I saw an article a few days ago discussing whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. The reporter interviewed several leaders and members of various socialist movements to ask them if they considered Obama one of their own. The did not. So there. This means that those people calling Obama a socialist are just haters who have no clue what they’re talking about.
Well .. the reporter is right. Strictly speaking, Obama is not a socialist. He’s also most definitely not a capitalist. So that leaves the question … just what in the hell IS he?
Well … you’re gonna learn right now.
No economic system is pure; neither socialism nor capitalism .. nor the system that Obama truly embraces … fascism. In a pure sense … here is how you would define the three basic economic systems. To simplify these definitions – even to the point that government educated American Idol and Entertainment Tonight fans can understand – we will establish one common term to be used in all three definitions … “the means of production.” By “the means of production” we’re talking about the mechanism by which wealth is created; the mechanism by which products and services are manufactured or created and then presented to the people for consumption. Ready? Read on:
The means of production is privately owned and controlled with only minimal regulatory interference from the state for the purposes of public health and safety. Economic decisions made by millions of independent consumers acting in the marketplace.
The means of production is owned and controlled by the state. Private property and business ownership is not permitted. State is in complete control of the economy.
The means of production is privately owned but state controlled; a command economy driven by political whims.
Again … those are pure definitions, and no economic system anywhere is solidly in one camp or the other. But as you read these definitions you will see that Obama clearly is much more of an economic fascist than a socialist. It’s control over industry he seeks, not ownership. Capitalist? Hardly. Remember … Obama described his limited days in the private sector as “working behind enemy lines.” Isn’t that just swell? We have a president who thinks that the private sector is the enemy. Wonderful; just wonderful.
This curious flyer was handed out to students studying the history of the Cold War at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.
What do you think the lesson was supposed to be?
Conservative activists poured into a standing-room-only hotel conference room Friday afternoon for a brief glimpse of the long-awaited movie adaptation of “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand‘s 1957 philosophical novel about how government intervention and collectivism wipe out society’s creativity, innovation and industry.
The Washington Post quite rightly compared the scene to a screening of Harry Potter at Comic-Con.
Appropriately enough, the film is set to debut April 15 and filmmakers were on scene to promote it to some of the country’s most die-hard Rand supporters. “Hollywood does not think enough people” are interested in the message of “Atlas Shrugged,” executive producer Harmon Kaslow announced to the room. But with support of CPAC-goers, growing demand for the film could prove them wrong.
Like the book, the film is set in the not-too-distant future. American Spectator’s Philip Klein was privileged to preview a few choice scenes on Thursday night and says filmmakers went for a “ripped from the headlines” feel, with “images of the economy tanking, the country’s infrastructure collapsing, protests raging in the streets, Congress passing statist legislation, and a TV news anchor leading a panel discussion between some of the book’s characters.”
“It is a movie that freedom fighters have been waiting decades for,” said Max Pappas, the vice president of public policy for FreedomWorks, which co-sponsored the CPAC screening. “I‘m pretty sure that it’s the best-selling book of the 20th century that has not yet been made into a movie.”
With sufficient support and financial backing, the filmmakers hope “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” will be followed by two sequels.
Michael Moore, who never met a rich man he didn’t hate, is suing the backers of his fantasy “Fahrenheit 9/11” over…wait for it – “financial deception” – and cheating him out of $2.7 million in profits.
The avowed socialist appears to love money as much as any dyed in the wool capitalist – an irony lost on Mr. Blubberhead.
The Hollywood Reporter:
In a lawsuit filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court, Moore says the Weinsteins and an affiliated entity called the Fellowship Adventure Group agreed to split profits from the film 50-50 but then diverted monies to hide them from Moore.
The suit for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims that in 2008 Moore conducted an audit of the 2004 film, which grossed $222 million worldwide, and “discovered substantial irregularities in the accounting” that resulted in a “gross underpayment to [Moore],” the lawsuit says.
Those irregularities include an alleged secret deduction of $2.5 million in revenue that the Weinstiens claimed was paid to acquire an interest owned in the film by a predecessor company called Icon Entertainment International; a 7.5% “override” fee on advertising costs in the amount of $1.2 million, “despite the fact that [the Weinsteins] did not incur the advertising costs and the [deal] did not permit [them] to deduct these costs”; as well as additional improper deductions of fees paid to distribution consultants, accountants, residuals, foreign taxes and travel expenses, including what Moore says are the “grossly excessive and unreasonable” costs of hiring a private jet to carry a single passenger to Europe.
One Hollywood leftist screwing another Hollywood leftist out of their money. Someone ought to make a movie out of this.