text:
Glenwood sophomore Macey Tucker had pitched five innings of near flawless softball. She and the Gators led Macon-East 1-0 going into the sixth in the first game of the AISA AAA softball state tournament's final day.
But sixth-inning mistakes undid the Gators.
"We loaded the bases with two errors, botched bunt coverage, and a run-down breakdown at third," Glenwood coach Dusty Perdue said. "You make one mistake, and you pay for it."
That one big mistake landed 10 feet behind the fence for a grand slam. Macon-East won the first game 4-1, sending Glenwood to the losers bracket.
"That first game is what did us in," Perdue said.
Glenwood then played Kingwood, a team it had beat Friday 8-1 in the winners bracket, in an elimination game.
Whitley Pope, who finished Saturday's first game against Macon-East, started against Kingwood. The Gators trailed 3-0 going into the fifth before scoring five runs. Pope, Bailey Pelkey, and Havilen Hunter started the fifth with three straight singles. Kailey Riley singled home Pope and Pelkey. Also in the inning, catcher Cailah Niles doubled home a run and first baseman Allie Kelley had a sac fly RBI.
Kingwood, led by pitcher Madeline Lee, who was also 4-4 with a two-run home run, tied the game 5-5 in the sixth.
The two teams remained tied through seven. In the top of the eighth, Kelley doubled home Niles, who started the inning on second as part of high school softball international tiebreaker rule. Pope then scored Kelley on an RBI single and Glenwood retired the side in the home half of the eighth for a 7-5 win.
"I'm proud of the way we fought back and executed in the last couple innings," Perdue said.
Then it was a rematch with Macon-East, whom Glenwood had to beat twice to claim its fourth-straight state title. The game was Glenwood's third of the day -- all on the same field, all back-to-back, all in the cloying Alabama humidity.
Glenwood ace Tucker started strong on the mound, shutting out Macon-East for two innings. But the dam broke in the third, with Macon-East scoring eight runs.
"Macey just ran out of gas," Perdue said. "The sun poked its head out in that second game, and we sweated it out."
Macon-East won the game -- and the AISA AAA state championship -- 11-0 in five innings.
"The better team won today," Perdue said. "I don't think anyone would disagree when I say we were one pitcher away from being where we wanted to be. But Coach (Glynn) Lott is a good friend, and I'm proud for him and his team."
First baseman Allie Kelley, also one of Glenwood's two top pitchers along with Tucker, just recently returned from shoulder surgery. She, along with all but one starter, returns for the Gators next season.
"Maybe that will leave a bad taste in our mouth for next year; make them work harder," Perdue said. "Macon-East only has one senior leaving as well. It could be us and them for the next couple years."
Tucker, shortstop Megan Lavender and Niles were named to the all-tournament team.


text:
Paul Roderick Gregory, Contributor
I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective
Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to "socialism." It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.
Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: "Is Obama a socialist?" Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.
As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.
By "socialist," I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany's Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain's socialist-workers party?
By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.
The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx's death in 1883, Europe's Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks' call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama's Democrat Party.
Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state.
The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the "social state," despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.
The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the "social welfare."
The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama's statements and legislative initiatives:
PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society's great achievements.
Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
You write like a monkey throwing feces.
Pr. Greogory,
You asked "Is President Obama Truly a Socialist?"
A socialist is someone who advocates for socialism (not as you rightly note, social services under capitalism). To answer the question one must ask what is socialism and capitalism.
I think that the answer is pretty simple: Capitalism is the economic system of using private property to produce commodities for exchange and private profit. It can exist under tyrannies or democracies and governments that service a capitalist economy may provide a broad range of social services or very few. You are correct that "Socialism" is often thought of governments that provide a wide range and very generous social services but this is not the case. Sweden for example while it does indeed have a very strong and integrated network of social services, is still an economy based on private property. NAZI Germany was a violent and oppressive government but it too was capitalist because its economy was likewise based on private property.
The Soviet Union is the more correct example of socialism as there private property was eliminated. Marx, Engels, Lenin and other socialists were very clear on the central role of private property as the defining characteristic of capitalism and socialism, the former is based on private property and the latter based on its elimination.
The European socialist parties do not advocate for the elimination of private property. They advocate for capitalism with extensive social services and limits upon what capitalists can and cannot do. Mr. Obama does not advocate for for the elimination of private private property so he is not a socialist.
Conservatives do not do themselves any favors labeling everyone they do like "socialists". The ordinary American has largely come to think of "socialism" as "A government that helps people" and "capitalism" is "A government that does not help people", which is fundamentally incorrect but the inevitable result the conservative attack upon any who advocates for the government helping the ordinary citizen being labeled a "socialist".
During that last years of the Bush Administration when the government injected hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue Wall Street but made no effort to assist millions of Americans who where losing the jobs and homes, the popular expression was "Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor".
So at the end of the day, you are playing the same game that you criticize in the beginning of your blog.
Pr. Gregory,
The Socialists own definition of themselves (Lenin, Stalin, &c people who actually put socialism into existance) is that they are advocates of socialism and the elimination of private property. Mr. Obama does not fit their definition. You are actually making the case for "socialism" when you use your approach. People want the government to help them when they are in distress and if that is what they are told "socialism" is, then that is what they will want. This is intellectual laziness at the service of political convenience.
Hello David,
If Socialism comes about through the elimination of private property, then what is Communism?
Nazi Germany was a capitalist state? Well, Nazi means National Socialist Party, not National Capitalist Party. And the Nazis had no regard for private property as one can plainly see from their mass confiscations of it before and during the war.
Still on the ignore the evidence that contravenes your idiotic doctrines and accept the evidence that supports them trip. You never change.
You really should give me some of the stuff that you seem to smoke regularly.
I think you might have missed a critical part of P R Gregory's article. Read the part after Pew Research finds…
Please stop using politcal theory labels incorrectly that you clearly have limited understanding of in the first place.
It is intellectually embarrassing.
You are both and confusing socialism with communism and social democracy, which is absurd and shockingly lazy journalism. Pick up a book on political theory, even a basic one, before you cause america's cultural awareness of political terms to descend even further.
I don't know what level of education you've had, but to suggest the Nazi's were on the extreme left of the political spectrum because of their name, implies a lack of the most basic historical and political facts.
To go further and mention repossession of private property as evidence, well, it's difficult to know where to begin to correct you.
Perhaps just start with Wikipedia.
You oversimplify. Rather than pure socialism which eliminates private ownership as some here have pointed out, and unbridled, unregulated capitalism which I think we have seen only works for a select few, there must be something in between the two extremes….and yes. In my opinion both of those are extreme.
Right now we do not have either one, although regulations have been weakened since the Reagan administration. Certain political interests would further weaken these constraints, and if that happens then yes we are definitely in trouble as you say….but not all of us.
I think the German Nazi state was a form of fascism.
We are INDEED in trouble. The Statists through their control of the State Media are defining everything they intend to do as "helping people". Remember what Reagan said: The most scary words are "We are from the government and we are here to help you." Any government powerful enough to do everything for us has reduced us to powerless serfs.
We *should* have a federal government of enumerated powers. There are 18 of them in the Federal Constitution. Any powers not enumerated and designated as belonging to the Federal Government belong either to the States or to the Individual.
We are indeed in great peril. The danger is Socialism and Statism, or State-Capitalism (à la Mussolini and Hitler), and we have all part of the responsibility for building this prison we live in.
It was *state-capitalism*. The State gave to one or more firms (a "cartel") a monopolistic position in an industry. They made profits and then these were harvested by the Fascist/Nazi government to fund its party. This is what we now see as the US government buys up industries (GM, AIG, SOLYNDRA and many others) that are then found to be very generous contributors to the DNC. We are in deep peril.
Agreed for the most part….more likely with the likes of Obama and his ilk, we end up on the other side of the political spectrum (socialists or communists), the left side where he dwells… rather than on the extreme left side with the fascists as you suggest. Either end….we get it in the end…double entendre intended.
You say we're in trouble, I say we're on the right track. Its a difference of opinion. But calling the center-right "democrat" President a socialist is plainly ridiculous. Hopefully we'll get a shot at an actual socialist party in my lifetime. As a Communist in the traditional sense I'd much rather see socialist policies, because THEY WORK, versus the untested mythology of laize faire economics that you free market types push on the rest of society. Americans don't want to get rid of the things government does for them, and anyone who claims that hasn't actually looked at how popular things like Medicare and Social Security are. Americans aren't market fundamentalists, they're closer to european socialists, they just don't have a party that represents them, so they go with the 2 right wing parties currently running the show. Its sad, it will have to change, it will change, and you fools will get to whine as we actually fix things.
Thank you for your post.
I've always looked at the Soviet Union as a Communist State, primarily because they took away private property. Same for China and N Korea. Socialists don't advocate taking away private property… just exercising so much control over the individual and private property, it amounts to pretty much the same thing as a take away. Seems to me there are shades of Socialism. In other words, one can be more, or less socialistic. Obama is a strong step in the direction of socialism. America has had a socialist strain since Wilson and even more so after FD Roosevelt. But our current President is taking it to another level.
The problem with ANY type of socialism is that it requires that part of the citizens are FORCED to work for the benefit of the other half. The reason people go into business is to make a profit and succeed. When these people begin to resent the coercion of the state to take the fruit of their labor and distribute it, then the motivation and desire to go into business and create jobs will go away. Therefore, there will be fewer (if any) jobs available for people and no tax revenue to pay for the socialist programs. In other words, if people feel that there is no real satisfaction or payoff for their efforts, other than to support other citizens, then their motivation to go into business will all put disappear. I for one, so not want the government forcing me to support the whole country with my efforts and labor.
Obama or America. You choose. I want my life back, I want America.
Explain to me how Ronald Regan taxed the wealthy at 50% and he is considered a Republican hero and Obama wants to bring it back to a level lower than that and he is labeled a "socialist" that wants to redistribute wealth? By your criteria Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Clinton and even Ronald Reagan would be classified as a socialist too. Why singe out Obama?
My guess is that he is a corporatist.
Jon D Man 2
"Obama or America. You choose. I want my life back, I want America."
You rightists always make me laugh. Bush spent over eight years destroying the economy and not a peep from the Right. Obama gets elected and we've had to endure four years of "Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a Socialist, Obama is destroying the economy, Obama is destroying health care, Obama is undoing Bill Clinton's welfare reforms, Obama the Kenyan…
So, what EXACTLY is CAPITALISM? No government AT ALL?
Good lord…you might as well say, "Socialists consider themselves bilaterally symmetrical mammals with binocular vision, ten fingers, and ten toes. So does our president!"
Socialism involves the social ownership and management of the economy and the means of production.
Why am I telling you this? This is junior high level social studies. You're engaging in ridiculous intellectual dishonesty that is beneath you.
davidelosangelos, At the end so said Bush bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry and left millions of American who were losing their jobs. Who do you think employed millions of American who were losing their jobs?? Large corporations (GM, Wallstreet companies, etc.) We saved millions of jobs with the bailout for American workers. You must be stupid or something.
"The point of my piece was to use the socialists' own definition of themselves to determine whether Obama is a socialist." Then you failed miserably and cannot even understand that Socialism is not a political system, like Communism but an economic system. Forbes needs to find contributers who at least know what they are talking about and who don't display the extreme cognitive dissonance and sheer ignorance that you do.
Well, in that case you failed. Miserably. As a socialist, I, nor any of my peers have ever described themselves that way. Again, you conflate "socialist" with "social democrat". Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. You claim to have done a lot of research into socialism, but I sincerely doubt this. Do you even know who Mikhail Bakunin is? I really should give you a reading list.
*sigh* National Socialism is a misnomer. They never were, nor ever claimed to be socialist. You also seem to conveniently ignore the "nationalist" part. They merely called themselves National Socialism as a sneaky way to appeal to both the left and the right. They wanted to appeal to the right through the use of the world "nationalist", and the left through their appropriation of the word "socialist". They appropriated the word much like they appropriated the swastika and the writings of Nietzsche. Even basic research can prove this.
You also don't understand the socialist definition of "private property". It doesn't mean your bloody CD collection. It means private ownership of the means of production – Things that can produce capital, basically – Factories, industrial machines etc.
Wrong. I'm a socialist (an anarcho-syndicalist, to be exact) – and I believe, to paraphrase the brillian Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that private property is theft.
Mr Gregory, We ARE in trouble! There is no way Obama could have been elected if this were not the case, other than fraud! My husband keeps insisting he still would have won had there not been fraud, but I am not convinced.
We live in a mixed economy (private ownership as well as central planning by the government). We waved bye-bye to true capitalism a long time ago. We have both free enterprise and some of the aspects of socialism. But since the rich and powerful have the most access to government, guess what happens whenever policy is made regardless of intentions…Call it whatever you want, but Bush and Obama are both statists. Some of us would rather not continue to head down that road.
In this case (the Nazis vs. the communists) its less about left vs. right and more about the fact that they are both totalitarian regimes.
Your Diety, Obama himself, the Times explained, has been "longingly" telling his inner circle that what he'd really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie "Bulworth," did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.
In recent weeks, the mainstream media has been heavily covering the wealth of the Republican candidates. In the interest of balance, here is an article showing the net worth of President Obama:
As you can see, he is well entrenched in the one percent.
This is a great article, one of the best analysis on European political economy. It seems that every country seems to choose the socialist road for sometime.
After they lose freedom, hopefully new change will occur.
Need a good example of a free and rich country.
The USA is not going to be one if we choose the same pattern like the Europe.
Sweden, Norway, Canada. . .
If Obama is a socialist, how is he different from his recent predecessors? While your analysis may be true, it isn't helpful for voters unless you contrast how Obama differs in respect of his economic policies from other contemporary administrations.
Hello Mr. Gregory,
I have never seen you respond to the articles here before. Great to see some of your commentary on the commentary.
I never see the issue as a socialist, capitalist, or communist state. I merely see it as a government size issue. The bigger the government, the greater the threat to personal liberty.
Those who advocate for bigger government in the already overwhelming presence and dominance of government are those seek to limit personal liberties and free markets. Those who advocate for smaller governments are those who favour free markets and personal liberties.
Obama and Carter clearly fall among the limiters. Bush and Reagan are not so easy determine: lower taxes, but bigger government.
Clinton never expanded government, but never really cut taxes either.
How would you rate a Bush, Clinton, or a Reagan?
He is worse than a mere "socialist". Obama exhibits the traits of a third-world banana plantation dictator. He is a pathological liar, rides to Congress on the back of a patently forged birth certificate, and just signed the NDAA 2012. He is so anti-American he leaves me speechless.
More birther silliness. Really? Even Karl Rove runs screaming from the room when that bovine scatology rears its embarrassing head.
There's nothing like a delusional response to an intellectual debate of facts to make someone look foolish and uninformed. Educate yourself on the legal requirements for proving citizenship in Hawaii.
Oh..and you might go here too:
Pay special attend to the FACT that Obama's birth was reported in BOTH local newspapers back in 1961. Jeezus, I can't believe anyone still falls for this conspiracy nonsense. You've been abducted by aliens too, right?
Really Jerry, but you're still speaking. I guess living in your own reality gets to be crazy at times
love your comment and it's on point
Mr Gregory,
Sorry, but I'm not buying. Your argument is transparently flawed and borders on rhetorical nonsense. You appear to be purposely confusing socialist programs operating inside a capitalist free market system with socialist political ideology. They are very different things. To conclude that Obama is a socialist based on the evidence you present demands you to admit that a considerable number of past American Presidents, including both Democrats and Republicans, were also socialists. Try painting Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman as a socialist and see how far it gets you? How about Richard Nixon? Even better, how about the Founding Fathers? (Have you ever heard of An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen?)
In fact, Obama's so ideologically moderate that 30 years ago he would have passed for a Rockefeller Republican. If he was simply a genuine liberal he would have supported a single payer healthcare system or at least the public option. But being a good moderate, he did neither, preferring to instead increase regulation of the existing private system.
That's not exactly real socialism now is it?
So you're simply wrong. Your convoluted wrestling match with history and semantics depends on a misapplication of the term socialism, consequently your argument fails to convince.
Hello Evergreen,
The laws one enacts when reliant upon many others for support does not settle the question as to the laws one would enact had they no such reliance upon others. Your are simply confused by results and intent.
Obama is clearly a socialist. He is reliant upon the votes of others to see his desired legislation pass. So much of the legislation is compromised by his reliance upon the Congress and Senate. But the general trend is clear. Big government is in, and bigger government is the objective.
Moderate is Mr. Obama? The size of the US Government has never been larger in relative peace. The size of the government expenditures on an assortment of social programs and crony capitalist projects has never been greater. And military expenditure is clearly not the beneficiary.
You're simply wrong and it is your argument that fails to convince.
You "Obama=Socialist" is a tried right-wing Republican rant that was pulled up the flagpole over the last election and failed. I marvel how someone with 20 books and a chair in economics could be so over the cliff with your syllogostic fallacy. In simple terms, it follows:
1. All Socialists support welfare.
2. Barack Obama supports welfare.
3. Therefore Barack Obama is a Socialist.
But this fallacy has been going on over the last century. The Teddy Roosevelt's SOTU speech in 1907 had the words: "Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows." Back in the 2008 election, McCain used the "S" word in dealing with "spreading the wealth". So, that means Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist, obviously! http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2008/10/mccains_hero_more_socialist_than_obama.html
Of course, FDR was vehement in being called a Socialist by the Republicans:
And did you know that Carole Lombard was a "socialist" as well? She gladly paid a total of 85% of her salary in taxes, stating: ""Every cent anybody pays in tax is spent to benefit him. There's no better place to spend it. I enjoy this country and I really think I get my money's worth." She died for our country, but some of your colleagues will certainly find her as a suitable "socialist."
What about your European friends? Look at the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. What are some of the issues that they are concerned with? Defending workers when businesses cross borders, Putting an end to long hours at work, Clamping down on rogue employers, Safeguarding solidarity in our pension systems. Tackling climate change and creating sustainable jobs, Investing in young people, and you can go on the list. If these are the kinds of things that European socialists are today's priorities, what is your point? Is there something that any rational person could agree? The trouble with your reasoning is that you will gain and not lose many followers with your "European socialism" argument.
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament
In the other direction, using your same logic, today's Republican extremism can easily morph into very negative territory. Who prohibited Germans to have abortions during the late 1930's and early 1940's? Who allows Dickensian conditions to permit capitalism (it's officially called "Chinese with socialist characteristics") to go rampant against any rights against workers (see today's NY Times). I could continue and make a similar case that extremist Republican ideology, which almost universally is agreed as the most right-wing Republicanism in its history, morphs into fascism.
When you make cheap shots about the "class struggle" I suggest you learn a bit more about the derivation of the concept in Marxist philosophy. If you would do less with your pamphleteering and spend more time what a putative academic is supposed to do – looking at all sides of an issue – you will be able to put some light on the important issues of today.
One more thing. The full Pew polling results provides more secondary analysis of the data. You will find that the "Obama-Socialist" canard is clearly heavily from the side of self-designated Republicans and those over $75k, plus the older cohorts. Actually, the 18-29 group has a plurality of "pro-socialist" adherents over "pro-capitalists." If you use a lesser epithet such as "progressive" (which is what most people outside of the far Right) have overall a much greater number of adherents. In trying to make sense to this data, my own conclusion is that this kind of people who are already inclined to believe the "socialist" hue and cry are simply reinforcing their own stereotypes, but this argument is not going to win over many others.
All arguments for helping our fellow humans through political socialist policies fall apart in the face of the necessity of coerciveness (through income taxes) to achieve the goal. It is immoral to steal from one group of people to give to another group of people simply because a majority feels that it is good to do so. It is, after all, Marx who advocated to "take from those of ability to give to those of need." As Thatcher so succinctly points out, "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money." Unfortunately, even that is not true. It doesn't work. In the long run it exacerbates whatever problems it was intended to fix. Johnson' "War on Poverty" is a perfect example. It is just codependency on a macro scale. Observe the three points of the codependent triangle: victim, persecutor, rescurer (as defined in Melody Beattie's "Codependent No More" http://www.amazon.com/Codependent-No-More-ebook/dp/B002IPZDNO) Once the neurotic need to control others is exposed to the light of day, it is quite difficult to continue in the behavior unless one chooses not to think. And, alas, that is sadly what most people do–feel instead of think.
Choose2Think. Correct.
pahcker. The Pew research goes to show that the following quotation appears to be valid:
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
'Nuf said.
The author states (double-wink!)
"Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets"
To which I might reply,
No, only myopic ideological stooges attempt to pass off incredulous nonsense as impartial and thoughtful insight.
I know this article is old and its premises proved extraneous if not flat-out false time and time again but, surprise! Its still a "go-to" hypocritical, ad hominem attack adored by the right. I just haaad to say something! But alas, pahcker sums it up beautifully and cogently! So I decided to just say, nicely done sir….or madam.
Wouldn't want to be politically incorrect.
This is where pahcker and illogical mike make there mistake. 1. All Socialists support welfare. 2. Barack Obama supports welfare. 3. Therefore Barack Obama is a Socialist. Is in fact correct. I am not going to get hung up on the semantics of what the definition is but rather focus on the actions of this administration lead my Obama. But what I took from this article is that the contemporary socialist is = to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems as the "social welfare." Hence a welfare state. And Francis… we have been saying this since his first days of his first campaign.
This is why France, Germany and Spain were mentioned ~ which we all see how well that is going for them, and will also be our fate as long as we have deadheads like you two wanting to parse the shit out of the meanings (like all liberals) in order to deflect from the truth that whatever Obama is doing under whatever you want to label it, IS NOT GOOD AND WILL NOT WORK for anyone else but himself and his elite. What would you elitist intellectuals call it then? Go ahead, grasp at something you can explain away from it being most closely related to Socialism. I will enjoy the entertainment of your contortionist exercise. And if you use Democracy as your defense, then you have no idea what the hell that even is because if you did you would know that mob rule is no better than Socialism plus it is not even what is being practiced in our current governance. The truth? The reality of our governance can only be described plainly and simply as corruption. There is no functioning two party system, there is no honorable election process and ruling from the bench has in affect made the constitution obsolete.
Alex, deny the statistics on poverty and employment rates under every progressive president and specially this one, please – I love to watch stupidity in action. Obama has NOT grown the middle class – just the opposite. How can you say Obama is not cut from the socialist cloth when you can see Obama tripled the national debt over welfare programs and bailouts to manipulate private financial and manufacturing enterprises? Actually, Obama is worse than a Socialist, he is a corrupt Socialist who capitalizes on crisis after crisis for his private and political benefit. Much like every politician but what is astounding is that Obama has a combined personal and variety of political ideological tendencies of only types of governance that have failed and ruined other countries and will ruin ours. This is why it is so difficult to pigeon hole him into one political description.
And Kunndi – it is not a simple political spectrum line, not by a long shot. It has changed over time (thanks to the progressives) as well as our so called representatives doing their best to blurr the lines by their actions. We know what the definitions are, but when you add corruption to any faction their actions will not remain within that controlled definition and you have to admit; American politics has never been more indescribable or more corrupt since it's inception.
We will have to invent a totally new word to describe the actions of this president, but one adjective we can place on it right now is BIG GVT and what we can say it is not is a Republic because the only part to "Of the people, by the people and for the people" that applies anymore is the useful idiots, the non-productive majority realizes their vote gives themselves handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate that will provide them with the most benefits from the public treasury. So yes, when the burden of having a welfare state overwhelms the very system that support them is when you will open your freaking stupid eyes to understand any of what is truly happening.
So keep arguing over Dems vs Repubs, as if it matters. What you want to call it is meaningless because at the end of the day the word doesn't matter – just the actions. You either agree to big gvt making all your decisions or you don't. The bigger it gets, the less freedom you have. The more power it steals for itself, the less opportunity you have to succeed and the smaller the middle class becomes. These are facts you cannot deny.
Not all of us agree that the money is being spent well. Its not about hating Obama. He's an intelligent, charismatic, well-intentioned guy. The trouble is we already do take care of the disadvantaged. We have been for a long time. What more should we really be doing and why? This isn't even a D vs. R issue anymore since they both expand the government like crazy. Fascism and communism are more related than you realize…they both are all about state control. Some of us genuinely want the government out of the way both socially and economically. If we need to throw people a few bones to prevent them from starving to death, fine, I'm willing to do that, but don't act like people who contribute nothing to society are getting short-changed. Let me know when you have climate change and all of the other problems you speak of tackled. It'll make us both very rich. Sometimes pointing out obvious problems isn't enough…you have to actually come up with realistic, workable, long-term solutions. Aren't we still torturing people? Isn't the PATRIOT act in full effect? How's Guantanomo Bay doing? Are poor people any better off? At least prices are rising due to the quantitative easing. Call Barry whatever you want, I just seem him as another statist, like his predecessor. They are more similar in more ways than the blind ideolouges on either side seems to want to admit.
President Obama is not a socialist. If you were to contact the socialist parties none of them would consider him a socialist.
Uplifting the the middle class does not make one a socialist.
Neither does supporting taxing the rich at an equal percentage rate as the middle class. Theirs two tax systems in this country, you know it, I know it. Those who work for their wages, and those who invest.
Socialist campaign themes, is just another talking point from the propoganda machine.
Lets see. The republicans want:
To force a woman to have a child.
To force a woman to have an unneeded and unwanted medical procedure.
Not allow certain people to get married.
Demonize groups of people.
Allow police to stop and ask people for proof of citizenship.
Allow infinite detention of a US citizen without due process.
And the list goes on…. So what are republicans? Communists?
The Democrats want:
A woman to have the right to have sex irresponsibly, then force Republicans to pay her abortion or contraception. If you want to have sex and abortions, then pay for it yourself. Is it just to FORCE someone to pay for something that they violates their conscience and beliefs?
To make conservatives accept values that are contrary to their beliefs, such as gay marriage. And to allow people whom conservatives deem immoral to teach their children values.
Demonize certain groups of people like Christians, conservatives and Jews.
Do not believe in the rule of law and that laws apply to everyone. They believe that those who break the law such be a protected class, such as illegal immigrants.
Allow indefinite detention of US citizen without due process (Obama's executive order).
Believe that the rights of some citizens (capitalists) should be sacrificed so that others can have their "rights" to the property and money of the capitalists, thereby driving capitalists out of the country or out of business. They believe that making one class of citizens (rich)subservient to another (poor) by force results in "equality".
Believe that it is alright to violate freedom of speech if free speech expresses a different belief system or ideology.
And the list goes on….So what are Democrats? Communists? Tyrants?
Oh crap, bickering leftists are swarming this article.
I find it really funny that you seem to think that ONLY Democrats have sex freely and have abortions. I won't even comment on the rest of your nonsense because I refuse to waste my intelligence on someone who is just NOT worth it! I rather spend my time talking gaga goo-goo to a baby and I don't even have kids.
I realize your article was written a few months ago but I'm hoping it is not too late to comment. It is truly baffling to me how soon after his election one of the memes by the Republican Party is that Obama is a socialist. Some even say he is a communist and some, a fascist. So, it was good for me, a neophyte in economic theories to read your article. It raises some questions for me, though.
It seems that many of your arguments are about government regulations on corporations and about the government's role in trying to establish new industries, such as governmental policy that helped build the tech industry during Clinton's presidency. Your other argument is the welfare state is socialist and I guess that George W. Bush and all the Republicans who voted for the huge expansion of Medicare would have to be included in your definition, or am I missing something?
Perhaps you can also explain how Obamacare, modeled after Romneycare, whole principles were based in Republican thought during the Clinton years, are socialist? I hear that it is but I'm not understanding in large part because health care under Obamacare will continue to be corporate controlled; unlike a single payer option that would open Medicare to all, which I can understand would be socialistic.
I think it important to have a clear picture of what pure capitalism in the USA would be like and perhaps you can paint for us a picture of what that would look like across the land? I would also really enjoy your ideas, based in capitalism of how to resolve the huge disparities in wealth and the social Darwinism it leads to, or perhaps that is not a concern of capitalism?
1. Answer to your first question: You are not missing something and it is somewhat obliquely pointed out in the article, but completely clarified by the author himself in one of his own comments herein 3 months ago before your questions. You missed reading it apparently. He clearly states that the 2 Bushes and the Clinton terms in office are socialist leaning, and that Obama is the most leaning…leaning so much he has fallen over.
2. Right again. Romneycare and Obamacare are socialist. Unfortunately, socialist precepts and ideas and laws are an affliction of Republicans and Democrats inside and outside the DC beltway. You appear to have a political agenda in mind. You must be Democratic party supporter. Most of use here are conservative, not Republican as you seem to be trying to point out with your questions. We are all humans and have to take the good with the bad as compared to our political belief systems. It is quite a clear and bright line choice between Romney and Obama for true capitalist conservatives; romney without even a smidgeon of doubt, but we still have to live with his moderation. He will give the USA a good dose of what's right (correct) to perhaps plug up the gaping hole in the US Constitutional ship left by decades of Democrats and Republicans….actually a centuries worth, most notably Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Bush II and Obama…but no president really goes unscathed in this regard.
3. I cannot paint the picture here in this limited space and time. Hopefully our author will have the time and get paid again by Forbes to do so.
4. Conservatives and the lion's share of our founding fathers were strongly and deeply religious. We believe in and contribute handsomely to both church ministries to the poor and to organizations who help the poor, and directly help the poor in our actions with these groups. It is clearly not the job of the governemnt, but of We, THE PEOPLE.
If Communism is on the left end of the spectrum, and Capitalism is on the right end of the spectrum, then, Socialism is somewhere in the middle, no?
Obama is not asking for 70, 80, 90% tax rates – he's asking for a "LITTLE" more from the wealthy.
That is hardly on the Communist side of the spectrum, or even 'Socialist,' relative to other truly 'Socialist' countries out there.
A lot of fear mongering…
Yes Obama could be a socialist and prerequisites by nature . persistent in search will usually make a find of some sort. it may be only a straw , but don't look down on grasping it
There's nothing like self pity for thoroughly dissipating a man , when the nation indulges in that luxury it finds itself with a hand of a dictator somewhere near communal ism . wrongs and injustices come in at the door, and reasons flies out the window. its a solution which does not flatter the human race
It start with human equation [ know your people]
The question should really be: Growing up with Communist parents and Grand Parents, being sent to the Little Red School House by the Grand Parents, having a the mentor of known Communist of Frank Marshal-Davis, sitting in the pew of Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 25 Years…how is it possible that Barack Obama is anything BUT a Socialist.
Cross-commented from the later thread.
Really wasn't expecting to have to debunk this on Forbes…
First, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Then, please, tell me when:
1) Obama has advocated "social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises"
2) Obama has advocated that "goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital"
3) Obama has advocated "the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange" or "direct worker's control of the means of production"
These are all from the first few paragraphs. Because as far as I can tell, Obama's never advocated for any of these things, and in fact has advocated strenuously aganist them (nationalization of the banks or auto companies, for example).
I understand that you think his advocacy of the welfare state and transfer payments is socialism, but that's not how socialism is defined. That this puts him on the same page as many leftist parties in Europe is not relevant here, even if those parties call themselves Socialist. We are arguing a definition.
If you think the wikipedia article is incorrect in some way, as always, I urge you to edit it with the appropriate sources.
as far as you can tell – you didn't look very hard. Obama doesn't have to advocate nationalizing anything when in fact, he learned from the European Socialists and that was to practice a new form of socialism = to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems as the "social welfare." He does this with the FCC, the EPA, the DOJ.. purdy much everything is in his nationalistic hands when controlled by policies that produce welfare. Obamacare will and is intended to suffocate any other source of coverage – it just hasn't been 100% implemented to give you the hard proof you seem to need because you are playing the useful idiot role in this game.
And what's wrong with a adopting a more social democratic system like Denmark, Sweden, France etc. that help ensure more fairness, justice, dignified life, sustainable grown, less extremes and greater populace happiness?
We are a mixed economy and have been for nearly a century. While there has certainly been disagreements about degree. But most mainstream conservatives have accepted the concept of a modest safety net, not no safety net. Conservatives in power have supported public schools, state colleges, special education, etc. They have also supported government funded roads, rural electrification done by government. They have also bailed out companies and industries in trouble in fact, one of the largest bailout was during the Reagan Administration bailing out savings and loans. Rather than saying Obama is a socialist perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are all socialists.
God this guy has pissed away 50 years of an education. By this criteria Obama is a "socialist" but so is every elected Republican, save maybe Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann. Very few Republicans actually reject any of these socialist policies on principle, they reject only to a matter of degree. The last time I had checked the official line of the GOP it had room for things like a basic welfare state, and wasn't completely about wing-nut Austrian Economic Swinefuckery.
As for "treat[ing]" rogue nations with respect." Do you read the news? Tell that to the Arab Spring countries. Tell that to Pakistan when we assassinated Bin Laden. Tell that to Iran which is looking over their horizons to find THOUSANDS of troops mobilized near their borders. This is also true, to a lesser extent, to China.
You even pervert Locke and Smith into Tea Partiers. I suggest you reread " On the Prerogative of the Executive" if you think Locke was a negative rights fundamentalist. Likewise, some founding fathers, like Thomas Paine, were in favor of a basic welfare state.
You sound like a fool that is ready to pander to the "Socialist" GOP party machine by trying legitimize their buzzwords. Next time you write an article keep in mind you shouldn't waste the readers time.
I am truly amazed at how some commenters on this thread will contort themselves to such extremes in order to blow smoke up their own backsides with facts they pull out of that same backside. Facts are facts, opinions are just that and have little if any value.
"If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises."
Is this even English?? Who is this guy?
Couldn't you draw the same over reaching style hypothesis about Romney? Take for example: Is Romney pro the KKK?
Using your same 'update to the term based on current implementations of the philosophy' like those you cite in Europe: \"Not the old KKK but the new more mainstream one".
They are both for tougher immigration controls. They are both for relaxed gun control. They both believe American values are 'under attack'. Though they both agree on certain philosophical points, no one would ever dare to compare Romney to the KKK, and it would be crazy to do so. I believe this is the same stretched hypothesis as saying "Obama is Socialist".
The policies under Obama have been anything but truly Socialist, even as compared to more modern parties in Europe. That he believes in a very watered down version of nationalized medicine and that millionaires should pay the same tax rate they did under Reagan, does not qualify him to be labelled as such.
The term is being politicized. In these days of distraction associating Obama with "Socialism" gnaws at the base instinct of people too lazy to do the research to prove otherwise.
Couldn't you draw the same over reaching style hypothesis about Romney? Take for example: "Is Romney pro the KKK?"
Using your same 'update to the term based on current implementations of the philosophy' like those you cite in Europe: \"Not the old KKK but the new more mainstream one".
They are both for tougher immigration controls. They are both for relaxed gun control. They both believe American values are 'under attack'. Though they both agree on certain philosophical points, no one would ever dare to compare Romney to the KKK, and it would be crazy to do so. I believe this is the same stretched hypothesis as saying "Obama is Socialist".
The policies under Obama have been anything but truly Socialist, even as compared to more modern parties in Europe. That he believes in a very watered down version of nationalized medicine and that millionaires should pay the same tax rate they did under Reagan, does not qualify him to be labelled as such.
The term is being politicized. In these days of distraction associating Obama with "Socialism" gnaws at the base instinct of people too lazy to do the research to prove otherwise.
Couldn't you draw the same over reaching style hypothesis about Romney? Take for example: "Is Romney pro the KKK?"
Using your same 'update to the term based on current implementations of the philosophy' like those you cite in Europe: "Not the old KKK but the new more mainstream one".
They are both for tougher immigration controls. They are both for relaxed gun control. They both believe American values are 'under attack'. Though they both agree on certain philosophical points, no one would ever dare to compare Romney to the KKK, and it would be crazy to do so. I believe this is the same stretched hypothesis as saying "Obama is Socialist".
The policies under Obama have been anything but truly Socialist, even as compared to more modern parties in Europe. That he believes in a very watered down version of nationalized medicine and that millionaires should pay the same tax rate they did under Reagan, does not qualify him to be labelled as such.
The term is being politicized. In these days of distraction associating Obama with "Socialism" gnaws at the base instinct of people too lazy to do the research to prove otherwise.
I think this is what he is trying for… good for him!
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
— Albert Einstein,
I am beyond terrified of the thought that I may potentially wake up to Obama's America where everything that America has built is dead and gone, along with my basic rights.
This is an intellectually dis-honest article in my opinion. While I agree that there are similarities between Liberal Democrats and Socialist, to argue that they are interchangeable is simply not accurate. By your definition Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would meet some of your criteria. I can understand why conservatives are against the Liberal agenda, but confusing the public with this sort of article falls into the realm of propaganda. You can do better.
Socialism can be summed up as government ownership or control of the means of production. Obamacare is control of the means of producing healthcare. Controlling the student loan market, investing $91B in (his donor's) cleantech companies, are all clearly socialist policies by our government.
Worse, the inherent fallacies of socialism include (among many others) "support the losers, punish the successful". A clarifying example is his buying up the defunct crapulous car companies GM and Chrysler. There were a couple dozen other car companies competing for citizen's business, from tiny operations to Ford – but he chose which ones to save- the two that were so crappy that no one wanted their cars, and that were so poorly run that they were going out of business. Now small but excellent car companies are gone, and Ford has competitors that have ridiculous advantages, like the government is the largest buyers of cars in the US, and so gives GM an advantage by using their cars in its fleets, etc.
His administrations policies as implemented are socialist.
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."
— Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949[21]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
This is perhaps the stupidest article I've read in awhile, specifically the statement that Obama is a Robin Hood who wants to take from the winners and give to the losers. Firstly, it's flat out wrong. Secondly, making rich people pay their FAIR share is hardly taking from them. Any rich person with half a brain is paying very little in taxes after write-offs, so it's not as if they are even paying the same percentage as people who make less. Thirdly, to ascertain that people with less money are losers is bone-headed and ignorant. Teachers make less than CEOs. Does that make them losers? And if it does and everyone thought the same as you, would anyone EVER be a teacher? No, because the wouldn't want to be a loser.
Some people who make a lot of money think that they've cornered the market on cleverness, like no one else thought of the idea of doing something that's compensated well. It's akin to the Britney Spears types who think that flashing their boobs and selling their sex is clever. It's not that other girls haven't thought of it, they just have a soul and standards. I'm not vilifying all rich people, just the idiots who don't consider that not everyone is motivated strictly by money. Some people have souls and likes and dislikes and some people's likes are more financially rewarded than others. It doesn't make either more a winner or a loser. Let's not even talk about how some of the 'winners' are robber barons who've stolen their wealth off of others and now don't even want to pay their fair share, or the racial ramifications of America's history and how certain people have at least a 300 year lead on others. That's not winners and losers, that's criminals and victims. But leave that part out. It's idiotic to think that Obama is a socialist. America is inherently Capitalistic.
And the same folks who whine about welfare (as if that's the biggest problem plaguing America) don't mind that corporate welfare happens ALL THE TIME. Much bigger stakes, much bigger payouts. Not to mention bankruptcy. There are so many ways of gaming our system that it's disingenuous to pick out one while ignoring all the others. I'm embarassed to read something so stupid and slanted at such a highly respected magazine. For shame.
Well said PattyRice Harris. I however think that you simply cannot teach stupid. These people will continue to call President Obama a socialist because they simply do not understand the meaning of the word.
Interesting and non-biased
Socialist parties do indeed call for an end to poverty. Read the "Declaration of Principles" by the Socialist International, which most European Socialist parties belong to. Not only do they want to end poverty, they plan on doing it on a global scale, specifically by taking from the North and giving to the South. They're very open about this.
By your definition, sir, anything a social democratic state does is socialist. So if France builds a highway, its socialist. And if we build a highway, it is socialist. Thus the US and France are socialist brothers in arms. I guess France's Airbus company is socialist, as is our Boeing. Wait, companies? Privately owned by shareholders? How can that be in socialist countries?
Your agit prop doesnt scare us true patriots who understand the healthy Govt / Private industry nexus needed in a modern economy. you defend and old text book, written by old JP Morgan overlords who you do your bidding for.
Meanwhile, countries like Brazil and China have the biggest thriving capitalist markets and economies — and, especially in Brazil, social policies that have lifted 25% of the poor into the middle class to create new consumers and the next Steve Jobs. — oh yes, they have free and paid universities based on a rigorous testing and merit system what a concept
33 straight months of private sector job growth. 5.6 million jobs added. Auto industry back from brink. Stock market up 63%. If Obama is a Commie, he's the WORST Commie on record LOL
As an actual socialist, I feel Obama is ill-informed capitalist scum. The auther of this article seems to wrongly conflate "socialist" with "social democrat". Alas, another sad product of McCarthyism. Socialism is when the proletariat owns the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less (there's also the alternative Marxist meaning, where it's a sort of "stepping stone" to full communism, but as an ideology in and of itself, socialism is what i describe). Does this describe Obama's ideas at ALL? No, of course not.
Most Americans have no clue what socialism or communism is. Many, when asked, will tell me "it's when the government owns and controls everything". Wrong. Many forms of socialism and communism involve no government at all. The idea of Anarcho-Syndicalism absolutely blows their mind – When I bring up, say, Spain after the civil war, when Anarchism flourished in Catelonia etc., many stare blankly or flat out just say "no", refusing to admit they've been brainwashed into ignorance. As an Anarcho-Communist, it can be so very disheartening – absolutely soul crushing, at times – to know so many people are absolutely ignorant of my beliefs. McCarthyism absolutely maimed the intellectual discourse in your country (I'm Canadian, thank God) – I hate seeing so many of the proletariat class actively work against their own self interest under the name of Capitalism.
I am convinced that President Obama is transforming United States into a Socialist states and have written an article in Eurasia Review and the readers of Forbes may visit the following link to visit the article : www.eurasiareview.com/28012013-president-obamas-journey-from-united-states-of-america-to-united-states-of-socialist-america-oped/
There is a petition at Petitions.whitehouse.gov challenging the Obama to publicly address the accusation of a hidden socialist agenda. Needs 100,000 votes.
Will you add your name to mine on petition I created on We the People, on WhiteHouse.gov? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by February 28, 2013, the White House will review it and respond!
You can view and sign the petition here:
Here's some more information about this petition:
publicly address accusations of an underlying Socialist
We believe in the original writings of our founding fathers and the
thoughtful intent which was placed in each word of the constitution.
Challenge had been published as to the loyalty, you Mr. President, feel for
these words.
People emigrate from socialist countries to the United States to allow
themselves the freedoms which our constitution provides.
We challenge you to publicly address the accusations of your having an
underlying agenda towards a socialist government.
Do you even know what you are talking about ?!
Maybe you should stop writing this kind of articles.
What worries me is not that you even try to rationalize this question, what worries me is that you WRITE in FORBES and you are absolutely wrong in your concepts. Really, what kind of writting standards does this magazine requires?
I think that Obama is a Euorpean Socialist by definition, community organizer by profession. People that live in the cities have a different view of the world than those of us who live in the "rural" areas. We chose to live outside the cities, do not like to have "city" services provided to us or live stacked next to each other like sardines in a can. I have been involved in business for many years and do not like the take from the rich and give to the poor attitude that he has, I built that business! I do think that our health care needs a major overhaul but not as a socialized medicine program. The government has well shown they can not run most anything with out it becoming a hugh mess. Thank you for your article it was interesting to read.
He isn't just a socialist, he is an enemy of freedom.
Oh come off it! Since the 40′s our economy has been National Socialist more than anything. Grandfather Bush adopted it (but never use that stigmatized name) from the Nazis *because it works*. Underneath it all, the Reps or Dems is just a reflection of the way the population feels like acting. Reps are all for business at the cost of everything and Dems are less so and more about the little people. The Military-Industrial Complex wants people to think they have a choice. But we don't. Not Really.
To further clarify: The handling of the Economy and the handling of the Citizenry are separate issues and each are at different definition "mixes". I was addressing (as stated in my first comment) the *economy*. Whereas the Rep viewpoint wants to drive more Capitalism into the people (screw the people at the cost of business) but at the same time wants to maintain governmental support and protection for the military, banks and business (National Socialism). It seems that the hardline Reps would love us to revert back to the 1880′s; where monopolies were enabled by the government in the name of progress, but then business could and did then turn on (gouging railway users) the very people they were helped by the G'vmt to serve! There is no black and white in any complex issue but the powers that be would love for you to think that there is a demarcation between the ruling factions to keep us busy and distracted, aka fighting amongst ourselves If we ever got together and demanded real progress, instead of in-fighting, we would be a greater and better USA.
Obama himself, the Times explained, has been "longingly" telling his inner circle that what he'd really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie "Bulworth," did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.
The Socialist Myth of the Greedy Banker
The Socialist Myth of Economic Monopoly
Socialism is where President Obama and his fellow travelers on the left want to take America. To those who argue that President Obama is a statist not a socialist, my response is always the same: statism is to socialism what the acorn is to the oak.
An acorn is a huge understatement. The seed has already sprouted and the political economics system is closer to Communism than a Republic.
Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/how-do-you-define-socialism/#zyXaUdszQM3L35rp.99

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sublime with Rome Tickets
If you've been searching for great deals on Sublime with Rome tickets, GoTickets has a large selection on sale for the 2014 schedule. From premium tickets in the front row to cheap seats in your favorite section, "sold out" events, and last minute discounts, our website is the best place to buy tickets to Sublime with Rome online.
Sublime with Rome Tour Dates and Schedule
Thursday, 8:00 PM
Silver Spring, MD
Friday, 7:00 PM
Montclair, NJ
Saturday, 8:00 PM
Huntington, NY
Sunday, 7:30 PM
Wallingford, CT
Saturday, 7:00 PM
Lincoln, CA


text:
Social Studies
how does the power of judicial review affect the seperation of power in the Federal Goverment? Judicial review is part of the system of checks and balances. If each branch of government was able to do what they wanted when they wanted, we would be in more of a mess as a countr...
russian revolution
In 1923, who did Trotsky begin to oppose? What were some of teh consequences? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
russian revolution
What qualities was Leon Trostky known for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
to kill a mockingbird
how do the people of maycomb seal and oral contract? I belive they spit in thier palms and then "Shook on it" with a very enthusiastic clap as thier hands met, gripping tightly and shaking once. Please review the story to verivfy.
I read what it says on irony, but I still don't get it. Is "But in the days before we left, when there was so much confusion and mayhem, worse than a hog killing." irony? I don't see the irony in just that sentence -- just very descriptive comparison. Maybe, ...
What are the two South American countries with no known oil reserves? This site lists at least four South American countries with no known oil reserves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
What are two South American countries with no known oil reservers?
What country do the Galapogos islands belong to? This site has your answer. http://www.galapagos-islands.net/
world geography
Where are you from if you are a: a.carioca b.limeno c.porteno d.paceno d.paulistano All the "n's" have a tilda on them. Check out these sites. http://ipanema.com/rio/basics/e/people.htm (Broken Link Removed) (Broken Link Removed)
What is a topographic Map and what does it show you on it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_maps
Interesting Geometry Probem
I am bulding a sculpture out of rock and need help figuring out how much rock to buy... Here are the figures... 1 ton of 1.5" rock covers 107 sq. ft. My sculpture will be comprised of 24 layers of rock 2" thick. Each layer will be aproximatly 3ft. by 3ft. How many to...
Land use: What type of farming is suited to poorer soil, a short growing season, hillyland, and nearness to markets? The nation's largest inland port, situated at the junction of three rivers? The area which together with the coastal waters off Cape Cod, accounts for a la...
I have to do a project and need info. about mean, median, mode, range, freqency tables line plots, and stem and leaf plots. I would like historical facts like how, who, where and why these methods came to be. I want to get a good grade so I am willing to do do extra research. ...
world geography
What is a global citizen? I have to write a report on this. It must have examples, compare and contrast etc. What is a global citizen? I remember a very early Sunday School lesson, where Jesus indicated to the disciples the TWO commandments in response to a question: The two c...
social studies
What is a first-hand or eyewitness account called? first-person account -- ??? primary source??
I dont understand ordering numbers in comparing,could you explain it to me. I'm not sure what your question is asking, can you give an example of the prolblem you're doing? Typically, we order numbers by arranging them from least to greatest or the other way. Comparing...
math (mixed Review
i do not know how to do mixed practice
elementary brainteaser
My college teacher gave us a brainteaser for elementary kids and I can not figure it out! next letter: s,m,h,d,w,m,_? ok seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, ?? then what? next is years years? Ok, yes. Years is the next term in the sequence I gave, but the letter &quo...
Pages: <<Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9


text:
The information in this article applies to:
I often design Victorian style homes with a lot of moldings and millwork - including finials, cupolas, and other details on the roof. How can I create these symbols so that they will sit on the roof automatically?
You can easily create or import a symbol and specify that it sit on the top of the roof in your plan using the "Sits on Roof" option in the Symbol Specification dialog.
In this example, we will create a symbol based on an existing library item, modify it to suit our needs, and then save it as a custom symbol in the Library Browser.
To create a rooftop symbol
This symbol is now saved in the User Catalog in the Library Browserand is ready to be placed in any plan. When positioned within a roof plane, it will automatically seek the height of the roof at that location.
Note that in version X3, it will be saved in My Library and in version X2, it will be saved in the Import category.
If you do not see a symbol in the Chief Architect library that meets your particular needs, you can create a custom symbol from scratch using tools like the Primitive Tools and Molding Polylines.
You can also import custom symbols from outside sources. Chief Architect is able to import 3D symbols in .dxf, .dwg, .obj, .3ds, and .skp file formats.
Learn more.


text:
Updates Re Texas Caucus Fraud
by alegre, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EDT
EBW and MBW of the highly respected Wampum blog have got their hands on the incident report summary referred to in Pacific John's widely-read Texas caucus report.
As one of the only remaining highly respected neutral voices in the liberal netroots, EBW says,
"[...] I have the original [incident report summary], and the affidavits in my possession, and I personally know the person who provided these documents to me, and who's last name is redacted along with the rest.
I have a higher degree of confidence in the provenance of the material and veracity of the existence of the events journaled in the incident report than I have of anything in the media, other than perhaps the report of yesterday's weather where I was an actual observer, or the date."
That's quite an endorsement. A sponsor of the Koufax Awards, and blogging partner of one of the original Gate Crashers, says,
"I have a higher degree of confidence in the provenance of the material and veracity of the existence of the events journaled in the incident report than I have of anything in the media [...]"
We can assume the affidavits contain the worst of the incidents listed in the summary, but all of the irregularities are troubling.
In all, we know about 40 precincts out of 170 with irregularities, ranging from false delegate counts, to false entries on sign-in sheets for Obama, to a few incidents following the statewide pattern of illegally taking or attempting to take caucus materials from elections judges. Like Greg Palast might say, it doesn't take much to change the outcome of an election. In El Paso, pro-Hillary volunteers seem to have protected the caucus results so they were similar to the popular vote, but that was not the case in most caucuses http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/results/states/TX.html .
As the original diary mentioned, only four big counties were orderly enough to report most of their caucus results, and in three of these, the popular vote and the caucus results were very similar.
The incident reports seem to have the worst incidents near the top of the list. Some of them include:
Precinct 56: a witness saw someone make false entries for Obama. Clinton-supporting temporary officers had the convention seized from their control, and they were excluded from the process. It looks like out of state Obama supporters helped "elect" a new chair.
Precinct 45: a witness saw an Obama supporter making false entries. An Obama supporter announced that people should leave.
Precinct 61: heavily outnumbered Obama supporters controlled the precinct convention awarded 18 delegates to Obama and 16 delegates to Clinton in a precinct where there the preference was 89 Clinton, 16 Obama, 1 Richardson, and 2 uncommitted.
Precinct 71: At 7:05pm at the Precinct Convention, all of the voting for the primary was complete and all of the caucus goers were seated. ____ reported that the Obama chair waited an hour and said "we did not expect this many people so we will have to move" when no move was necessary. The chair said "just sign your name and address and then you can leave." When asked "what about our presidential preference?" the Obama chair replied "we don't have time for that...just write your name and address."
Precinct 36: an Obama supporter took control from a standing chair. The witness reported that Republicans and out of state Obama supporters helped "elect" the new chair. The witness was ejected from the room when he tried to report this to the Texas Democratic Party.
Precinct 41: the attendees included a large number of African Americans who did not appear to be from El Paso. Some Obama supporters tried to have elderly voters write-in Obama as their preference.
Precinct 48: This may be the anecdote Pacific John wrote about. According to the precinct captain, Obama organizers first tried to award the precinct to Obama via a show of hands. The actual preference was 74 Clinton, 33 Obama. The witness reported that she overheard an Obama organizer call in a false delegate count.
The reports go on and on.
It's no wonder that the Clinton campaign got in an early fight with the chair of the TDP (who by the way just endorsed Obama).
It's no wonder that the Clinton campaign got in an early fight with the chair of the TDP
(who by the way just endorsed Obama).
So a lot of folks are asking a pretty obvious question at this point - why didn't the press follow up on these two statements?
A footnote is that the letter Pacific John first wrote to a superdelagete he campaigned for (Representative Lois Capps), apparently had an effect. Rep. Capps was quoted on May 7, five days after her very public endorsement of Obama, that she was willing to change her endorsement to Hillary. That is a HUGE change, considering her son-in-law is Obama's National Press Secretary, and her daughter is the Communications Director for Ted Kennedy.
[...] In fact, she said, she's prepared to change if the popular vote swings in the opposite direction.
There's no pep talk for super delegates, about how they should vote. Capps said that she's been approached by her constituents and colleagues who want to talk to her about one candidate or the other.
"The super delegates should only ratify the popular vote," Capps said. We should only confirm what the public wants.
"Some people believe that we should just listen to our hearts," she continued, "but really, we should all be speaking with the same voice. I have endorsed Obama, but I have to be prepared to change my mind."http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/139/so-w hat-is-a-super-delegate/
I spoke with a few folks who are involved in collecting information on the problems with the caucuses in Texas, and one woman in particular is involved in hearing any challenges to the credentials issued by the party. From what I understand, things are way out of balance down there regarding these challenges.
Remember earlier on in the campaign when people were accusing Hillary of "lawyering-up" her team in anticipation of playing a no-holds barred kind of primary fight? Well the exact opposite seems to have occurred where these challenges are concerned and it seems to fit right in with that "Chicago smack-down" kind of politics we were promised last fall. It also follows a pattern set by Obama in his very first run at public office, when he sent a team of lawyers in to the registrar's office to challenge each and every signature on the petitions of his opponents. Whether it was because someone signed their signature incorrectly (by printing rather than in cursive) or if the person collecting the signatures wasn't property registered, he managed to knock every one of his opponents off the ballot - including his main challenger, Alice Palmer.
Apparently, teams of lawyers go in to challenge Hillary's delegates, complete with Power Point presentations and everything. Meanwhile, Hillary's folks are represented by everyday people like us - folks who saw problems or feel a need to speak up, and want to do the right thing.
The reason...?
No one expected Democrats to pull this kind of stuff (caucus irregularities or outright crimes) on other Democrats. Or period for that matter. Campaign staff and voters / caucus-goers were absolutely stunned at what they witnessed in Texas. So the legal team didn't go into this with the idea that they'd have to deal with this kind of crap.
Just like in Michigan and Florida, BO's using everything at his disposal to make sure his opponent's supporters / voters don't get a voice at our party's convention this summer. Only in this election could a guy hide from the voters of Michigan not once (taking his name off the ballot) - but twice (refusing to go along with a re-vote) and come away with not only the 55 delegates in "uncommitted" status, but also steal 4 of Hillary's delegates.
He's using every trick he can think of to disenfranchise voters and from what I've seen so far...
BO's about anything BUT inclusion and voting rights in this election.
And now Texas.
So who'll be next you guys?
Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, caucus, Florida, Fraud, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, president, texas (all tags)


text:
Discussion of PH/PS and the new generation of hormones.
Forum for peptide and research companies75 Topics307 Posts
Clen, T3, TB500 and MORE are 25% OFF!
Today, 11:48 AM by CEM Store
This forum is dedicated to the discussion of growth hormone, IGF-1 and other growth factors associated with anti-aging.3,573 Topics38,161 Posts
First peptide cycle for injury recovery
07-26-2014, 11:31 PM by bioman
This forum is dedicated to discussion of traditional, old school hormone use. Keep the new stuff out!1,962 Topics42,111 Posts
Difference between Anabol and Dboll
Today, 12:50 AM by jeremiah0079
This forum is dedicated to discussions of post cycle therapy.7,407 Topics65,580 Posts
Today, 04:03 PM by shawn.stolz.1
Cycle lengths, post cycle recovery, and cycle results...6,909 Topics207,049 Posts
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.


text:
Creating the next generation of advanced batteries for electric vehicles
ETV Motors Ltd (ETVM), a developer of advanced energy generation and storage technologies for automotive applications, was established in 2008. Our mission is to address one of today's most important social, industrial, environmental and business challenges.
Applying world-class skills and resources, the company's powertrain technologies are targeted at the auto industry's tightening embrace of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles and extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs).
Analysts say high battery costs and their relatively limited performance may inhibit consumer take-up of EVs and hybrids. These are among the key dimensions where ETV Motors intends to change the game.
Energy storage challenge
ETVM's High5ive™ 4.7V battery cells are designed to be more compact than, and have twice the driving range of, the best available competing cells. Batteries built on the basis of High5ive cells will be less expensive to produce; will have higher energy density reaching 200-250 Wh/kg and beyond (300-350 Wh/kg at the cell level) and will be safer to use.
The company's scientists bring decades of experience in pioneering the development of advanced lithium-ion cell chemistry, giving ETVM the technical and research skills essential to the challenge of creating market-ready energy storage products.
ETV Motors has filed more than a dozen patent applications and maintains a pro-active approach to protecting its intellectual property.
Unparalleled opportunity
The race to produce winning automotive batteries is one of the hottest there is, with a market predicted to grow phenomenally during the coming five years to some US$33B in annual revenues.
In pursuing these vast opportunities, ETVM's business development efforts are focused on automotive OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers. We expect to earn revenues via a blend of product sales and licensing revenues.
More information:


text:
The Norman Transcript
NORMAN — We've seen a few of those large blue recycling bins pushed from driveways to the curbside in the last few days. As the Lone Ranger might say, "Hold your horses, folks."
The new recycling program moves to a two-week rotation beginning in August. Residents were assigned one of two districts, which dictates which week you push the recycling cart to the curb along with your trash cart. A map with the district lines and other rules was included with the cart.
Yes, the new carts are bigger than the small green ones, but they have to hold two weeks worth of recyclables, plus they have the added benefit of accepting cardboard.
The city's recycling program has always taken cardboard, but it had to be taken to the recycling centers.
It's too late to make a difference, but an outsider observed that the colors are switched.
A "green" bin ought to hold recyclables, since green is the universal symbol for environmentalism.


text:
Upcoming at the Kluge Center
"Diagnosing Difference: Psychiatrists, Psychologists and the Medicalization of Racial Politics in Postwar America"
Thursday, August 7, 2014, 12 p.m. – 1 p.m.
Pickford Theater, Third floor, The James Madison Memorial Building (view map)
Scholar Sonia Lee, Kluge Fellow, examines how psychiatrists held an uneasy and troubled relationship with black freedom fighters from the civil rights era to the rise of mass incarceration.
"The Gospel Sensibility: Evangelicals, Modernity, and Sacred Song in American Experience"
Thursday, August 14, 2014, 12 p.m. – 1 p.m.
Dining Room A, Sixth floor, The James Madison Memorial Building (view map)
Scholar Douglas Harrison, Kluge Fellow, examines the history, performance culture, and role of southern gospel music within evangelical Christian experiences.
Astrobiology Symposium
"Preparing for Discovery: A Rational Approach to the Impact of Finding Microbial, Complex or Intelligent Life Beyond Earth"
Thursday and Friday, September 18-19, 2014, 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
LJ-119, First floor, Thomas Jefferson Building (view map)
Astrobiology Chair Steven Dick convenes scientists, historians, philosophers and theologians from around the world for a two-day symposium at the Library of Congress to explore how we prepare to face new knowledge that may challenge our very conceptions of life and our place in the universe. View event page
Related links:
- "Astrobiology and Theology: A Discussion"
- Steven Dick on searching for life in the universe [webcast](external link)
- Astrobiology at the Kluge Center
Upcoming Deadlines
November 1
Application and nomination deadline for the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations.
To Attend an Event
The John W. Kluge Center hosts lectures, book talks, panel discussions and symposia that highlight the work of scholars-in-residence.
Unless otherwise noted:
Events are free and open to the public. Reservations are not required.
Events take place inside the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building. Get general map and directions. Allow time for routine security procedures.
Links to more information are provided as available.
Request ADA accommodations five days in advance at (202) 707-6362 or email@example.com.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed:
To learn about the latest news, events, and
fellowship opportunities.
Subscribe now
Email us at:
Write to us at:
The John W. Kluge Center
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave SE
Washington DC 20540-4860
2014 News Releases
June 30, 2014 (14-115)
Origins of the Tet Offensive, 1958 Referendum in French West Africa Subject of July Lectures
May 27, 2014 (14-091)
Kluge Center Hosts Astrobiology and Theology Discussion June 18
February 21, 2014 (14-030)
Lecture Series Looks at Foreign Policy Through the Lens of Realpolitik
February 3, 2014 (14-017)
Scholars to Discuss World Christianity, Immigration and the United States, Feb. 26
January 10, 2014 (14-006)
Leading Authorities in Astrobiology to Discuss the Societal Implications of the Search for Life in the Universe
January 2, 2014 (14-002)
Robin Lovin to Discuss Moral Vocabulary in Politics, Jan. 23
2013 News Releases
October 18, 2013 (13-177)
John Bew Named Kissinger Chair at John W. Kluge Center
October 17, 2013 (13-179)
New Chair in Astrobiology at Kluge Center Arrives Nov. 1
September 30, 2013 (13-171)
Scholars to Discuss World Christianity, Immigration and the U.S.
September 13, 2013 (13-158)
Shrinking Moral Vocabulary in Politics
August 15, 2013 (13-142)
Longevity of Human Civilization Symposium at Kluge Center
August 5, 2013 (13-140)
Former College President Appointed Distinguished Visiting Scholar
June 21, 2013 (13-123)
Scholar Uncovers the Autobiographies of India, July 11
June 11, 2013 (13-115)
Kluge Center Announces Summer 2013 Lecture Season
May 20, 2013 (13-103)
Morton Kondracke to Discuss the Life and Career of Jack Kemp, June 4
April 30, 2013 (13-083)
Steven Dick Named Chair in Astrobiology at Kluge Center
April 15, 2013 (13-074)
"The Ike Age: Eisenhower, America & the World of the 1950s," Lecture
April 8, 2013 (13-067)
"Why Two in One Flesh? The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy" April 30
March 27, 2013 (13-061)
Advisory: Igniting Conversations, Illuminating Minds, April 29-May 2
March 13, 2013 (13-049)
Indian Historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam Appointed Chair At The John W. Kluge Center
February 15, 2013 (13-027)
Scholars to Examine Human & Moral Relationship to the Environment
January 31, 2013 (13-018)
Library of Congress Seeks Applicants for Fellowships in the John W. Kluge Center
January 31, 2013 (13-016)
Robin Lovin Named to the Cary & Ann Maguire Chair in Ethics and American History
January 18, 2013 (13-010)
Kluge Center Announces Winter/Spring Lecture Season
For More Information
Press contact:
Donna Urschel, (202) 707-1639
Public contact:
Jason Steinhauer, (202) 707-0213