Obama is a socialist. Just listen.
If this is news to you, then you haven't been paying attention to what he says.
If you are okay with a socialist government then you are woefully ignorant of history and our constitution.
Obama and Biden over the last couple of weeks have been trying to avoid the word "socialism" because that is a buzz word and people don't like it. So they try and use other phrases, like 'spread the wealth around' and 'redistribution' (although this one has been pretty rare as well).
I've had several discussions with people that say, "well weren't the first Christians essentially communists, in the pure sense of the term?" and again, "Didn't Jesus promote socialism?"
Yes, in many respects both of those things are true. My wife and I had a discussion about this last night. The big difference is compulsion vs. desire. If I want to give to the poor then praise God. If I want to share all that I have with others, that's fantastic. The difference is the government TAKING from you to give to others. I'm completely in favor of Christians and churches being generous in trying to help those in need. That's one of the great things about the US. Historically speaking, Americans and Christian Americans specifically, have been the most generous people in history. That is something that we don't want to lose. If anything we want to encourage that as much as possible. A government that lets people keep their money so that they can afford to be generous, is the best way to do that.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Naked Socialism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Keith, Keith...
The "tragedy," in Obama's telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals - which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."
"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."
Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."
So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.
Is this really all McCain has left?
What? You're kidding right. He is arguing FOR redistribution, his only misgivings are about accomplishing it through solely a judicial process rather than legislative as well.
He is mourning the fact that the courts don't have the administrative resources to accomplish the task.
This isn't what McCain has left. It's what Obama is really standing on.
He's a socialist. Plain and simple. This interview is just the closest he's ever come on tape to actually saying it.
Ok, so what if he IS a socialist? Last time I checked, so is America in A LOT of ways and so is John McCain!
I, for one, do not consider socialism a bad word, and I don't care what others might think about me because of it. Sharing is a principle EVERY kid learns in kindergarten and it isn't until we grow up to be greedy, selfish adults that we learn to horde, stockpile, and gratuitously spend money while others struggle to get ANY. It is that very greed that has America where it is today which is why even our most conservative elected officials voted for socialism in the form of govt bailouts for banks.
Besides, Jesus WAS a socialist to answer your OP. At least it seemed that way when he TOLD the rich young ruler to sell all his possesions and give them to the poor to enter heaven.
First of all selfishness is something that everyone knows and understands from birth. I've never seen a baby that said, "oh, you guys are eating dinner, I'll just wait to eat until you guys are done." Generosity is not something that comes easily to most people.
Jesus absolutely encouraged the rich to give to the poor and for everyone to care for the least of these. But he didn't seize the young ruler's crop and demand to keep half of it. Jesus never said or encouraged or even consented setting up a government that would strip people of their belongings in order to hand them out as they saw fit. What Jesus did encourage was for individuals not to value possessions over people, for them to consider others better than themselves. You should also remember that Jesus valued every individual. The creator that knows every hair(or lack there of) on you head isn't willing for any to be lost. He values every single person.
Socialist govenments on the other hand tend to value individuals who are a part of the government, but no one else. The state over the individual. Brush up on your history, my brother.
Name me one socialist state that has succeeded. And by there own measure that means being completely free from poverty, where economic parity exists on every level, including the government.
In truth the US has become more socialist, thanks to the libs out there. McCain is not my first choice, or even in the top 10. I wasn't really looking forward to voting for him next time he was up for re-election as a senator, but he is a wolrd better than Obama.
We need to fix the socialist policies that Bush has brought on through the last couple of months and the mess that goes all the way back to FDR. Not to dive into a whole new mess of them.
That would be a good start.
Cuba is an incredibly successful socialist state. And if poverty levels are such an important factor, you should look at Americas incredibly high levels of unemployment and low levels of living standards for around 80% of its population.
Post a Comment