Articles obama-socialist-poster

Published on May 4th, 2010 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon

16

Obama to students: Don’t call our socialism “socialism”!

The University of Michigan awarded President B.O. an honorary “Doctor of Laws” degree last Saturday thereby recognizing his extensive experience in doctoring laws. But Obama urged further: we must doctor our language as well.

As he spoke to UM’s graduating class, Obama denounced the rhetoric flying around these days: we must dispense with phrases like “socialist,” “Soviet-style takeover,” fascist,” and “right-wing nut.” Of course he only threw “right-wing nut” in there so he could claim fairness. The point, of course, is to tar and feather those who call his administration what it is: socialism and fascism.

The irony explodes as Obama had just praised how the great socialistic schemes of past presidents saved our Country and made it great. Lincoln—a railroad lawyer who helped government appropriate land and public money for cross-country railroads and land-grant universities—gave us the phrase so often used by socialists today, according to Obama, “the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.” Teddy Roosevelt, the trust-buster, later concurred with Lincoln, “the object of government is the welfare of the people.” He gave us the gigantic government confiscation of land called the National Park Service. Today almost 40% of the land in the U.S. is owned by the Federal Government. In some states, such as Alaska, Nevada, and Utah, the number approaches 100%. Obama praised Johnson’s “Great Society,” Medicare, Eisenhower’s Government-run Interstate System, the formation of the public (government) schooling system, and FDR’s socialist measures in reaction to the Depression.

But whatever you do, he argues, don’t call it “socialism”! Oh no, that would be uncivil. Calling socialism “socialism,” according to Obama, “prevents learning,” as if socialistic public schools and land grant public colleges didn’t do enough of that already (via the teaching and tactics of socialism).

He says that calling it socialism “closes the door to the possibility of compromise.” Of course, any compromise with socialism by necessity results in accepting some socialism. So one should recognize that, by definition, “compromise” equals “socialism.” Ergo, closing the door to the possibility of compromise literally means closing the door the possibility of socialism. I’m all for that, Dr. President.

He says that calling it socialism also “coarsens our culture.” Unfortunately, he’s right to say that telling the truth often results in anger and expressions of hatred. These usually come from those who stand to lose benefits when socialism is threatened: government employees (note the riots in Greece right now), moochers, deadbeats, unions, and special interests of all sorts. It is a sad fact that by simply calling socialism “socialism” you immediately stir up the hornets of society and risk social coarseness. But every mama bird sometimes has to kick the little ones out of the nest—and that’s just downright coarse. “No,” is perhaps the coarsest answer possible, and yet sometimes the most necessary.

Socialism requires government coercion through threats of violence and penalty. Does government coercion not “coarsen our culture”? Are not extractions of wealth, confiscations of property, garnishing paychecks, and threats of government violence as coarse as it gets? When in the course of human events governments rule through coercion, people must coarsen themselves to the point of saying “No,” lest they long remain subjects of coercion. Coarseness against socialism helps preserve freedom.

Obama, of course, is coarsely (if subtly) admitting that calling socialism “socialism” may stifle his socialistic agenda. Calling socialism “socialism” prevents people from blindly swallowing socialistic propaganda (or as he puts it, “prevents learning”). It also ends the prospects of “compromise,” which means a stop to the advance of socialism. It likewise makes us less tolerant of socialistic schemes and schemers, which to Obama is just too coarse.

He spins more when he gives recommendations: stop listening to only one side. Today’s cable channels and internet narrow-casting had led to the development of one-sidedness in news consumers. So, people should make a point to read posts from the other side. “If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website.”

And where, exactly, does B.O. think Beck and Rush get their material? How often are they heard reading directly from the left’s own words?

And why did today’s narrowcasting arise to begin with? Because the mainstream public only had one side to listen to for decades. Now conservatives are blowing away the network competition because they can finally get their voices heard without depending on major networks. “Stop listening to the other side” really means “please quit ignoring the voices of socialism.”

Exactly how out of touch with Constitutional law is our Doctor of Laws? In the course of this one speech, the newly-lettered Barack Obama, LL.D., referred to our form of government as “democracy” or “democratic” sixteen times. This comes despite the fact that he even included the classic story told of Ben Franklin and our “republic”:

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Obama then immediately answered, “we have kept it.” What, we have kept our republic? Silly Joel, no. Obama continued, “[O]ur democracy has survived.” Of course, I don’t think this was mere ignorance; it takes an agenda for a bright man to turn that quickly away from obvious facts.

Democracy tends towards socialism and tyranny. The American founding fathers knew this and openly detested “democracy.” Their representative republic had much better safeguards against socialism and tyranny. For this reason, our socialists prefer to ignore “republic” and talk about “democracy.” (This is true at home, but not worldwide).

Obama urged the bright smiling kiddies, “how will you keep our democracy going?” According to B.O., this departure from Constitutional reasoning is “the question for your generation.”

He then, like a good socialist propagandist, elaborates three measures for ensuring that the graduates can extenuate “democracy.” In a word, these are: 1) expand socialism, 2) quit calling it “socialism,” and 3) become a socialist.

Each of these three is troublesome by themselves. For example, the prospect of expanding government smacks against public opinion right now. There are many rallies demanding a return to the Constitution, which means reducing government. To counter this, Obama quotes the limited-government founder Jefferson on the need to change laws once in a while: “with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.” Doctoring the laws, of course, is Obama’s specialty, so he takes this and runs.

This is where he begins praising those past presidents for their socialism. So we know what he’s thinking when he spins Jefferson’s phrase “institutions must advance.” He’s thinking “more socialism,” certainly not less.

In his extremely gifted way, Obama succeeds in making Jefferson sound like Obama: we need a living Constitution. Obama does not mean “keep the republic” as much as he means “keep changing it.” Change it into a socialist democracy—just don’t call it “socialist.”

This is why he so vehemently follows up with the second point: we need to tone down the rhetoric! Don’t say “socialism.” We leftists will even stop using the phrase “right-wing nut,” if you will please stop saying “socialism”! Of course the problems inherent in “socialism” are structural—that is, they pertain to socialism itself. The problem with “right-wing nuts” is that they’re nuts, and these problems pertain to a few people, not conservatism itself. So, Obama is asking us to legitimize leftism in general while the left must only stop using abusive pejoratives that don’t apply generally anyway. Sorry, not a fair compromise in my book.

Taken together Obama’s three points are even more egregious. Since for the first point he praises every socialistic advance of government in American history, the second point would obviously require one to lie. This is a small thing for socialist politicians, I understand, but a very high offense on the list for conservative Christians—in fact, right next to the transgression of socialism itself (“thou shalt not lie” comes immediately after “thou shalt not steal,” for those who follow the list). Worse yet, the third point would make one a complicit offender on both points.

Of course, we know who the real liars and thieves are. On his third point of “participation” in government, our Doctor of Laws lectures: “when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down.” What exactly does he think has caused conservatives to grow so vocal for the past year and a half? Did it not begin with the $700 billion TARP bailout under Bush, when our representatives in Congress completely ignored the voice of their constituents and approved it? Was it not the failure of Obama himself to listen to the great public outcry against Obamacare? The problem is not a failure to make our voices heard, it is a failure of representatives to represent faithfully.

Obama has the sheer arrogance to tell us, “Write letters, or make phone calls on behalf of an issue you care about.” Besides the fact that we flooded Congress and jammed phone lines for months over the issues just mentioned, Obama himself began this very speech mentioning how every night he reads a few of the thousands of letters the White House receives every day. This means two things: 1) people have been writing letters all along, and 2) if you write a letter to Obama, you have a 1-in-1000 chance of him reading it.

Forgive me, for I am failing to see where the people have failed in making their voices heard. This is not a voice problem, but a hearing problem.

Nevertheless, Obama quoted JFK in calling students to “contribute part of your life to this country.” We can only assume that Obama had his plans for compulsory national youth service in the back of his mind, but he declined to get specific. Besides, even if he had, I suspect that calling his dream for compulsory national youth service “socialism” would indeed coarsen our culture in a way that conscripting children for government purposes does not.

Not to end on a soft note, Obama reminded us, just to be sure, how individual liberty and freedom do not define our not-to-be-called-“socialist” socialist nation. Rather, it’s our ability to work together to achieve common goals that makes us distinctly American: “That is what makes us American – our ability at the end of the day to look past all of our differences and all of our disagreements and still forge a common future.”

And what might this forged common future hold? He has told us in his three points: 1) expand socialism, 2) lie about socialism, 3) give our lives to socialism. Obama is right about one thing here: we will definitely have to “forge” it to call his vision “America,” for it certainly ain’t the real thing.

It doesn’t take a Doctorate in Laws to figure out that. It takes one slick lawyer to deny it.

As for me, I intend to call Obama’s forgery “socialism.” That will keep me busy until I can “participate” in voting a socialist out of office.

Print Friendly


About the Author

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Joel McDurmon, Ph.D. in Theology from Pretoria University, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored seven books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision's staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.



16 Responses to Obama to students: Don’t call our socialism “socialism”!

  1. jim says:

    Wow. Typical fact-bending BS. If you are reading anything on this site the chances are that you being misled. It’s amazing how people can just take anything at face value like this. Maybe go read a book about what socialism is before you run around crying it out.

  2. warren says:

    Socialism = a bogeyman of sorts for right-wingers in the USA.

    Your article does very little to help me understand how Obama is saying anything other than that he understands exactly how inextricably woven into the fabric of America is this fear of "socialism".

    As a Canadian christian, I find the mix of American republican political ideology with what claims to be some kind of "biblical religion", most repugnant and unchristian, when it seems more concerned with the defense of some point of one's personal rights granted by the American constitution, than with the mission and goals of Christianity.

    It seems Jesus died on the cross to make it safe for someone to start up America. Once we have america, and businessmen can be allowed to drink their tea without paying taxes to the king, what further need have we of a Saviour?

    I do feel sorry for y'all, since you didn't vote for this bozo, and now he runs your country. But honestly, I feel sorry for him, too.

    W

  3. Max says:

    I think many Christians we are imputing more than there is in all this “Obama the socialist” cry. I just have two questions/comments:

    1. Isn’t it biblical for the rich/well off to share with the genuinely poor? Cant the government, in God’s economy of common grace, be the vehicle for such relief?

    2. Paying tax is very biblical and we confuse the original TEA party with the current movement. The two are different.

    3. There are times that i fear that we take what should truly be american political position to be biblical positions. Let us be aware.

    • Louise says:

      Re: #1, the government shouldn't force the rich to share with the genuinely poor. It should be the rich's choice to share with the genuinely poor by way of charity donations (in God's economy of common grace).

  4. R. McKnight says:

    Yep! It is really communism! Socialism is too tame! While in prayer over all this I actually heard God laughing at the schemes of man! America needs an awakening to God and His love! John 3:16.
    Guess Who wins after it is all said and done.
    Don't fret my Christian Brothers and sisters.
    Matthew 6. 2 Chron. 7:14.
    PRAY! But dont forget to vote in November!

  5. Guest says:

    Is this biblical prophesy being fulfilled? By not standing firmly with Israel has God lifted His protection from our once great country based on Judeo-Christian principles?

    If this is indeed prophesy coming to pass, the only way to restore our country to values and principles is to turn back to God and beg His forgiveness for how we have turned from Him and as a country pushed Him from the very land He entrusted to us. If this is not prophecy being fulfilled, we have some hope of turning things around but, we really have our work cut out for us. We can do it. Always remember strength through peace and stand up for truth. Do not get caught up in the games but rise above them.

    With God on our side we can do all things. We just need to make sure we are on His side and always be honest.

    Every one of us much reach at least two people with the truth. Study history. There are great numbers of people out there that have no real understanding of why they vote for whom. It is time to educate them.

    Let's restore our once great country that so many of our forefathers died to make free.

  6. Elaine says:

    Excellent commentary on Obama’s hope of further indoctrinating the “educated” youth from the Democrat-controlled state of Michigan where they are sure to have excellent job opportunities-in government employment.

    The truth is always the truth whether Obama accepts it or not. Calling things as they are is always the best policy and of course his “transformation” of America meant destroying our democratic republic and making it into the European welfare state he so longs for.

  7. Saved by Grace says:

    All I can say or add is I am so thankful that Jesus Christ is the center of my life. Obama and all his progressive friends have betrayed our country because they are not of our country. It is impossible to be loyal and have nationalism when you do not believe in the constitution yourself and therefor can not be a true leader. Every one needs to come out and vote in the upcoming elections and remove the SOCIALIST.

  8. It is horrifying that the leader of the free world could tell students that socialism is not socialism. But what can we expect from someone who is as anti-American as he is? We the people need to educate ourselves and others about the true meaning of socialism, communism, fascism and tyranny and take a stand against them. Otherwise we will have other nations teaching us these lessons. http://www.freedomspitchfork.blogspot.com

  9. Dave Tucker says:

    Talk to individuals one on one, let them know you in fact are willing to fight for our Country and culture. Point out to them the shortcomings of Obama. State facts, not screaming slurs etc… Be prepared to defend your position. As indicated in the recent news, let your fellow citizens know that the Citizens of These United States have come to realize that President Obama is not what our country needs. Socialism is not the change you are looking for. If you want socialism, go to Greece or several other countries that are struggling to survive.

  10. Stas says:

    Obama is socialistic monster decked in sheep's skin.
    He is at the bottom of socialistic movemnet of 1914 when Lenin, Gorky, Karl Marx, Engels started to kill the humanity with the atheistic movement.
    He is an impostor; he is muslim jihadeist, he definetly anty christian.
    The present day Russia does not want that type of social structure. They know better what communist did; they know how the people were living in goolags, concentraion camps, deportations, exterminations and starvaitions.
    Should we "The people of US take this type of treatment?"

  11. Christopher Suleske says:

    I've considered myself a libertarian for the better part of 15 years, since my conversion from liberalism and, prior to that, mush. And as read as I have been, I was absolutely flummoxed when I first read the 10 planks a year ago. Initially, I thought it some commentary, not part of the original screed. And yet, there it was. Joel is correct – this has been a long time brewing and he properly cites the initial and continued challengers to the notion and fact of the republic (Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, and later Wilson, et al.). I'm highly pessimistic that real change can occur, short of a massive conflagration. And I so don't want that for my kids. However, I am heartened to be a Virginian, given the actions of our legislature and executive. My university (VCU) is raising tuition nearly 20% next year and though this is extreme, at least it is responsible. I commend them for this. I think there will be pockets of reform – states wresting control. However, the power of the overlords, particularly the unelected bureaucrats, is immense. The best stats I've seen in the past many years came from that CNN poll of a few months back – the one that indicated people think the Federal gov't is an imminent threat to our freedoms. That blew me away! Still, I doubt anyone but responsible people (read: few) will support the truly draconian (read: not what wimpy leftists claim) cuts needed. Cut the purse strings and the power evaporates. Yet, there is a "will to believe" among most – that hope-n-change is possible among those in power, that electing constitutional radicals will imperil the US.

    My great hope is that whomever leads the opposition come the fall and beyond can be a clear voice of republicanism and constitutionalism – explain to an largely ignorant people that this is not what the founders had in mind, rather it is specifically what they intended to avoid – to vaunt these learned men and women as wise. Their ideas were and remain simple, while those of socialism are exceedingly complex and run counter to what people know in their sinews is illogical and runs counter to human nature.

    There is this tremendous obstacle summarized as the belief that the state can do better than what can be done at the personal, familial, and local levels.

    Where are the great communicators of conservatism? I want to see a cadre of leaders who support one another and eloquently explain what it is to be American, to take away from the authoritarians on the left AND the right the terminology and history they have misappropriated from traditionalists.

    It is cited to Ghandi the quote: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Ideologically, I find this true, but without selfless leaders such as Ghandi, the final part – the follow through – will not succeed. I think a smiling combativeness will succeed.

    Take abortion, e.g. Take the relentless and stupid assertion that "people of good conscience can disagree." No, this is an attempt to legitimize a position, standing on the backs of those who actually are of good conscience. I'd like to hear a leader say "No, the problem is you are not of good conscience. Your conscience is seared. You are numbed to the reality of what you are enabling. Human beings are murdered for convenience. The very definition of conscience is 'the sense of the moral goodness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.' The only way you can sleep at night avers that you are not of good conscience."

    If people then choose to support those who challenge this assertion, then so be it. The truth is stated clearly and such is the best that one can do.

    Take back the terms and imbue them with their actual meaning. Take a dictionary if necessary and parse every phrase that is used ad nauseum. Challenge Americans to challenge those who purport to speak for Americans. Demand the free marketplace of ideas. Destroy the ills of bipartisanship and compromise. One cannot compromise with plutonium.

    Take the response to the state of the union address. Take each misappropriated phrase or fallacy and read the definitions. Ask if this squares with reality. How many examples? Start with 10 whoppers. Then end with a compelling vision using the same words factually.

    Successful leaders will need to both offer a compelling vision as well as expose the fallacies, mythology, and perils of socialism. Seems Reagan offered 2/3 of the prior and 1/3 of the latter. I think we're at the point that this ought be swapped.

    None of the "top tier leaders" among the opposition party is of this mold. The closest to the 2/3 is Ron Paul – but he does not, in my opinion, offer a compelling vision. I don't think he can. Romney? Strikes me as believing the state is an appropriate agent of change. Palin? Don't go there. Gingrich? Perform a brain dump into a more character-attractive leader and that would be my ideal.

    Actually, my ideal would be for Jesus to return and make this all moot.

  12. Wesley says:

    Joel, you continue to impress with your skill, knowledge and concise writing style. Thank you for keeping us informed! Godspeed!

  13. Runway Crochet says:

    Hey, while we're at it… let's NOT call "sin" – sin, either! Now really… just how stupid is that and calling "night" – day?!

  14. Cap Pooser says:

    . How does Obama,s plan differ from the Marxist axiom “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.? If it doesn’t differ, it is proper to say it is communistic. We are already conquered. All ten planks are present in our government today, as seen by the below comments to the manifesto.
    Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Property confiscation by EPA, Zoning and comprehensive planning restrictions, oppressive property taxes and eminent domain for public purposes instead of public uses for starters.)

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (The IRS, need one say more? Serfs in the feudal system had to pay only 25 percent to the lord of the manor)

    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (An immediate 55% death tax on all over 2 million dollars)

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (RICO, designed for criminals, used against peaceful protestors)

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve system, Fannie and Freddie)

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (FCC, ICC functions, DOT, FAA, Amtrak .auto bailouts , newspaper bailouts)

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Auto bailouts, comprehensive planning in every State , farm subsidies ,AIG bailout)

    8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Peace Corps, paid volunteers, two family tax rates, domestic volunteers, comprehensive planning at every level for land use.)

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.( School to work programs, combining city and county governments.)

    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc. (This is foundational to the communist plan. Note the unconstitutional Department of Education, standardized testing, no child left behind, and other collective programs.

    America has a choice : God’s Law, or chaos. There is no neutral ground.

    Lucius B. “Cap” Pooser, Major, USAF, (Ret.)

    2619 Hwy 73
    Marianna, FKL 32448

  15. Cap Pooser says:

    . How does Obama,s plan differ from the Marxist axiom “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.? If it doesn’t differ, it is proper to say it is communistic. We are already conquered. All ten planks are present in our government today, as seen by the below comments to the manifesto.
    Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Property confiscation by EPA, Zoning and comprehensive planning restrictions, oppressive property taxes and eminent domain for public purposes instead of public uses for starters.)

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (The IRS, need one say more? Serfs in the feudal system had to pay only 25 percent to the lord of the manor)

    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. (An immediate 55% death tax on all over 2 million dollars)

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (RICO, designed for criminals, used against peaceful protestors)

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve system, Fannie and Freddie)

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (FCC, ICC functions, DOT, FAA, Amtrak .auto bailouts , newspaper bailouts)

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Auto bailouts, comprehensive planning in every State , farm subsidies ,AIG bailout)

    8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Peace Corps, paid volunteers, two family tax rates, domestic volunteers, comprehensive planning at every level for land use.)

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.( School to work programs, combining city and county governments.)

    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc. (This is foundational to the communist plan. Note the unconstitutional Department of Education, standardized testing, no child left behind, and other collective programs.

    America has a choice : God’s Law, or chaos. There is no neutral ground.

    Lucius B. “Cap” Pooser, Major, USAF, (Ret.)

    2619 Hwy 73
    Marianna, FKL 32448

Back to Top ↑

electronic-white
tail-ref