Posted on 09/09/2010 12:56:05 AM PDT by Undocumented_capitalist
The President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.
Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.
The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Obama had a lot of help from his liberal democrats and some rino republicans—they all need to go.
The link took me right to the article.
Here it is for you: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html
Did “Agenda: Grinding America Down” get released into theatres or is the only way to get it by buying the CD?
Obama's dominant theme may be anti-colonial, but there is also a strong element of socialism and the whole is mixed with Chicago-style politics of thuggery and bribery.
"What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father."
"According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father."
"Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father."
The President isn’t exactly a socialist...
bump
But Obama said earlier this week that he likes lean government. What amazing gall.
The article explains Obama’s refusal to close the border also.
“From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction...profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.”
His hatred of America has always been evident; here’s the explanation.
“Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.”
The fruits of disregarding merit to right old wrongs, both real and imagined.
bookmark
Excellent article. Anti-neocolonial-nut-case bump!
No. Obama is perfectly described as a Marxist Lenninist collectivist. There is all the difference in the world.
The concern of collectivists is their personal power and personal gain by controlling the collective. They are the Orwellian "pigs" who are more equal than all the other animals.
They are not socialists interested in delivering on the social contract between government and the people by providing the services that they were elected to provide. They do not have the education, skills and experience to deliver on anything.
I am not in favor of socialism, but European socialism is heaven on earth compared to the scorched wasteland left in the wake of these self-aggrandizing collectivists.
This is one of the best descriptions of what motivates Obama that I have ever read. We do, indeed, have a very deluded and dangerous man sitting in power over this nation.
Great article. Thanks for the past.
It’s long, but I’m glad I read it. Explains a lot. Thanks for posting this.
It is also why they like our so-called justice system. It is just another cost of doing business, a portfolio of known costs they can amortize over their diverse income pool. One law suit more or less makes little difference. To the small guy the cost of lawyering up one more time is ruinous.
And D’Souza’s explanation also explains Benito Obama’s horrible treatment of England.
I think it is a mistake to see socialism as a step on the path to Marxist-Leninism. The former exists quite comfortably with democratic institutions. Well-educated and capable people in European governments and parliaments debate ways and means of accomplishing identified needs of society and even more or less deliver on these promises more or less well. Americans have a problem that there should be more self reliance, but it is a difference in degree.
Marxist-Leninists are first and foremost about power and control of the collective. They are totalitarian in approach. The Swedes and Danes do not have gulags. Virtually every M-L state has had its political prisons and death squads. They deliver for themselves and their peers, their fellow thugs. They really have little intent of delivering any more on a social aim than they absolutely have to to maintain their control of the collective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.