Friday, 22 June 2012 00:00

Whether Obama is Socialist or Fascist

Intro to Thomas Sowell's Article

In the late 1980s political author and Insider, admitted Marxist, one-world government promoter, trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission, and Council on Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in his powerful book, "The Grand Failure," that, "In fact Communism, Fascism, and Nazism are genetically related, historically linked, and politically quite similar." 

Though Benito Mussolini did not invent Fascism, he did explain it to the world: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power." 

Bill Clinton was the first president to state openly a fascist policy: "Government and business must create a partnership, one that will benefit all."


That Barack Obama is a Fascist/Socialist/Marxist is a cinch. What makes him moreso than his predecessors is the fact that he has thrust state power to a much greater degree than they did and, if reelected we cannot imagine the cramping horrors he'll place on our freedoms.

We had for many years an open example of the fascist/socialist model with the Old ATT before the Reagan Justice Department managed to split it apart back in 1983. No one could compete with ATT and for eighty years innovation was non-existent. No choice! No freedom!

Thirty years after ATT split into the Seven Baby Bells look at the choices you have with your phones-choice is freedom-and look at the innovation brought about mainly by that split.

Both fascism and socialism stagnate innovation and freedom. Or, more plainly, government prevents innovation and restricts freedom-on top of that, government picks favorites by rewarding political friends and punishing its opponents. Look at Obama's failed Green Agenda-billions tossed to cronies of the Dumborat Party with zero regard for the financial or business results. All those monies-belonging to the American citizens-have been no more than payoffs and bribes to Obama's leftist backers.

Of the labyrinth of laws and bills passed by that Beast in Washington since George "Papa" Bush took office in 1988, not one of them has aided freedom or innovation that I know of-except for two: the Freedom of Supplementation Act and the IRS Reform Bill, both passed in the late 1990s. The rest of the lot have pinned down innovation, added to the burden of living life, and stolen numerous freedoms previously taken for granted.

Neither Thomas Sowell nor anyone else can fully explain the future devastation to our freedoms if Barack Obama continues pushing us down the path we are now headed.

No matter what the Left tries to tell us, government does not give anything away, because it has nothing to give away. It must steal from someone else-American citizens-to give out "free" healthcare, unemployment benefits, and all other transfer payments.

That is what Fascism/Socialism/Marxism is about, and Obama can factually be called any one of the three-or all.

"Socialist or Fascist?" 

By Thomas Sowell

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism. 

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. 

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time. 

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague. 

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies. 

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations. 

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left. 

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s. 

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left. It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs. 

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat. 

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of

themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..." 

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters. 

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences. 

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. 

So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.

Source: Socialist or Fascist


Share on Myspace