If there was ever any doubt that President Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist, this should remove it. In 2008, Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the far-left New Party. The New Party could best be described as social democratic in orientation. It is committed to socialism based on principles of social justice, community, responsibility, and democracy.
Two questions arise: (1) Who gets to define social justice, community, responsibility, and democracy? and (2) What is allowed if we do not agree with the definitions?
Anyway, back to Obama. Did you know that there were extremely close ties between Obama, the New Party in Chicago, and ACORN? And Obama has ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, which is associated with Socialist International. And did you know that Obama's father wrote a paper called "Problems Facing Our Socialism" that advocates 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land.
I guess 2008 was a very busy news year, so the MSM totally missed Obama's ties with socialism.
Further, while speaking at the University of Michigan in 2010, Obama said: Don't call our socialism "socialism!" He continued: We must doctor our language as well.
Unionized public-sector employment is the essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business. In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy. Put it all together, and you have the Democrats' version of Utopia.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
You never did answer me in your previous article why it is that if having aspects of socialism is SO bad, that most of the states with the best standards of living in America are blue states (and most of the states with the worst standard of living are red states)...AND you ignore the point that almost ALL the first-world nations - you know, the nations that are much better places to live - almost ALL the first-world nations are SOCIALIZED DEMOCRACIES.
Why is that, Warren? If having a healthy dose (in liberal eyes) of socialism in a democracy is SO bad, why is it that when it comes to the living standards of the people, the blue states doing better than the red states? And why are the socialized democracies doing better than any other nation on earth?
I mean, if that 'healthy dose of socialism' was SO bad, why haven't all the socialized first-world nations - even after in some cases over a full CENTURY of such socialism?
Are you going to have guts enough to answer this time?
2 - Dr Hussein Dreadful
In 2008, Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the far-left New Party.
So if my urologist is a big fan of Kobe Bryant, does that make Bryant a doctor?
3 - Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter
Your first paragraph is so full of preposterous assumptions that it’s hard to know where to begin. Warren, you have pathetically deluded yourself into believing that by sheer volume of these half-truth, misleading and dishonesty-filled articles that you’re going to convince someone-anyone of your point of view.
Where is your fan club Warren? Where are the hoards of defenders galloping to your defense on these comments pages?
The last thing I want you to do is change your politics, because somewhere in there has to be someone reasonable with an intellect that can be connected with (as evidenced by all the people on this site that are trying to reason with you,) but for god’s sake man face the facts. You’re only making a fool of yourself!
Though I’ve only been visiting here for a short time, I’ve encountered people like Clavos, Dave Nalle and others who mostly share your political leanings, but they don’t make fools of themselves while expressing their views.
Your doing more damage to your cause than help. PLEASE come to realize that and adjust your style of writing, or you’re only going to be known around here as a foolish class clown not worth paying attention to who only does more and more outlandish things until the teacher gets fed up with you and makes you stand in the corner with a dunce cap on.
4 - Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter
I am beginning to suspect that the only reason that this website publishes your articles at all is not to endorse your point of view, or out of intelligent political fairness, but instead is to make people like you look as foolish as possible.
Both goals have been met-in spades!
5 - Comrade Hussein Dreadful
Anyone can write for Blogcritics, Karl - whoops, I mean Kyle - although new writers go through a probationary period to ensure that they actually can meet minimum standards of competency. And the editors have the discretion to reject articles that fall below those standards. As a BC editor and writer myself, I can assure you that articles do get rejected, although the editors will usually try to work with the author to bring a piece up to a publishable standard.
As generations of political commentators have demonstrated, it's perfectly possible to have idiotic opinions and still be able to write.
6 - Igor
Nothing wrong with being a socialist. Why, some of my best friends are socialists. And some are conservatives. I even know people who claim they're going to vote for Romney! Now THAT is far out!
7 - Kyle Hussein Karl Marx Solyndra-Hunter
If this keeps up I'm going to run out of room for my name my good doctor! "idiotic opinions" indeed!
I have given serious thought to jumping into the fray as it were and writing a few politics articles myself to counterbalance this nit, but I'm not sure I want to be associated with Warren as writing for the same website.
Does he really gather a lot or readers here, or is he just entertaining himself?
8 - Kyle Hunter
Who was it that said, "Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance."
9 - Clavos
Doc:
If Kobe (whoever the hell he is) is a member of the New Party, does that make him a left winger?
10 - Clavos-Mao-Fidel-Barack
Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter:
According to research reports, Warren definitely does not hoard his hordes.
11 - Clavos-Mao-Fidel-Barack
And some are conservatives.
Very tolerant ones, obviously...
12 - zingzing
clavos... do you not know who kobe bryant is?
13 - Jet Hussein Gardner
Clavos what's with Mao, I thought you were the spelling/grammer "Nazi"???
Question: You really didn't know who Kobe is???
14 - Jet Hussein Gardner
Re: #3 "Though I’ve only been visiting here for a short time, I’ve encountered people like Clavos, Dave Nalle and others who mostly share your political leanings, but they don’t make fools of themselves while expressing their views."
Absofuckinlootly true!
15 - Kyle Hussein Karl Marx Solyndra-Hunter
You forgot Chávez Clavos-it's always good to be thorough.
16 - Clavos
Damn! You're right, Kyle!
And no all. I have no effing idea who Kobe is.
17 - zingzing
how is that even possible? what level of cultural... i don't even know what to call it... blindness? deafness? what void underneath what rock have you entered in order for this to be true? maybe it's just not something you pay attention to, but he's been really, really famous for a good 15 years now. it's just hard to fathom that someone could escape ever having heard of kobe bryant...
18 - Dr Hussein Dreadful
Clavos: Depends. If Mr - sorry, Dr - Bryant decided sometime after 1998 that the life of a healer wasn't for him, and that he was going to try his hand at basketball instead, would Warren believe him, or would he be convinced that he was still secretly practicing medicine?
If it's a case of "once a socialist, always a socialist", as Warren seems to imply, then what's the solution? How are we ever to achieve a better, happier society if those dastardly reds are never going to change their wicked ways?
Or are the gas chambers the only answer?
19 - Cannonshop
#17 Zing, for some folk, pro basketball players are simply irrelevant to their lives, kind of like how, for sports fans, knowing who your congressman is or what they stand for is irrelevant-as long as he/she is of the correct political party.
i.e. some people are bored as shit about pro sports figures. deal with it.
20 - Cannonshop
#2 Doc, the important part isn't the fandom, it's the membership. a MEMBER of the New Party is a couple steps up from just thinking they're kind of amusing.
21 - Socialist Trot Menshevik
When checking for Reds, I recommend looking under the bed.
22 - Warren Beatty
Re: comment # 1, Glenn, you seem to be obsessed with the socialist blue states/red states question. The question you ask cannot be directly answered because of the concept of freedom. The majority in blue states prefer financial security for as long as it lasts, being kept, being told how to live, in exchange for social security (which is quite different from Social Security). The majority in red states prefer freedom, and think socialism is too high a price to pay.
But ... in an effort to answer your question, in terms of things money can buy, Minnesota has the highest standard of living, while at the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. Although Democrats tend to live in higher income states, they also live in higher cost of living states, so there is little correlation between a state's monetary standard of living and its voting pattern.
Re: comment # 2, Dr. Dreadful, you say, "So if my urologist is a big fan of Kobe Bryant, does that make Bryant a doctor?" If your urologist is a member of the LA Lakers, then I would be inclined to answer affirmatively.
Re: comment # 3, Kyle..., are you denying that Obama was a New Party member?
Re: comment # 6, Igor, you say, "Nothing wrong with being a socialist." I agree. Just please don't force your failed economic philosophy on me. It's fine if you like being kept, but I prefer freedom, to make my own decisions.
Re: comment # 8, Kyle, you say, "Who was it that said, "Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance." Does that ever characterize this crowd.
Re: comment # 18, Dr. H. Dreadful, you say, "If it's a case of "once a socialist, always a socialist", as Warren seems to imply..." Imply, hell. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can be sure it IS a duck. If that's not enough, we have Barack Hussein Obama spouting socialist platitudes, and having the socialist agenda driving his economic policies.
23 - troll
...of course he's a socialist - but there're socialists and then there're socialists I guess
after all despite his protestations he has presided over a period notable for nationalized risk for privatized return and the loss of public sector jobs - and he blew the whole universal health care thing...something of a hallmark for socialists
at 'worst' he strikes me as more the wishy-washy social democrat type than the ardent democratic socialist...even if he does have designs to further nationalize the country's surplus through tax policy or the like
24 - Clavos
@#17:
Is there nothing you don't know about?
I don't follow celebrity news -- there are probably dozens of people who've been famous for 15 or more years of whom I've never heard.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
Re: comment # 1, Glenn, you seem to be obsessed with the socialist blue states/red states question. The question you ask cannot be directly answered because of the concept of freedom. The majority in blue states prefer financial security for as long as it lasts, being kept, being told how to live, in exchange for social security (which is quite different from Social Security). The majority in red states prefer freedom, and think socialism is too high a price to pay.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! THAT, Warren, is without question the flimsiest excuse I've EVER seen on BC in all the years I've been here - "it can't be directly answered because of the concept of freedom"! Oh, come on! How cheesy can you get! By your metric, Warren, the greatest nation on Earth is SOMALIA, since it doesn't get any "freer" than that!
But ... in an effort to answer your question, in terms of things money can buy, Minnesota has the highest standard of living, while at the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. Although Democrats tend to live in higher income states, they also live in higher cost of living states, so there is little correlation between a state's monetary standard of living and its voting pattern.
REALLY? And your reference is...what? Nonexistent, other than the certainty that You Just Know It. BUT UNLIKE YOU, I already did my research three years ago last month:
Red states have significantly lower rates of health insurance than blue states.
On the list of states by life expectancy, all of the bottom fourteen except for one are red states.
Of course, health insurance doesn't tell the whole story. So here's another list of healthiest states. This list was compiled by considering many factors including the rate of high school graduation, the violent crime rate, the percentage of children in poverty, the per capita public health funding, ready acc Once more, the top of the list is almost completely blue, and the bottom of the list is almost completely red.
Here's several maps showing educational level by county...and overall, the red states fare poorly against the blue states.
This page on Wikipedia includes three tables of state rankings: by median household income, by per capita income, and by number of places with per capita income above the national average. As in the above references, blue states dominated the top of the lists, and the bottom of the lists were mostly red states.
"But we all know this is all because the red states pay so much in taxes that the politicians send to the blue states!" One could just hear the right-wing pundits taking such a line, but this table from the Census bureau clearly shows that the top ten RECIPIENTS of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all red states...and the ten states that receive the LEAST federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all blue!
The nation's murder rate is clearly higher in Southern (red) states than anywhere else.
Since 1990, the states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.
The divorce rate is generally higher in family-values red states than in those godless blue states (even if we don't count Nevada).
And on the list of states with the highest rate of teen pregnancy? Nine out of ten are RED.
So...except for drug use (which is generally higher in blue states), exactly how is it that red states have a better standard of living than blue states? Especially given that red states receive more federal funding than they pay out in taxes, whereas blue states receive LESS federal funding than they pay out in taxes? Hm?
Here's a clue, Warren - it ain't about the politics. It does NOT matter whether a state is red or blue...but the answer would only tick you off even more! But I'm not going to tell you that answer, not until you man up and back up your claim that red states have a higher standard of living than blue states.