Is Obama a Socialist? A Marxist? A Communist? What?
It was interesting to be involved in a discussion with a person on a social network who claims to be a “mainline Christian” and a “Leftist.” It became clear immediately because all her posts were centered on helping people understand that Obama is NOT a Socialist…or a Marxist…or a Communist. He is – she said – a Capitalist.
According to her, that was the most important part of the conversation. I find that is often true about those on the Left. They like to get mired in minutiae because they think it’s educational. Meanwhile, they cannot see the forest for the trees.
In truth, if we are going to hold to a very specific definition of socialism, Marxism, or communism, than a case could be made that Obama is none of these things…as a person. However, it is also important to recognize that polices that Obama is attempting to create and push are leaning toward socialism, Marxism, or communism.
My biggest concern is that too many in Congress and in politics in general today, fail to understand that America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. I’ve been over that numerous times and while I’d like to explain it again, you might get bored. Suffice it to say that if our elected officials truly understood that America is a Constitutional Republic (and NOT a Democracy), then they would also understand the proper role of the government in general and the Federal government specifically. In short, under our Constitutional Republic, the power of the government is limited. Because there are so many elected officials like Obama who fail to grasp this, they then believe it is their responsibility to force government to become bigger, extending control over greater areas of people’s lives.
This, to me, is learning towards socialism. I do understand the exact definition of it and I also understand that when government policies begin to lean toward socialism, it appears as greater governmental control and influence. We could go into economics and semantics, but that bores most people. While Obama is not a dictionary-defined socialist (there, I said it), that matters little if his policies are moving America toward that goal.
“The problem here is that the dictionary definition of ‘socialist’ sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader. Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard.”  So, on one hand, the exact dictionary definition itself is very difficult to meet, on the other hand, there are plenty of politicians who believe that socialism has merits and therefore, what they do attempts to mimic socialism by moving this country more toward that target.
“Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy.”  Does this mean that Obama is a Marxist? Not necessarily. I believe that Obama is a capitalist…for himself. What he envisions for the average person in America is something completely different, in my view.
“Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform.”  The author then goes on to list a number of points in which it is very clear that Obama has been and continues to do what he can to move this country toward socialism.
Paul Roderick Gregory responds to the question of whether Obama is a socialist by noting, “By ‘socialist,’ I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?
“By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.”  Gregory then goes onto explain why Obama is a socialist, in his opinion. Well worth reading, especially by those on the Left who refuse to admit that – due to the high bar of the dictionary-defined “socialism” – Obama could be a socialist.
Peter Ferrara comes to a different conclusion regarding Obama’s ideologies. “The answer is that to President Obama this is still not fair because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share. That is the only logical explanation of President Obama’s rhetoric, and it is 100% consistent with his own published background.” 
I wish that those on the Left who are so adamant that Obama is neither a socialist or Marxist, would be just as adamant in recognizing AND admitting that America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. The main differences between these two systems is stark. Yet, the Left won’t go there because it not only does not interest them, but does not win an argument for them. If they admit that America is a Constitutional Republic, then they have to begin admitting other things. They don’t want to do that so they avoid the entire issue of whether or not America is a Constitutional Republic or not.
This issue is far more important than whether or not Obama (or any politician) is a socialist, Marxist, or communist. However, I find it very interesting and telling that more communist AND socialist groups (along with a few foreign dictators) came out in complete support of Obama and his policies. That tells me a great deal frankly and I don’t need people on the Left to attempt their misdirect by getting me to argue over definitions, when they themselves are not interested in discussing the true nature of this country.
But regarding whether or not Obama is a capitalist or something else altogether, it is clear to me that Obama is either unaware of, or completely ignores the fact that America is a Constitutional Republic. Once an elected official is willing to agree with this fact about America, it changes the game. They can no longer, in good faith, attempt to change a system that is not mean to be changed.
The Left likes to argue anomalies and minutiae. They believe if they focus strongly enough on the minor things, then the major things will be either ignored or overlooked. This is why they harp on definitions of things because they purpose to derail actual dialogue and discussion. They want to distract so that Obama and his progressives can get on with changing this country until nothing resembles the original America.
When the Left aren’t getting us mired in the smallest of details, they are coming out with their racist jokes like Bill Maher’s quip about Herman Cain wanting “white” girls on FOX as the reason Cain agreed to be hired by FOX. This type of asinine comment is excused by those on the Left because, let’s face it, they own most of the media. So, they can make racially insensitive jokes using Herman Cain, or they can have a panel discussion about “whitey” week on another show. Ha, ha. Chuckle, chuckle. If that gets boring, they can always create another skit in which Jesus is lampooned and Christians are offended.
The Left really has nothing to offer. Whether they’re talking about socialism, the 2nd Amendment, or something else entirely, the reality is that the Left is the one that “shucks and jives,” (as used disparagingly by Obama himself toward those on the Right.) They do what they can to misdirect, obfuscate, and when that doesn’t work, shout down and throw things like Piers Morgan.
But let’s face it, those on the Left have quite a bit on their plates. They have to agree that they voted for a man who – at every turn – pushes for the rights of women to have abortions regardless of the time during the pregnancy. They voted for someone who was never properly vetted. They support and even glorify a person who stands for everything this country is against.
The most unfortunate thing is that many of these individuals call themselves “mainline Christians.” It’s absurd. I asked the person mentioned at the beginning of this article what does it mean to be a Christian. Since specific definitions are obviously so important to her, I wanted to know. She never responded to that question. When I pointed out the problem with voting for a person who supports abortion the way Obama does, she told me that I really did not understand the issue of abortion.
The real problem is that this woman – who I’m sure considers herself to be intelligent – is so mired in detail that she really cannot see the big picture. Not only can she not see where our current administration is taking this country, but she cannot see the problem with voting for a person who agrees that killing roughly 4,000 unborn babies per day is fine. After all, women have the rights to do whatever they want to their own bodies. No one’s disputing that. What we dispute is whether or not women have the right to wantonly kill a completely separate human life that is growing within them. The answer is obvious.
So whether Obama is a socialist, a Marxist, a communist, or capitalist is really not the issue at all, though the Left likes to ruminate on that one. The real problem is what Obama’s policies (or lack thereof) are doing to this once great country.
Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: are obama's policies the same as lenin's?, is obama a communist?, is obama a dictator?, is obama a marxist?, is obama a socialist?.