Barack Hussein Obama wants to transistion our country from capitalism to socialism

Here is what Barack Hussein Obama represents. (He wants to spread the wealth around, take your hard earned money and give it to someone in need. He is a modern day robin in the hood political gangsta)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.

Karl Marx said that socialism is the the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Yes Obama wants to transistion our country from capitalism to socialism.

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

socialism:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kimbaugh
Obama and the conspiratorial media
Posted: October 28, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


I am sincerely worried that if Obama wins, the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties, because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush
, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy
picture they have painted the past eight years.


While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Similarly, despite our problems in Iraq, we are clearly winning there now, but the media are suppressing the good news, just as they have refused to credit Republicans for their wisdom on the surge and protected Democrats from their reckless opposition to it.

The only arrow left in the Democrats' Iraq quiver is to perpetuate their "big lie" that Bush led us into war with lies about WMD. Through stunning and numbing repetition broadcast by a conspiratorial media, they have succeeded in making this the majority narrative, even though anyone who lived through this period knows Democrats supported this policy as long as it was politically expedient, having had access to the exact same intelligence. They've also convinced people, contrary to the facts, that Saddam Hussein didn't have ties to and wasn't abetting our terrorist enemies. And they've completely ignored the many other compelling reasons justifying our bipartisan decision to attack Iraq, including Saddam's persistent and ongoing violations of some 17 U.N. and post-war resolutions and treaties.

Democrats and the media, instead of condemning recalcitrant European nations for not joining the coalition against Iraq despite endless diplomatic overtures by President Bush, falsely indicted the Bush administration for its "unilateral" action against Iraq.

They colluded to publish the slander that the Bush administration sponsored abuses at Abu Ghraib, created inhumane conditions at Gitmo and routinely tortured enemy prisoners. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama have all blithely and falsely accused our troops of atrocities, from systematic torture and prisoner abuse to raping Iraqi civilians to air raiding Afghan villages. They have mischaracterized our essential National Security Agency monitoring of international terrorist communications as domestic spying on little old ladies.

They have portrayed the Bush administration's phenomenal accomplishment of preventing further attacks on our soil since 9/11 not as an administration success but as proof that we no longer face a serious threat.

All of these factors could coalesce to give Obama a mandate to fundamentally move our economy toward socialism in the name of economic fairness and emasculate our war on terrorists in the name of restoring our international image.

Would Obama win if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent from his talk-radio critics?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The 'man who never was or empty suit' wants to take what you have and give it to someone else he deems worthy. This is not hard to understand given what Obama has said and done in the past. I ask you what is more important voting for a candidate
who wants to control your money or a candidate that wants to take your money? Either way this is what you will get if you vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

So go ahead vote for a socialist to take your money and do with it as he wants. You want change, he will produce it and leave you with none