I am honestly confused. Why is it not permissible for us to call President Obama a socialist? Why do so many with a media platform dodge the question when asked point-blank if Obama is a socialist?
Maybe some in the GOP and the mainstream media simply don’t know or understand the definition. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “socialism” as: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
Even with the broadest of interpretations, Obama’s beliefs seem to fall within that definition.
Correct me when I’m wrong, but doesn’t the president want to greatly expand the federal government? Doesn’t he want and have government control of our automobile manufacturers? Doesn’t he want and have government control over our banks?
Doesn’t he want a government-run national health-care system which will control one-fifth of our economy? Doesn’t he want to take money from the “elite” and redistribute that wealth to the “poor?” When running for president, didn’t Obama himself say, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”
Doesn’t his party want to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle conservative thought? Don’t all of these goals of the president and his party fall within the definition of “socialism?”
Obama has every right to be a socialist. Fortunately, our form of government still allows freedom of expression. Unlike Lenin or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela however, the president hopes -- with a huge assist from the liberal intelligentsia -- to recast the United States into a socialist nanny-state in small, incremental steps.
He may yet succeed. To paraphrase Edmund Burke -- one of Obama’s favorite philosophers -- “The only thing necessary for the triumph of socialism is for good people to do nothing.”
Well, one way to start to do something is to call Obama what he is: A socialist.
No comments:
Post a Comment