Some have accused Sen. Barack Obama of being a socialist. But the truth may be worse. A regular socialist would at least have the guts to clearly label his policy of nationalizing industries. Obama and the Democrats appear to be seeking this goal by stealth. True socialists just want to run the economy. Obama and his allies have their eyes on your freedom.
Whatever tag is hung on Obama, his election would herald a massive redistribution of wealth and power to the government. If jobs are created, they will be government jobs, which do not create wealth but only spend taxpayers’ money.
The candidate himself has been intoning with moderation. But the truth began to surface in his passing comment to “Joe the Plumber.”
At an Ohio campaign appearance, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the plumber, told Obama he was worried that the Democrat’s tax proposals would prevent him from buying the business that he works for. Obama’s reply was that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”
The candidate’s far-left reputation was further reinforced after an interview surfaced from a Chicago radio station. In it Obama lamented that the Supreme Court had “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” He said it was “one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement” that it lost track “of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
“Redistributive change” is jargon for government seizure of wealth, followed by handouts to selected social causes. And Obama is all for redistribution of your money.
The National Journal has rated Obama as the most liberal U.S. senator -- more liberal than Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an open socialist.
Look, for instance, at Obama’s tax plans. He is touting tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. But that is mathematically impossible. As the Tax Foundation has pointed out, 40 percent of the population pays no income taxes. That means a President Obama would be sending handouts averaging $2,000 to millions of people.
How will he get it? By taxing the upper 5 percent. History shows that this is financial suicide. To state what should be obvious, the rich pay their way. The richest 5 percent pay 60 percent of all income taxes.
Moreover, tax increases inflict their biggest harm not on Wall Street sharks but on productive small businesses. Some estimates indicate that the Obama plan would raise taxes on 1.3 million small businesses (like Joe the Plumber’s) that do so much to drive economic growth. Discourage entrepreneurs from pursuing their dreams, and you’ll kill jobs.
Obama’s tax schemes will spread not the wealth but the pain.
But it doesn’t stop there. Obama and the Democrats plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, which means a tax increase for you. The senator doesn’t count the tax cut expiration as a tax hike, but that’s exactly what it is.
The tax question is but one example of what Obama’s “redistributive justice” would mean. What he and his fellow Democrats really want to redistribute is freedom, from abolishing secret ballots in organized labor to a reinstitution of the outmoded Fairness Doctrine to suppress conservative views on radio and broadcast TV.
In the early days of electronic media, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that broadcasters who give opinions on the airwaves must give equal time to opposing opinions. The first result was that TV and radio stations shied away from any but the blandest ideas. The second was that politicians used the rule to intimidate their political opponents. Overall, the public marketplace of ideas was diminished.
The Reagan Administration scuttled the Fairness Doctrine because the airwaves had become just one of many ways to get out a message. The proliferation of cable, satellite and Internet, for example, have created an abundance of channels over which virtually any opinion can be conveyed.
The Democrats want to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to shut down popular conservative radio commentators like Rush Limbaugh. The move would disproportionately affect conservative programming because liberal talk shows have relatively small audiences. Liberalism just doesn’t compete well in the market of ideas.
Don’t start thinking that the courts will protect you. With a liberal Congress, Obama will be able to push through his judges of choice. The liberal media and the government bureaucracy will be egging him on. There’s little he could not do if he wished, and by all indications he wishes a lot. Imagine, for example, Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court engaging in “redistributive justice,” and the federal government managing your health care.
Make no mistake: Obamaism aspires to dominate American life.
As Obama said himself in a revealing moment: “If you’re going to be in the way of change, get out of the way - we’re pushing you aside. Very politely of course. That’s how we win elections.”
Even now, more indications of Obama’s real attitudes are bubbling up. The Los Angeles Times holds a videotape that reportedly shows Obama raising a toast to former PLO mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi at a party in Chicago. Khalidi was closely connected to unsavory characters in the Middle East, including sponsors of terrorism. (Denials of Khalidi’s connections are conclusively debunked at http://obamatoast.notlong.com)
Looking on as Obama raised his glass were two familiar cronies -- Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were part of the domestic terror group that bombed the New York Police Department, the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970s.
More will likely be revealed about Obama after the election. A theory has been advanced, for example, that Ayers, the domestic terrorist, was the ghostwriter of Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” The common linguistic threads identified by Purdue Ph.D. Jack Cashill are too strong to be ignored. (See http://obamabook.notlong.com for Cashill’s analysis.)
Before 1990, when Barack Obama signed the deal to write his book, he had written close to nothing. Then, five years later, this untested 33-year-old produced what Time Magazine called -- with a straight face -- “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The book is infused with Ayers’s distinctive literary style.
The only question now is which distinctive style Americans will send to the White House. If it’s Obama, brace yourself for a major push toward a socialist America that leaves Franklin Roosevelt in the dust.
