By Benyamin Solomon
  I will joke around to make fun of the Obama administration. Some of my columns would be just pure jokes that I make to make fun of the Obama Administration. Visit the Triond or Triond powered sites to see those articles, which are coming soon. I'd still continue to also write serious articles that's reporting on what's happening. I may put the joke articles here on Socialism Watch.

October 13, 2008
By Bookworm, American Thinker

For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun:  Obama really was a socialist.  Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care.  The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well. 

The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative.  To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology.  In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right.  To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that. 

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics.  It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not.  It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism.  Frankly, those terms (and their opposites) should be jettisoned entirely, because they have become too antiquated to describe 21^st Century politics.  The political designations of Left and Right date back to the French Revolution, when Revolutionaries sat on the Left side of the French Parliament, and the anti-Revolutionaries sat on the Right.  Terms from the internal geography of the French parliament as the ancient regime crumbled are striking inapposite today.

Likewise, the terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo.  Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20^th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism."  "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state.  The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

And what of Statism?  Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama:  Socialism. 

Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism's true naissance is the 19^th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie.  That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth.  Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around. 

The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality.  Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual's moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end.  All of them failed.  (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)

It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis.  Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing:  It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience. 

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control.  Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.  Herewith some examples:

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship.  Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party.  In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left. 

Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state.  Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state.  Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state.  Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered. 

And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state.  While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't.  They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world.  It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

Here's another example:  the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism.  This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part.  The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible. 

From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin.  Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens.  Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly.  Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

I've got another example for you:  the People's Republic of China, another socialist state.  One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia:  individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die.  Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people.  The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes.  The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism.  Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal.  Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism.  Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment.  Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's:  Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards.  As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed. 

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good.  In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech.  (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom.  And that is why Obama's socialism matters. 

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending.  I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology.  They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom.  So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.

Bookworm is proprietor of the blog Bookworm Room. 

By Benyamin Solomon

As the pro-Obama liberal mainstream media tries to deligitimize the tea party demonstrators, one CNN "reporter" went over the top, harassing the demonstrators.

When I was watching Hannity's America, I saw him show the video of a CNN reporter hackling the demonstrators at the Tea party demonstrations. It made me outraged. 

The liberal mainstream media wants to portray the heroic tea party demonstrations as a sham.

I also looked at the videos on the Internet.

The angry CNN jerk Susan Roesgen has made herself an attacking machine for the Obama cult.

She goes around harassing the demonstrators and spewing her crap. The tea party demonstrations across America is just the begginning of a grassroots movement that opposes Obama's policy of stealing money from youth and the next generation for stupid programs.

Obama, though not a Fascist, uses some Fascist-like tactics against his opponents. Susan Roesgen is part of the Obama propaganda industry.

It's people like this angry CNN jerk that is making CNN the most idiotic name in news, not the most trusted name in news.

By Benyamin Solomon
I must say that as an American youth, who just turned 18, my message to Obama is "Stop stealing from me." During his election campaign and even now, Obama promises to cut the deficit in half. But that's not what Obama plans to do, as logic shows. The CBO showed that Obama's spending policies will be $1 trillion per year and in 10 years, it'll be $10 trillion dollars. Obama will increase the deficit with the stimulus and omnibus spending bills, the former of which includes $500.000 for foot odor research way too much money for tattoo removal with the latter wasting too much money on maneur research and pig odor research, and with his budget. Obama is wasitng money, and people like me will pay this outrageous debt.
Obama and the Democrat buearocrats seek to waste all this money, putting people like me in debt. Obama, this is not the change we want!

By STUART VARNEY, Wall Street Journal

There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Network.

Mar 20 12:20 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.

But without referencing the figures, Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.

"What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term," Obama said. "That's why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That's why it enhances America's competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy."

Many Democrats were already uncomfortable with Obama's budget, which promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.

The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says that the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House.

The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.

The CBO's estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.

By the end of the decade, the deficit under Obama's blueprint would go back up to $1.2 trillion.

Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle—George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits—and if the economy outperforms CBO's expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller

Democrats in Congress are readying Obama's budget for preliminary votes next week, and they promise to cut the deficit in half within five years.

Democrats are likely to curb somewhat Obama's request for a 9 percent increase in non-defense agency budgets.

Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit.

Republicans say Obama's budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they've been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.

The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.

By Benyamin Solomon
This blog is here to mainly document the Socialist policies of the Obama administration. It is to monitor Obama's covert plan to impose Socialism and to discredit the assertion that Obama just seeks to "improve" the free market. This blog will show articles that show Obama's Socialist agenda and his Socialist past as a "community organizer." This blog will also look at why Socialism is a failure and show the case against government buearocracy in the economy. This blog shows why Capitalism works and Socialism doesn't, in terms of helping the economy. In fact, this blog will show that higher taxes, big government and Socialism ruins economies, especially in an economic crisis like this one. This blog shows why Capitalism will help solve the economic crisis and show the deadly consequences of Obama's Socialist policies. I don't guaratnee that all of the articles I cut and paste will say every word I agree with, but they will show the theme as why Socialism ruins economies and on Obama's Socialist agenda.