Obama Is A Socialist

Bill O'Reilly can't bring himself to admit that Obama is a socialist. To him the only thing that would make Obama a full fledged socialist is if he gave up his own land. It is possible he might consider Obama a socialist after he took our land, but a socialist isn't necessarily someone who succeeds at socialism. It is someone who believes in the premise of socialism. If that same person demonstrates this believe by actions and laws he tries to pass then that would make the man a socialist. After all a socialist is one who believes and adheres to the theory of socialism.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

According to the dictionary these are the things that define socialism. Now the question of whether or not Obama believes in these things or even most of these things is what needs to be determined. In the first definition we see that socialism involves a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Obama is certainly advocating this and even passing laws that would bring it about.

Obama's declaration that he believes in the redistibution of wealth and his actions to try to do just that through various programs and taxes shows this to be the case.

Bill O'Reilly seems to think that if he hasn't succeeded or if he lacs even one of the definitons of socialism that means he is not a socialist. It is interesting that for a man who says he believes in the no spin zone that he can't seem to resist the spin himself. When asked what it would take to make Obama a socialist in his mind O'Reilly responds that he doesn't believe in giving up his own house,

I believe Obama views socialism from its purest form and not from what it turns out to be. But then by this definition no one in the world is a socialist or a communist.

When you have a leader that openly advocates the redistribution of wealth isn't this advocating that we have all things in common and that it be forced if necessary for the good of the community?

I believe the problem is that O'Reilly think there is some extreme or black and white difference between progressives, democrats and socialists. I don't think there's all that much difference at all and all they are doing is splitting hairs. This is rather like saying one church isn't Christian because they believe in baptism by dunking while another is because they believe in sprinkling. They ignore the big thing of what really makes you a christian and argue over something that is no real issue at all regarding that particular belief system.

Now I know there are baptists and the like that will argue quite strenuously that that particular issue is essential to Christianity, but I don't think they could support it from the bible or everyone would believe it. What matters are the core beliefs.

I don't know why so many people are afraid to admit if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck!