's party: The National Socialist German Workers Party.
The distinction between "socialism" and "fascism" is only a matter of propaganda.
Faffnir| 1.18.10 @ 12:12PM
Concur. Jonah Goldberg has literally written the book on this subject, "Liberal Fascism". It gives chapter and verse on precisely these points. It is because fascism so closely resembles socialism that people are confused. The fact that fascism has been demonized while socialism is regarded as "scientific" provides the leverage that renders socialism acceptable to the overly-educated elites.
Jim| 1.18.10 @ 2:57PM
The difference between fascism and socialism is social policy, not economic policy.
Communism is the state ownership of the means of production. Even the far left knows that doesn't work.
Socialism and fascism allow for private ownership subject to state direction.
The difference between the two is how the population is controlled. Fascists control the population through flag waving nationalism and an appeal to military power. Control is through fear and national pride. Socialists, on the other hand, control the population through bread and circuses. Fascists are 1984, socialists are the Brave New World. Socialism is preferable to fascism, but both ideologies are based on the control of the population by the government.
petie3| 1.18.10 @ 3:14PM
'Socialism is preferable to fascism...' Hobson's choice. The passage should read: 'Socialism may be slightly less onerous than fascism...' Pardon my ticky-tac.
StargazerInSavannah| 1.18.10 @ 4:05PM
The current administration is boldly driving beyond fascism and socialism closing on communism/Marxism! Now that Government Motors, Chrysler Fiat, Fanny & Freddie and numerous banks are the property and play toy of the radical Tsars and politicians like Frank and Obama it doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that we are moving towards socialism or fascism. If one is awake they will realize that we are careening beyond socialism to communism.
Government control of radio and the internet is currently being proposed by Tsar's and appointees in an effort to consolidate power and limit dissenting opinions...Fascism, Socialism or Communism, it is all unconstitutional and anti American!
Marc Jeric| 1.18.10 @ 7:25PM
Sir - you are getting close. We are in the process of full communization of America. Abu Hussein from Kenya, our Community Organizer-in-Chief, has his system of local soviets in place (ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, government employee unions, teacher unions). These will perform this year's census! They will man poll places and count votes. White House komissars (so-called czars or advisers) are in effective charge of all government departments. Military leaders (chiefs) are all in the bag - promoting diversity and political correctness. Eco-nazis are in charge of industry: globaloney warming, cap & trade, CO2 is pollutant, no drilling on federal lands. Schools are places of communist indoctrination. When 51% of us are on the dole their perpetual majority is ensured.
DD| 1.20.10 @ 7:36PM
You,sir,may have grabed the theorethical meaning of these terms but to say "socialism is preferable to fascism" shows your lack of understanding of the reality of living under any of these regims.If you have had to stay alive and make a living under a socialist dictature,as I did for 30 years,you would understand that socialists do not just rule by "bread and circus".Tens and even hundred of millions of people have been killed by the socialist dictators under the umbrella of "scientific-socialism".That is a whole lot more people who have been exterminated by the "nazi" regimes...At least you can read history before making excuses for "socialism".
Pingback| 1.18.10 @ 8:05AM
None Dare Call It Socialism | Republican Party of Door County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John - TMF| 1.18.10 @ 8:08AM
One of my favorite movie lines of all times:
Richard Boone's character (shot and dying after a big gunfight): "Who are you anyway?"
Duke: "Jacob McCandles."
Boone: "...I thought you was dead."
Duke: "Not hardly..."
I was sort of remembering that line on Saturday when Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli were all sworn in down in Richmond.
Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag
R Martin| 1.18.10 @ 10:00AM
Ye-tah-hey!
St. Thor| 1.18.10 @ 8:14AM
Ret. Marine is right. Obama isn't foisting socialism on this country, but fascism. Those who don't want to call it what it is are like the "good" Germans who never saw the old, the halt and lame, the mentally deficient, the homosexuals, and the Jews rounded up and carted away. Nor did they smell anything suspicious in the smoke from the ovens at nearby concentration camps. Liberal, with a capital "L" denial is cowardice of the first order.
Grzmlyk| 1.18.10 @ 8:34AM
On the upside, under Obma's most enlightened guidance, the old, the halt and the lame will most assuredly be rounded up and carted away (along with Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other various Party refuseniks), but the homosexuals are already part of the new elite, celebrated and lionized, veritable poster children for the cultural deconstruction that will be accelerated by the Left to keep the citizenry balkanized, bemused and distracted while they rape and pillage America.
And, from what I can see, the Jews appear to have agreed to march into the ovens of their own volition, beaming with pride all the way (the Upper West Side and the lemmings for whom the New York Times is a beacon still believe Obama doth bestride the world like a colossus).
darcy| 1.18.10 @ 5:19PM
I always enjoy your comments, Grzmlyk.
Another purpose "for the cultural deconstruction" is its role in destroying family structure with its power to inculcate and transfer traditional norms of morality and behavior. The traditional family remains the last frontier and bulwark against state control of our lives: deligitimize the family, marginalize it, and society crumbles and rots -- ripe for the dictates of authoritarian rulers, of whatever stripe: statists, fascists, socialists. It's not "how" they control, it's THAT they control.
They must be stopped.
Robert| 2.3.10 @ 3:45PM
The part about homosexuals already being part of the new elite reminds me of something similar mentioned in Scott Lively's article "Pink Swastika", in which his research found that (butch) homosexuals held many high offices in the Nazi party leadership. The parallels we see today in the Obama administration with that bit of history are bone-chilling, though I suppose the Obama administration is going for the effeminate homosexuals rather than the butch ones.
Jeff R| 1.18.10 @ 8:18AM
Another wonderful article by Larry Thornberry.
I'd have to say, though, that Ret. Marine has pegged it: liberals are making themselves c0ntent to be fascists in all but name. Perhaps they consider fascism a way-station on the long road to a bright socialist future. Who really knows? But either way, the left is bad for America, bad for liberty and just a bad bunch of power-hungry, control-freakin' people.
moron| 1.18.10 @ 8:24AM
"socialism, which is usually defined as government ownership of the means of production." Really?? Actually, socialism involves the distribution of wealth, not the actual ownership of the means of production. That's when actual fascism helps in the distribution of the wealth. Is not ownership by the state communism?
JimH| 1.18.10 @ 8:52AM
I've never seen a good definition of Fascism. It seems to be any authoritarian regime one does not like.
Jeremiah| 1.18.10 @ 10:25PM
It is a notoriously slippery concept that covers a wide variety of governments. Germany, Spain and Italy were all Fascist, though the level of dissent from government tolerated varied dramatically (with Spain the most open, relatively speaking and Germany...well, we all know about Fascist Germany).
The only element that seems consistent in all is the charade of private ownership with real command coming through the government. It seems to be an indirect sort of Socialism. Of course, it is always meant as an insult in modern times because of the Nazi death cult and culture.
MHz| 1.20.10 @ 12:39AM
My understanding of Fascism is that it's a Nationalistic form of Totalitarianism. So, among the many possible Totalitarian regimes, Fascism is marked by hyper-driven nativist rhetoric, an overblown drive for expansion of the Nation-State and overblown promises of Empiric sovereignty ordained by a Higher Power expressly for the chosen. Fascism seeks purity and absolute adherence to a code of conduct, morality and social status that upholds a National ideal -- whether that was German, Spanish or French (let's not forget the Vichy Government). In contrast, Stalin's Soviet Union wasn't Fascist although it was completely Totalitarian. Although it was founded on Socialist principles of "public ownership" of the means of production -- really, State ownership of the economy, history has taught us that the USSR was a form of State Capitalism, a contemporary example of which is The People's Republic of China. So, the factors of production are wholly owned/administered by the State, by which I refer to the Central Government. A guest on This Week said that the question isn't whether we have Socialism versus Capitalism. It is whether we have Totalitarian Capitalism or Free Market Capitalism -- because the Chinese have shown us that the former can thrive just as well as our "free market" system.
Howard| 1.18.10 @ 8:31AM
I agree with the Fascist analogy more than a Marxist analogy. I think the Democrats realize that they can't run a modern economy through government ownership (Socialism). But they can provide influence and indirect control through favoritism (Fascism). And you don't have to go to Nazi extremes to be Fascist. Italy was more the model than Germany for Obama and minions. Strong influence of large organizations i.e. GE is a plain vanilla way to create Fascism here.
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:18PM
Does all this "fascism" references define any nation that is not the US a fascist nation? The UK? France? Japan? China's now fascist not communist?
Rick| 1.18.10 @ 8:33AM
Ok, I believe that John Wayne was a Marshall, as in United States, and Dean Martin was actually the Sheriff.
Dollface| 1.18.10 @ 8:58AM
I think Fascism is the more appropriate term. Socialism seeks to have government ownership of major economic actors, while Fascism achieves the same ends thru strict government control and regulation while maintaining the facade of private ownership.
Corporate featherbedders actively join this Fascist movement because, by backing the Fascists, they can get the percieved benefits of reduced competition and greater, though heavily taxed, profits. In the 1930's we saw companies like IG Farben, Krupp and Diamler-Benz seek to profit this way in Germany (and Fiat in Italy). Today we see it with Jeff Immelt at GE who, in order to sell his $5.00 mercury-filled fluorescent light bulbs to a sceptical public got the good little Fascists in the Congress to outlaw the 25-cent kind that have been working just fine for over a century. In return, his television networks shamelessly shill for the Fascists. Krupp and the others thought they could keep Hitler from his worst impulses too.
History repeats itself for those who fail to learn it. But then again, history is about dead white guys right? They tell us Obama is different.
martinusbear| 1.18.10 @ 2:34PM
If you accept the idea that our present government resembles fascism more closely than socialism, how do you blame Obama and the liberals? Was it really any different when the Bush’s or Reagan stood atop conservative Congressional power bases? One thing that distinguishes Fascism is that a privileged, wealthy, very often corporate plutocracy is the beneficiary of the government policies. A situation very similar to America over the past fifty or sixty years no matter which party had power.
CopyKatnj| 1.18.10 @ 9:15AM
Just watch what Chavez is doing for a guide as to what Obama wants to achieve.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.18.10 @ 9:51AM
During my "formative " years, socialism was defined as people voting for government control of everything...
Communism was defined by the Russians' civil war and taking the country by force...and murder.
An economics prof of my acquaintance divided communism from fascism this way: Fascists only demand that you obey! Communist demand that you believe....and obey.
ie: Communists kill you for what you think, and Fascists just kill you without thought.
Larry,
I don't think a lot of folks realize that we are in the midst of a civil war as we write, here.
This phase of the war is being fought with ballots. I think the next phase must be fought with "economic bombs" such as sit-down strikes and "information" revolts.
I am going to begin that phase with the 2010 census. I will take the fifth amendment for every question after being counted....on my front porch.
Franklin| 1.18.10 @ 11:02PM
Phase 1: ballots
Phase 2: economic bombs (sit down strikes and information revolts.
Phase 3: Tax revolt = Up your deductions on W2 and don't pay come April 15th.
Phase 4: ?
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:20PM
You did this at the last census too (in addition to all previous ones) I take it?
Honyant| 1.18.10 @ 10:06AM
Dollface said..."Socialism seeks to have government ownership of major economic actors, while Fascism achieves the same ends thru strict government control and regulation while maintaining the facade of private ownership."
I agree! Someone should look up the term |Fabianism" Fabianism is the means by which Obama will implement government control over a free society. Check out the link below for a definition of fabianism.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/do.....anism.html
describes the Obama strategy
MHz| 1.20.10 @ 12:50AM
Superb link to Fabianism, Honyant.
donserge| 1.18.10 @ 10:07AM
Were not the Fascists of Italy totally aligned with the National Socialists of Germany? Also, the areas of parallelism between the National Socialists of Germany and the current Democratric Socialists in our congress is uncanny.
Bruce| 1.18.10 @ 10:21AM
For an interesting spin on this ... While Pravda is mostly a joke of a news source, their forecast for America in 2010 is an interesting read: http://english.pravda.ru/opini.....s/111438-1
Pravda, calling our government Marxist, pretty much says it all.
Jim Hlavac | 1.18.10 @ 10:28AM
Ah, the words that statists use to hide their power mad ploys -- oh so many:
socialism, fascism, communism, communitarianism, royalism, imperialism, social justice, economic justice, green, environmentalism,
labor party, democratic liberal party, christian socialist, patriotic front, people's movement, populist, -- on and on -- the list is long -- but what they all have in common is that some central authority makes the decisions.
What words they use is irrelevant. What they call the "law" or the "law making body" is irrelevant -- it is all about taxing as much as possible out of the system to live high on the hog, and to order people about by a preconceived notion about what is right.
On the other side is Liberty, which has done well with but one word for quite awhile.
Whatever Obamaphiliacs call themselves today is a game they play -- call them "control freaks." that might just be the demeaning trick against them -- "ah, so your with the control freak party, good to know."
"Oh, no, I'm a Democrat."
"yes, well, control freak."
"No, I'm a Republican."
"ay, control freak."
(As for Grzmlyk above -- he ought to go find out about all the homosexual libertarians, conservatives, patriots, scott brown maniacs, and palin supporters before he lumps us all in with the, um, socialists.)
Grzmlyk| 1.18.10 @ 11:26AM
Perhaps you didn't read the post to which I was responding, in which Retired Marine referred to the Nazi oppression of homosexuals.
My point was that times have changed - homsexuality is the apotheosis of hip these days, and their status as a government-approved victim group assures their place in the pantheon of cultural gods to whom we are supposed to look up in Leftist upside-down world.
This is in stark contrast to Retired Marine's reference to their status in the Third Reich. As opposed to being considered sub-human back then, today's culture elevates them to the status of uber-menschen. I find both stands abhorrent.
If you read more carfully, you would have realized I wan't lumping homosexuals in with socialists - I was lumping them in with officially protected groups the left wing cultivates in order to subjugate the de facto culture.
As a result, many independent thinkers who are gay but conservative (like my sister and her partner), get swept away with the tide - ultimately this use of them as a lever is almost as dehumanizing as their outcast status in Nazi Germany.
I bear no ill will to homosexuals whatsoever, but I don't like it when they become a political bloc - and "tolerance" means I've got to embrace - enthusiastically - yet another victim group's power play, and if I don't applaud every item on their checklist, I'm a bigot.
In other words, if they didn't make such a big deal of their sexual preference, I wouldn't either.
Get over yourself.
Bill Speers| 1.18.10 @ 10:49AM
When those in power can make others work while they take a share of the wealth that's produced, that sounds like feudalism to me, not socialism.
Fredrich Hayek redux. Welcome to serfdom.
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:21PM
In which case the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly GoP supporters.
Que?
Joel | 1.18.10 @ 10:57AM
Just a quick comment on some of the comments...
This isn't a "fascism" vs "socialism" thing. Fascism IS socialism, just as Communism is socialism. Hence the confusion on what the liberals represent more.
Socialism is simply an economic means to redistribute wealth in some manner so as to elevate the poor while lowering the rich. Fascism and Communism are two competing theories on how to best accomplish the goals of socialism. This is why the Nazis were the "National SOCIALIST Party," because they believed in a strong sense of national pride, a superiority of their race, as part of the key to realizing the goals of socialism (economic equality). Likewise, fascists allow the ownership of private property, but heavily regulate such property. It really is a mobster way of running the government, where money is given, but then favors are expected. Key industries in Fascism are often nationalized, while ma' and pa' stores are left alone. Thus, you can own your little store, but if you manufacture cars then for the public good you must surrender your company.
Communism, however, eradicates any and all personal ownership (this is in the Communist Manifesto, one of the ten goals of communism). Thus, the car manufacture and the bakery on the corner are both government owned. Your house is owned by the government, not by you. Likewise, communism is an "open-border" belief and anti-nationalistic. There's not a huge sense of national pride in the movement as it believes the cause of socialism is to be a worldwide order.
To the point; there is little doubt that Obama and his political ilk are socialists. The question is, what type of socialists are they? I'd encourage everyone to first read the European Fascists of the 1920's (Italian, German, and British) and pay special attention to the Italian and British fascists, as they were less nationalistic than the German ones. Also, read The Communist Manifesto.
When you do both, you'll realize that Obama, Pelosi, et al, are doing something truly unique; they're creating a hybrid political system. They're attempting to actualize the goals of BOTH contradictory movements. Regardless, I believe that at the moment they tend toward fascism, but are not wholly committed to such an ideal.
Grzmlyk| 1.18.10 @ 12:25PM
Excellent post, Joel.
Great comments.
Howard| 1.18.10 @ 7:14PM
Well written comments. My question regarding the "hybrid political system" you mentioned? Is this by accident or design? I could imagine Obama with his Allinsky background actively seeking such. But Pelosi seems more worried about a botox treatment rather than the deeper philosophy described.
Joel | 1.18.10 @ 9:34PM
I'd say the system is purely by accident. Both Marxism and Fascism were born out of modernity (specifically Hegel's version of modernity), meaning there were well defined lines of belief. One could not, for instance, be somewhat pro-Marx and somewhat pro-Adam Smith under modernity.
Obama is truly our first postmodern president, where he takes different views that are often contradictory and supports them all. This would explain the double-speak he's offered; he's not a typical politician, saying one thing and doing another. Instead, he actually believes he's accomplishing what he promises.
Thus, the hybrid is completely by accident and won't last because many aspects of his beliefs are contradictory with other aspects.
Pelosi is just a cog in a machine. Most politicians are, with the thinkers and movers being the advisers in the background.
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:24PM
The NAZI Party had no policies of wealth redistribution based on income, but rather only based on your familial makeup (eg: Jewish).
MHz| 1.20.10 @ 12:54AM
Thank God for a voice in the wilderness. Joel, your comments helped me focus on the issues at hand.
scythe| 1.18.10 @ 11:05AM
The CORRECT word for it is FASCISM. Privately owned but regulated by the Government to the point where private ownership is just a formality. FASCISM is the first step towards SOCIALISM.
JHB76| 1.18.10 @ 12:12PM
As I see it, no matter what you want to call it, its NOT compatible with a Constitutional Republic and has to be STOPPED by any and all means!
Dryden01| 1.18.10 @ 12:13PM
If it looks like communo-socialist-Maoist-Guevara-“progressivism,” walks like communo-socialist-Maoist-Guevara-“progressivism,” and quacks like communo-socialist-Maoist-Guevara-“progressivism” then it must be communo-socialist-Maoist-Guevara-“progressivism.”
Griff| 1.18.10 @ 12:23PM
The fascist regime under Hitler denounced the use of tobacco, excoriated large department stores as enemies of the people (think Walmart), and had plans for nationalized healthcare. Sound familiar?
Franklin| 1.18.10 @ 11:06PM
Except Obama will never denounce his cigs.
Everly Waverly| 1.18.10 @ 12:23PM
Obama's Marxist intrusion into America's commerce is a lot like a Mafia protection racket, although there's not a lot of protection being offered, they're stealing other peoples wealth. Small business and business in general can certainly testify to not being protected.
Obama's idea of hope and change are on the pseudo list of offerings that Obama is pontificating about and at the same time destroying America.
There needs to be a stop put to this Marxist crowd, electing Scott Brown would be a good start...
Mac| 1.18.10 @ 12:51PM
In Rio Bravo, the Duke was the Sheriff and Deano was his deputy. The line was "I'd hate to have to live on the difference." Rio Bravo was remade as El Dorado and again as Rio Lobo.
A Reader| 1.18.10 @ 1:10PM
A definition of "socialism" as a system with collective (or state) ownership mans of production is intentionally too narrow as it covers mostly the Marxian flavor of that social pathology. (Marx also called for the "dictatorship of proletariat").
Todays socialists of all flavors avoid being identified as such by strictly sticking to that narrow definition. (I wish they stuck as strictly to the U.S. Constitution, which they usually don't.)
Socialism is a system where the society (or its governing body) is put on the pedestal of the ultimate good, and where the individuals are permanently submitted to the society, with one objective in mind: to liberate humanity from evolutionary competition and elimination, with particular emphasis on redistribution of means of survival from the most fit and successful to the unsuccessful least fit. As a result, the population of the perpetual receipients is growing, which, as Malthus predicted some 200 years ago, draggs us all into poverty (also known as the Malthusian trap).
Marx was definitely too small a philosopher to deserve such an honor. It's difficult to have the correct perspective on his work and on socialism without realisation that his utopian ideas contradicted those of Malthus and Darwin.
Also, there are many other socialisms that are non-Marxian: the most notorious of them are: nationalsocialism (a.k.a. NAZIsm), fascism, and neo-socialism (a version of Marxian socialism with the state ownership of means of production replaced by state control of these means).
If you talk to someone who insist that socialism is what Marxs said it was, you are probably talking to a socialist activist or to a moron. In either case, don't waste your time on rational arguments.
fundamentalist| 1.18.10 @ 1:25PM
The lines separating capitalism and socialism aren't all that clear. The systems exist on a continuum of control over property. On the far right is laissez-faire with the most secure property rights and the most limited government. On the far left is communism in which the state owns everything and every one. Fascism is just to the right of communism because the state allows private citiziens to retain the paper title to property while the state controls every aspect of it.
Europe and the US have tried the middle way since WWII, assuming we could have the best of socialism and capitalism. Instead, we got a system that gives us the worst of socialism with few of the benefits of capitalism.
MHz| 1.20.10 @ 1:01AM
Well said. Whenever I hear about "bipartisanship" it makes me think of this endless compromise between "the worst of socialism with few of the benefits of capitalism."
What I want to learn more about is how Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and Burr - among others of our founders' generation - intended for THIS representative form of government to act in accordance with the free market principles on which it was founded.
Robert| 2.3.10 @ 4:52PM
Mark Steyn had a great analogy to what we've gotten in trying to blend capitalism and socialism: "If you take a quart of vanilla ice cream, and mix it with a quart of dog feces, the mixture would taste much closer to the latter than the former." In this case, capitalism is the vanilla ice cream, and socialism is, appropriately enough, dog turds.
Mike| 1.18.10 @ 1:26PM
"What Obama and his legions are doing may not exactly be socialism, which is usually defined as government ownership of the means of production. But when you try to contrast socialism with what Obama and his crowd have put through and what they're whooping up, if you seek to isolate real differences between socialism and Obamaism, it would be awfully hard, as the Duke phrased it, to make a living on the difference."
May not exactly be socialism. It would be awfully hard to make a living on the difference.
Not that anyone in AmSpec is the least bit interested in the difference. Continue with the propaganda, lads.
Grzmlyk| 1.18.10 @ 1:59PM
Of course a bullet and arsenic are two very different entities.
But if you are the recipient of either, you're just as dead regardless of the difference.
Obama's goal - as many have correctly stated here - is to make serfs of citizens and to enable a permanent ruling class. The desired outcome is that, when we are born, our primary allegiance is to the state under the dishonest rubric of "the common good."
And like all good Marxists believe (and the SEIU's Andy Stern has said), the Obamanistas have their eyes set on one-world government - with them running the show.
Thus it is the common good that we must consider when criminalizing our salt intake - while simultaneously distributing fliers that show herion addicts how to shoot up correctly. It is the common good we must consider when making felons of restaurants that use trans fats. It is the common good we must consider when refusing to drill for more oil within our shores and eschewing safe nuclear technology. It is the common good we must consider when killing charter schools. It is the common good we must consider when we cut off the water supply to thousands of California farmers so that an obscure, inconsequential fish may (or may not be) preserved in its habitat. It is the common good we must consider when effectively declaring open borders and allowing every human being who enters this country a vote, a welfare check and a ticket to the Perpetual Victims club. It is the common good we must consider when surrendering ever-larger chunks of our income to the state. It is the common good we must consider when we are forced from our homes so that a shopping mall can provide a township with more tax revenue. It is the common good we must consider when allowing ever larger bureaucracies to intrude upon our lives. It is the common good we must consider when we read terrorists their Miranda rights on the battlefield. It is the common good we must consider when we are expected to suck it up after some bureaucrat tells us to go off and die quietly rather than insist upon that life-saving surgery.
Play semantics all you want. Anyone who isn't a naif, or isn't a beneficiary of the organized crime syndicate that is the Obama administration, knows Statism when we see it.
And whether it's the organizing principles of the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe or Red China or Nazi Germany, all of these are merely cogs in the machine of oppression - whose sole products are misery, want and corruption.
Marc Jeric| 1.18.10 @ 7:41PM
Nobody could have said it better! Cogratulation! Bieng a former refugee from a communist country this is saying a lot!
H r coursen| 1.18.10 @ 1:34PM
Wrong, Elliot. Hitler recognized early that the socialist wing of Nazism conflicted with its nationalistic goals. He killed off the socialists in 'the Night of the Long Knives," June, 1934.
A Reader| 1.18.10 @ 8:17PM
That is simply not true. Goebbels (Hitler's close collaborator to his death and main propagandist of 3rd Reich) described himself as a socialist.
The claim that Hitler killed the socialists in NAZI movement is unsupported by credible evidence. (Prove it if you can!) He just killed his competitors.
Joel | 1.18.10 @ 10:20PM
That was when he killed off an overbearing SA put in place by Ernst Rahm (who, ironically enough, held the equivalent position that Rahm Emmanuel holds...). He thought he was losing control of this paramilitary organization (these were the brown shirts) and thus he had the leaders executed.
It had nothing to do with political beliefs as it was purely a power move on Hitler's part.
Northern Rebel| 1.18.10 @ 1:35PM
Joel is right, in that the three terms discussed are so similar as to be confusing.
Let me try to give you my perspective:
If Barak Obama was President of Venezuela, and Hugo Chavez was President of the United States, it would be hard to make a living on the difference!
Avery Burns| 1.18.10 @ 1:35PM
They are correct. It is not socialism which is a failed economy. It is COMMUNISM by definition. Impeach Obama. Line the Democrats against the wall for treason. Read, Aim,...
Philosopher | 1.18.10 @ 1:50PM
America is in crisis now not only because of Obama's current drive towards tyrannical control of our lives by the government, but because of decades of neglect in teaching our past and present citizens about America and the exceptionalism that lay behind our great politic experiment.
Please see my post on where Obama and the Dems are taking our country:
http://pracphilosblog.wordpres.....-a-primer/
Everly Waverly| 1.18.10 @ 2:13PM
What is so hard to understand about Obama's motives, and it certainly doesn't require endless, unintelligible doctoral thesis's to get to the bottom of it. When Obama says, in front of network cameras, "I want to redistribute the wealth" in reply to a "Joe the plumber's" question, does it get any more clear that Barack Obama is a FREAKING MARXIST...
Remember, whatever nomenclature he goes by, it's bad.
Obama surrounds himself with Marxists, socialists, communists, people who would have your kids studying safe sex in kindergarten, yeah, lets get nuanced about this re-distributionist freak. Obama's Atty. Gen. gives preferential treatment to the bros with clubs, what's next Obama changes his middle name to Mugabe.
Who the hell voted for this a-hole Marxist, WHO, EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!
Oh yeah, least I forget, Maxine Waters let slip in a congressional hearing , something to the effect the oil companies should be nationalized, now that sure cements capitalism's place in her and other like-minded democrats, "Marxist's" minds, you should be feeling all warm and fuzzy now.
I'm working on my 2nd million, gave-up on the 1st.
Alan| 1.18.10 @ 2:15PM
I told a good friend who is an ultra lib that I thought Obama was a socialist and they replied , " I know, its good, I like that about him. I'm a socialist as well".
There are many well educated elites that like the European model of social democracy. They forget that our country was forged by people who were escaping the tyranny of big government.
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:27PM
Really? Like whom?
Pingback| 1.18.10 @ 2:19PM
FAI call on Fifa for a replay between France and Ireland | Miscellaneous Videos links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 1.18.10 @ 2:32PM
"I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above..." ~ Karl Marx.
~The true reason why one billion six hundred million still are persecuted.
(From the book Marx & Satan by Richard Wurmbrand.
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
Varying dictators, same goal.
Different "children", same "Father."
Pingback| 1.18.10 @ 2:35PM
IT Corner » Blog Archive » The American Spectator : None Dare Call It Socialism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PCC| 1.18.10 @ 2:43PM
Rio Bravo also featured Walter Brennan and Ricky Nelson, the latter of whom sang with Dean Martin, "My Rifle, My Pony & Me."
"Purple light in the canyon,
That's where I long to be,
With my three good companions,
Just my rifle, pony and me."
Great stuff!
Flee| 1.18.10 @ 3:02PM
communism defined
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
socialism defined
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
fascism defined
sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
These all look eerily similar to what Obama and his faithful would like to see the US devolve into sooner rather than later. I especially like the line about the step following capitalism as if there is a natural progression from a capitalist state to a socialist state. We should truly hope for a Brown victory in MA tomorrow to slow the devolution for the moment.
Tony in Central PA | 1.18.10 @ 4:03PM
Personally, I prefer the term " soft totalitarianism ". I think its more descriptive for the functional State / Church entity this Administration and Democratic party envision ruling our nation.
" Socialism " has lost its meaning to anybody under the age of 35, mostly because such a large number of people in this group have no idea what it means. They certainly didn't learn about it in public schools or most universities.
Ronsch| 1.18.10 @ 4:05PM
What countries in the world have the best standard of living, the lowest infant mortalities, universal health care? It isn't the United States but rather the *socialist* democracies of Scandinavia. Democratic socialism works.
Tony in Central PA| 1.18.10 @ 5:17PM
Then why has it failed everywhere else, including America ?
Ronsch| 1.18.10 @ 9:40PM
Well, Social Security and Medicare are working well for me. And despite the lies spread by conservatives about Social Security, only minor changes are needed to make Social Security to work for everyone in perpetuity.
Joel | 1.18.10 @ 10:14PM
Define "works." Works at the cost of what? For one, medicare and social security don't work. After looking at my check today and seeing what I pay into Social Security, it's pretty well established that I will never see the money I put into it.
Regardless, who cares if it "works"? If it comes at the cost of liberty and/or fiscal freedom from the government, then it's not a good thing. Pragmatism is an ugly thing, as it can justify many actions. For instance, taking away the Bill of Rights can actually increase security and lower the risk of terrorism; just ask North Korea. It can lower the crime rate. But just because it would work at creating a safer environment doesn't justify the removal of such rights.
Thus, just because something satisfies the ends that we seek doesn't mean that thing is justified. If it comes at the cost of our liberties or rights, then no matter if it achieves the ends we seek or not, it is wrong.
Socialism does achieve an ends (at times...though the statistics on the Scandinavian countries is skewed), but it does so at the cost of liberty, meaning that it really doesn't "work."
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:28PM
Regardless, who cares if it "works"?
So you're not looking for economic efficiency? Just clearing that component up.
Tony in Central PA| 1.19.10 @ 8:34AM
If Social Security and Medicare work well for anybody, its only because they're not going to live long enough to witness the collapse of these Ponzi Schemes and our bloated government defaulting on its debt obligations. Sheesh !
Oldefarte| 1.18.10 @ 4:48PM
I hate to repeat myself over and over again, but this editorial confirms my thesis: THE CHOSEN ONE was a trojuned-horsed leftist-socialist who was marketed to America as a moderate, all for political, brainwashing purposes. It worked precisely as intended, and we now are forced to tolerate his liberalism unless we intelligently begin the process of electing conservative candidates [ie Brown, Rubio,etc] who will gradually repair the damage that he and his liberal congressional allies are now doing!!!!!
Pingback| 1.18.10 @ 7:03PM
In the News – 01/18/2010 « Rainy Skies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kevin Ryan| 1.18.10 @ 7:16PM
I think the core issue is that most Americans reject a Government that acts on major legislation without any support of the majority. We are a representative republic, not a "democracy," but the will of the people should always prevail. Sadly, this fundamental premise is ignored by the Democratic majority and the PIG (pretender-in-greed).
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:29PM
You don't find the concept above contradictory?
Richard Baker| 1.18.10 @ 7:23PM
Ronsch:
And if I'm not mistaken, the highest suicide rates on the planet. That's something to be proud of, now isn't it?
John II| 1.18.10 @ 7:40PM
Right. And whatever happens in the coming months and years, we have an ace in the hole that the Obamamaniacs know nothing about. There are approximately 16 million small businesses in the United States which account for about 70 percent of the nation's wealth and more than 70 percent of the tax revenues--and whose owners are almost exclusively conservative Republican in their political instincts. If the statists go too far, the goose will just stop shelling out her golden eggs before the statists have time to kill the goose.
Obama and his ilk are doing for conservatism what Carter did in 1980 and Clinton in 1994. The lib-fascist-marxists-whatever just can't help themselves: they ALWAYS overreach because they are basically spoiled brats who have no idea what makes this country work.
Joel| 1.19.10 @ 11:32PM
Remind me about the state of the deficit over the course of GOP presidencies v Democratic ones...
Robert| 2.3.10 @ 5:09PM
In just the first year of the Democratic Obama administration, we saw a deficit of $1.35 trillion, roughly triple the biggest deficit seen under the GOP Bush administration, for one...
Dan| 1.18.10 @ 8:42PM
Yeah, uh, I think articles like this are the reason why most educated people think take the charge of 'socialism' to be evidence that the accuser is at best, naive, and more likely, a complete idiot.
Tony in Central PA| 1.18.10 @ 9:03PM
If you don't like the term " socialism " then come up with another term that describes the inexorable enlargement and empowerment of a centralized government at the expense of a nation's private wealth and liberty.
John II| 1.18.10 @ 9:37PM
Yo Dan. You've tripped the wire and given away your moron bias--whatever metaphor works for you. You don't have the faintest idea what "educated" means. But you are practiced in using the term to put down your instinctive political foes with an empty presumption of superiority.
I've taught college students for more than 40 years, my friend, and I KNOW what "educated" means--I haven't had my face out of a book for 56 of my 65+ years. Tell me how much you know, young man, with asinine terms like "educated."
Bottom line: your hero Obama is an ignoramus skilled only in playing a system of which you appear to be nothing more than a cog. Ask yourself: why DON'T we know anything about his "education"? Use the brains that God gave to geese. Your hero is a fraud. And you're pathetic for believing in him with all the goo-goo certainty that you attribute to Bible-belt fundamentalists.
Get a life, asshole. And now back to Charlie Chan.
Joel | 1.18.10 @ 10:02PM
I'd ask that you supply a bit more beef to your comment. The fact is, Obama tends toward socialism (though what type is quite obscure). Anyone who has read the socialists of the modern era (the 19th and 20th centuries) would be able to observe this.
Look, socialism doesn't have to be a dirty word (I believe it's a bad thing, but still). Obama is a socialist, there's no denying that. It would be better for his supporters to attempt to say why socialism is good than to deny the blatantly obvious.
Fearless Bear| 1.18.10 @ 9:51PM
I was in Atlanta this Summer. They called it Communism. What is witht he rest of the country. Are you slow?
Northern Rebel| 1.18.10 @ 11:39PM
I'm still looking for that great Scandinavian breakthrough that has made the world a better place.
I'm trying to find out why Scandinavia didn't save Europe from tyranny twice, in the last century.
I'm wondering how much money, and treasure Scandinavia has sent to places like Haiti, when there is a disaster.
I'm still wondering why most people on the planet, can't even tell you where the fuck Scandinavia is!
Scandinavia. What a playa!
John II| 1.19.10 @ 12:15AM
Sweden played "neutral" during WWII by supplying the Nazis with weaponry while their neighbor Norway got occupied. 'Nuff said. By the way, where IS Sweden?
Yosemeti Sam| 1.19.10 @ 1:33AM
"None Dare Call It Socialism ...."
Harrumph!
They say there’s a statue inside every block of stone.
There be Political stones as well.
Well, we can chip away and see - where we Politically at.
To the nearest appropriate definition(s).
In context of succinctly useful chipping tool definitions from the Oxford Concise 9th Edition Dictionary:
Totalitarianism - of or relating to a centralized dictatorial form of government requiring complete subservience to the State.
Fascism - ... the totalitarian principles and organization of the extreme right-wing nationalist movement in Italy (1922–43) ... any similar nationalist and authoritarian movement.
Authoritarianism - ... favoring, encouraging, or enforcing strict obedience to authority, as opposed to individual freedom.
Tyranny - ... the cruel and arbitrary use of authority.
Socialism - ... a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control
the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Communism - ... a political theory advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities ... any movement or
political doctrine advocating communism, esp. Marxism ...
See definition of Tyranny again!
Ring a tyrannical bell - with Dingy and broomrider?
Upshot:
No mention in above definitions of any tea party movements! Noting about bitter clingers! No 1st and 2nd amendments to consider.
Poor liberal intellectualoids - still not in a manner of speaking potty-trained as adults to the inconvenient realities of non-revisionist history as guide. They do soil themselves aplenty
clinging to their liberal based ideology.
Not insulted - they are - that 50 million odd human beings have been sacrificed for their
collective (collectivistically attitudinal) chimeric nirvana of a societally tidy 1984 'order'.
Yo, webmaster. Hope this post is WYSIWYG.
CraigC| 1.19.10 @ 1:48AM
Yes indeed, Larry, it's socialism, although your definition is not. What you defined as socialism (the gummint owning the means of production) is communism. Interestingly, fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. In fascism, the state doesn't own the means of production, they merely...consult with the owners, as it were. After all, the Nazis were the National Socialist Party.
Linda| 1.19.10 @ 4:56PM
Some of you may want to check out
goooh.com
It's a plan to evict all members of the House of Representatives. Hey, it's a start...and a workable plan.
Sean| 1.19.10 @ 8:23PM
Why credit John Wayne with the line from the movie? Homoerotic worship? What is it with throwbacks and the Duke?
MHz| 1.20.10 @ 1:20AM
Dude ... inappropriate.
RMS| 1.19.10 @ 8:47PM
I thought Tom Rose of Grove City College nailed it well when he said fascism is college level socialism and communism is high school level socialism. The one controls and regulates private property, the other owns the means of production outright and there is no private property.
IOW we have had fascism in America since the New Deal, if not the institution of the FedReserve in 1913 - a private corporate cartel/monopoly that price fixes the interest rate - and now with this Dim admin doubling down on the previous Repug admin, we are moving into a more communist economy.
But it's all big govt. More warfare or more welfare, if not both.
The Nazis were National Socialists, the Soviets were international Socialists. Big deal.
The Dims tend to communism, the Repugs to fascism, but it's all socialism. It's all big govt.
Until Americans get their mind wrapped around that, the vulture with the Dim and Repug parties as its two wings which is perched on the Potomac will continue to prey on the body politic.
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 6:24AM
Netflix Reports Record Breaking Sales | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Office 2007 Professional | 1.29.10 @ 1:56AM
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate
Robert| 2.3.10 @ 3:31PM
Call this soft-socialism, smart-socialism, or perhaps just lazy-socialism.
Or, we could accurately call it fascism.
Could any of this be why Obama's approval rating is now well below 50 percent and his disapproval rating is higher than any Gallup has ever measured at the beginning of a president's second year?
It does make a plausible rational explanation, even if the real reason is a declining social mood, manifesting itself in increasing anger toward the politicians in power, perceived to be responsible for how negatively the people feel. Watch the stock market, a.k.a. the mood meter. When you see that starting to crash, you'll know that the fury towards Obama and his Democrat party is going to surge, and they will face a huge wipeout in the next election.
Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 11:12AM
Jesus! the insanity is intense here. Socialism? Where? You mean when all of COngress and Bush signed the deal with the auto makers? Or do you mean the bank bail outs, now around $16 trillion in back door guarantees? Or are you talking about the MASSIVE wealth redistribution to the top from 2001 to 2009? Surely you didn't call it "Socialism" when literally trillions of tax dollars were routed to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, doubling YOU debt. No, that would be too honest.
www.juicyihandbag.com | 4.2.10 @ 2:48AM
www.juicyihandbag.com
lay123 | 4.2.10 @ 2:51AM
watches outlet
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 4:56AM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
karen | 4.2.10 @ 6:51AM
Not only are www.herveleger-outlet.comsuitable attire for most occasions they are also a very comfortable form of for men. The fabric they are usually made from is flexible and comfortable with plenty of ‘give’ in the cheapwww.us-chaneloutlet.com if you need to stretch, zcount jordan shoes they have a collar to protect your from the sun if you are likely to be spending time outdoors and they have buttons at the if the weather should turn a bit chilly.
Pingback| 4.11.10 @ 1:39PM
Ron Paul: Barack Obama is Not a Socialist - Philadelphia Speaks Forum - Neighborhood links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
adsfads| 5.6.10 @ 11:01PM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
sdfsdfd
Joe Belleau| 9.16.10 @ 6:02PM
"Neo-socialist" is an apt term - for many reasons.
For example, there are 18 neo-socialist tendencies found on pages 95 and 96 of Stuart Chase's "The Road We Are Traveling".
Beth | 9.18.10 @ 2:31PM
well said though....
MJboy | 11.10.10 @ 5:38AM
Learning more from this writting to how to reset windows password. Hope more good articles be shown to us.
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 11:09PM
is good