Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Obama: Closet Marxist?

Deep within the recesses of Barack Hussein Obama’s mind, shambling among moldering tomes lying scattered amid the fetid remains of an Ivy League education, moves a specter with indistinct form.  In the shadow other shapes dissemble; the wraith-like presence of the Reverend Wright; the hunched William Ayers, scribbling with malevolent intent.  But larger and more ominous still, slouches a form that flees from the light to find solace in inky shadow.  Close scrutiny resolves the form and reveals the bearded visage of Karl Marx.

During a rally on Sunday, Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody.”  This statement may seem innocuous to some.  It may sound like a good idea to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor.  However, there is a price to pay for this brand of largess.  Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, looked forward to a world in which "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise [sic] all instruments of production in the hands of the state." Marx also proposed the imposition of "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" to accomplish his vision of wealth redistribution.  

Do I think that Barack Hussein Obama is a Communist? No.  However, based on his statements, I believe that Obama's economic policies are heavily influenced by Marxist principals.  These principals are antithetical to our Capitalist tradition.  A tradition of private property ownership and of private control of capital resources.  Obama's policies would undermine the economic principles which make our political freedoms possible.  Republics do not long survive under the weight of collectivist ideas.  Obama will lead us down the road, by degrees, toward an Americanized version of Marxism.  It's a friendly brand of socialism but no less a betrayal of our national heritage.  Obama's tax and spend policies are cut from the same old cloth that Democrats have used for decades.  The change that Obama proposes is a change that Karl Marx would have approved.    

"Let me put it this way: no serious person can deny that Marxist ideas had a profound impact on what we call liberalism. To point this out doesn't mean that one is calling, say, Barack Obama a Stalinist or a communist." (Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism)
Click here for Jonah Goldberg's Blog: Liberal Fascism

11 comments:

DarkBlue04 said...

While I certainly welcome vigorous debate from all sides on the economic policies of each candidate in this campaign, this assertion just doesn't square with the facts. Mr. Obama's tax policy calls for 95% of American taxpayers to receive tax cuts. The top 5% would either see their taxes remain the same, or increase slightly (to about the level that they paid during the 1990's). Perhaps most significantly, taxes for small businesses will actually decrease under Obama's tax plan, which will have a positive effect on job creation (definitely pretty important when we're facing a recession). You can fact-check these claims if you'd like at http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/

So, while it is true that there are a few households that might pay more under an Obama administration, the Marxist label is simply not true.

Dan

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

What YOU are not getting, Dan, is that- I believe the number is 40%- of that 95% DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES AND STILL WILL GET A TAX REFUND CHECK.
THAT, is redistribution of wealth, and THAT is Marxism.
You have bought into the lies, and his lies don't add up. The small businesses you're talking about--a huge percentage of those small businesses WILL have their taxes raised. That is simply a fact.

susanmig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

I pity you, Susan.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

qhsyrFor Dan,
See this article, it will explain further what I mentioned above.

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

小魔 said...

Tami,

I believe there's a difference between a rich guy receiving extra perks from the government vs a guy who does not even make enough to pay taxes. The rich guy is going to buy another yacht, while the poor guy will spend it on food, clothes, and gas, which all goes back to the rich guys. Sadly speaking, we're seeing this happening in this country. Oil companies are sleeping with (literally) with legislators, they're making record high profits, yet we're paying a kidney to fill up the tank to go to work.

I support giving tax credits to those companies who give benefits to their employees, ie healthcare, retirement, etc. Have you looked at the corporate tax rate? I don't know about you, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unfair that a company that makes more than 18 mil a year pays LESS taxes than one that makes 335k. For Christ sake, forget about the rich should and/or being able to afford paying more taxes, at least make the rates the same.

If all men are good, then the republicans way will work very well. Unfortunately, if just half of the men are greedy, then I'll be screwed under this plan.

Links:
Sex for oil scandal http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/national/main4436263.shtml

Corporate tax rate
http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html

thomas said...

Tami,

I deplore both the tone and content of Susan's comment. I wonder why people cannot express their opinions without belittling each other's religions or expressing such sarcasm and cynicism. A little civility would not make anyone's ideas less valid and would certainly make them more effective. Very few people can see or hear past that negativity and spiteful language to the idea behind the words (if there even is an idea).

That said, The New York Post is not a newspaper any person looking for accurate information would read. It is a newspaper well known for its conservative, tabloid, yellow journalism, a reputation it richly deserves. I am a New Yorker so I am quite familiar with what The Post prints every single day.

Owned by Australian billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, the Post regularly prints every lie, rumor and distortion they can find or make up as part of Mr. Murdoch's personal campaign to reshape the American political and regulatory landscape in a way more to his liking.

Second, Obama is no more a Marxist than McCain is a Fascist. (I have heard arguments supporting that also). Both ideas are far-fetched and unworthy. And once again, John engages in the hyperbolic language of hate that discourages discussion and encourages people to answer in kind.

Why is Barack Obama's education at Harvard mocked and debased as fetid, his books moldering, his mind shambling. (I am working on a post right now about the oddity of the Republican base constantly portraying educated people as elitist.)

Whatever your position on the issues or candidates, if you cannot admit by now that Obama has a first class mind and a very presidential temperament, I wonder if you might just be deluding yourself. Because the rest of America seems to be warming to that idea.

But the real central idea here, if you are a Christian, is much more important. All this talk about Marxism, increasing taxes on wealthy people but giving middle class families and poor families a tax break has a direct connection to the Bible, at least the one I read as a child and studied as a scholar at University.

The Republican Party seems to vigorously support the idea that the weakest and most vulnerable among us - the old, the sick, the oppressed, those who grow up in environments that so limit their possibilities that failure is practically written into their futures before they take their first breath - are basically on their own. The GOP has, over the years, created and supported most of the ideas that are designed to keep the less powerful members of our society in their place. It is amazing how often and how many Christians are the first to espouse this idea. (I always find it somewhat ironic that people who do not believe in scientific evolution are so quick to practice social Darwinism -- the survival of the fittest.)

Historically the GOP has opposed the idea of Unions that keep workers from being over-worked and underpaid in conditions where their health and/or safety are compromised.

The Republicans opposed the Voting Rights Act that gave citizens who had been denied their Constitutional right to vote a legal recourse to force States to end those practices. In fact as a political party, the Republicans have generally been against most Civil Rights legislation, often filibustering to keep those historic legislative packages from coming to a vote.

The have been trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid for decades. These are all programs that protect the weak and the disadvantaged.

That path, however, is the opposite of the road that the New Testament tells us Jesus asks us to walk.

Jesus said, “It shall be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

And the Lord had much to say about our relationship to things versus our relationship to our fellow human beings and his repetition of these ideas throughout his ministry no doubt indicated the importance he put on them.

He constantly advocated in favor of our obligations to take care of those less fortunate than us; in favor of our Christian obligation to practice tolerance; to turn the other cheek and that we are indeed our brother's keeper.

I suspect our Lord would not have minced words about our obligation vis a vis taxes. He would not have referred to it as Marxist or reviled it as liberal. He would simply have called it Christian charity to fund programs and called on us to help those less fortunate than ourselves in any way we could.

Yours in Christ,

Thomas

Ann Bradley said...

Obama is not a Marxist. And if you go to the webistes of Marxists they state that Obama is not a Marxist. Warren Buffett is his advisor. Do you think Warren Buffett is advising on Marxist thought? When you make claims like this you need to show you have some understanding of what you are talking about. Your definition of "Marxism" is incorrect.

Redistributing wealth is actually a Christian ideal. Check the Bible.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common.
45 They sold possessions and chattel [They sold possessions and substances, or goods], and parted those things to all men, as it was need to each."

"[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?"

Jeremiah 5:28

intellegencematters said...

I also have a question about the debate. Is McCain saying that he is against an emergency termination of a pregnancy if the mother's life is in danger? Is this pro-life? I'm not being difficult. I'm really curious. Can someone explain what McCain's position is on this particular issue?

intellegencematters said...

Amen.

Kip Austin Hinton said...

(i can respond to your point, but as for jonah goldberg, i do not respect anything in that bizarre, sloppy book.)
maybe you think obama "feels" like someone influenced my marx. okay. but it's paulson and bernanke who are redistributing wealth as i write this - it was not obama's idea to make your grandchildren pay for wall street's golden parachutes.
the GOP idea that we can cut taxes AND increase spending, but don't worry because we'll just borrow all the money from china - you and i are subsidizing a communist government already. we SHOULD pay taxes to improve america, instead of paying interest to improve china.
under bush, the middle class is slowly being squeezed into poverty. some americans object to the creation of a corporate aristocracy. i want to STOP redistributing wealth to them.
(anyway, communism is over, not even china is communist anymore. they are turning into a capitalist dictatorship. markets are free, but nothing else is.)