In the good ole days of the republic, during the 19th century, it was a cardinal principle of American politics that the man did not seek the office; instead, the office sought the man. This was especially true in presidential elections when candidates never took to the stump, especially if one held an office and was seeking a second term. That’s not to say that they were not involved, just not openly and actively involved.
Today it seems we have come full circle. Rather than concentrate on his work as president, like say, attending all of his intelligence briefings so he can know what’s going on in hotspots like Libya, President Obama has spent the better part of this year doing nothing but campaigning. Continue reading
In last week’s column, I posed the question of whether Barack Obama was a socialist or not, given the current definition of the ideology. I think the evidence is clear that he is.
Obama likes to boast that we, as a nation, have learned from our history. But, as he seeks to implement more socialism, have we really learned anything?
In the academic world it is common to hear defenses of the failures of socialism, most notably the oft-repeated statement that “true socialism has never been tried.” But alas, my dear friends, it has. As a matter of fact, it has been tried right here in America, during our earliest years, and it is being tried right now. Continue reading
Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many on the right say yes; most on the left say no. It is a major question that has pervaded our politics for the last four years with no definitive answer either one way or the other. But I think the answer is obvious, if one will only look objectively at the clear signs.
First of all, how do you define socialism? The historical definition is a simple one: government ownership of the means of production and the central economic planning that makes such an arrangement possible. Yet in the modern era, it has undergone a necessary re-evaluation.
In 1976, Nobel Prize-winning economist F. A. Hayek, in an updated version of his influential book The Road to Serfdom, re-defined it for contemporary times: “Socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.” Continue reading
On the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001, the United States was again the victim of terrorism, as attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, led by Al Qaeda, resulted to the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, including two former Navy Seals. The upheaval then spread across the region and into Asia.
What has been our response? To lie, grovel, and apologize, a reply led by President Obama, a graduate of the Neville Chamberlain School of Foreign Policy.
This has happened once before, under the presidency of James Earl Carter, another graduate, when in 1979 extremists in Tehran took control of the US embassy and held Americans hostage for more than 400 days. Carter showed himself to be impotent. So has Obama. Continue reading
A recurring theme throughout this campaign season has been the distribution of the nation’s wealth, stirred by President Obama and the Occupy movement. A new phrase has entered the American political lexicon: the 99 percent versus 1 percent.
Mitt Romney stirred up the political waters recently with remarks about wealth distribution and government dependency.
“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he told supporters at a private fundraiser. “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. [They believe] that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
Though what he spoke was truth, the Mainstream Media went wild. At the same time, a 1998 tape was released of then-state senator Obama speaking in favor of re-distributing wealth. Yet the media just yawned. Continue reading