Re: Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolu
Or calling Obama a Marxist/socialist: Obama is neither.
Except in the radical rightwing nutjob minds, such as they are.
I'm not a radical, nor right wing, nor a nutjob. Nevertheless, Obama is a Marxist by any criteria you choose.
How often have we heard from Obama's lips, "The rich aren't paying their fair share"?
Yet, the CBO reports based on official IRS data show the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes,
three times their share of income at 13%. And, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost
15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income. Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that the bottom
40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were
paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal income taxes as a group on net.
Any normal (non-Marxist, non-Socialist) person would say that such an income tax system is such that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Stupid?
No, he's not ignorant or stupid. The answer is that to President Obama, this is still not fair, because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share, because in order for it to be fair, they can't have any more than anyone else. Not only is that the logical explanation of Obama’s statements, it is 100% consistent with his own published background.
Notice that Obama keept saying that “the rich” don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. That "need" word is key. It's lock-step with the fundamental Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Then we have the 2012 campaign where his new slogan was FORWARD, and with Obama's snazzy logo right in the middle of it.
If you know anything about Marxism, that's a logo that should give you pause. The slogan "Forward" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism, precisely what Obama has been advocating with his class warfare and redistribution of wealth. Not only that, but a publication that began in 1844 as a bi-weekly publication of the Communist League, a publication called "Forward" was founded by some dood named Karl Marx, and had articles in it written by Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin, and posthumously, Leon Trotsky. Then there's the Social Democratic Party of Germany's official publication, "Vorwaerts" (Deutsch for "Forward").
Coincidence? I hardly think so. But, Obama will tell you (and has stated as much) that "Forward" has nothing to do with Marxism, that it simply is a collective euphemism meaning the progressive understanding of the State. The State has always been seen by the left as the engine of history. When Obama says he's about going Forward, he's saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress.
Hhhhmmmm, "the state is the source of Progress."
You know that's an actual quote of Karl Marx, right? Marx held that human societies progress through class struggle, even more quickly if you can foster class warfare, and then at that point where capitalism inevitably must self-destruct, to be replaced by a classless society, that of socialism of communism, where the State becomes the sole source of Progress, as everyone is dependent upon the State.
