« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Craig Becker is a Natural Fit in a Socialist Administration

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 6th, 2011 at 11:57 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last night in the Luntz panel after the Fox debate, Luntz seemed taken aback that his panel of voters largely viewed the Obama Administration as socialist.

Only effete intellectuals keen on nuancing socialism could disagree at this point. As socialism is commonly understood, i.e. spreading the wealth around through government intervention, Barack Obama is a socialist and his administration is a socialist administration.

So it is no surprise that we are learning Craig Becker, a Presidential appointee to the National Labor Relations Board and a key player in screwing Boeing for moving the 787 assembly line to South Carolina, has a paper trail of socialist views going all the way back to college.

The Daily Caller has uncovered some of Becker’s old law review articles in which he advocates the government controlling the flow of capital.

In essence, as Fred Wszolek of the Workforce Fairness Institution told the Daily Caller, we have a member of Barack Obama’s NRLB “believes that the United States should somehow control or restrain the freedom of capital, or that the mobility of capital not being under ‘popular control’ is somehow a threat to Big Labor.”

Make no mistake about it — the Obama Administration is a socialist administration and it is pushing to be an authoritarian administration as it passes executive order after executive order designed to punish its enemies and reward its friends with government contracts.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • KeepOhioRed

    are urging members to integrate unionism and progressive politics into MATH class

    http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2011/05/ohio-teachers-union-urging-members-to.html

  • vidyohs

    Congratulations on being one who will say it like it is.

    I am always amused, well sometimes scared, by people who will not simply think through what people are saying or think through where people’s actions will take them.

    Take a man’s statements, his announced plans, his goals, and simply ask the question, “How can that be done, and what will be the most likely results of doing it?”

    If the answer in its most simple form is taking from Peter to give to Paul, then you have a man spouting socialism as his belief.

  • johnt

    Socialist, the ideology that dare not speak it’s name. Use it and see a liberal[?] dissolve before your eyes, just like the Wicked Witch, only wickeder and uglier.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    These people are just nuts. I don’t think there’s any chance this will make it into the Ohio standards (not this term, anyway). The Founding Documents Bill (HB 211) is working its way through the legislature and would require the teaching of U.S. and Ohio’s founding documents BEFORE students receive instruction about socialism and “social problems.” I think unions would certainly fall into that category:

    “(N) Before students may participate in courses involving the study of social problems, economics, foreign affairs, the United Nations, world history and government, socialism, and communism, they first shall complete basic instruction in geography, United States history, the government of the United States, the government of the state of Ohio, local government in Ohio, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the state of Ohio.

    That’s likely the most controversial section of the language. I hope it doesn’t get stripped. Blood is going to come out of liberals’ eyeballs when they read it.

  • kfwmcc

    You said: “As socialism is commonly understood, i.e. spreading the wealth around through government intervention, Barack Obama is a socialist and his administration is a socialist administration.”

    That may be how it is understood by American Republicans who like name-calling…

    Here’s the websters dictionary definition of socialism:
    “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”

    No one in their right mind is suggesting that for America.

    If you want to criticize ‘spreading the wealth around’ feel free, but it’s absurd to suggest that anyone in the administration is actually ‘socialist’. That’s like me saying Bush is fascist because he played to people’s patriotism/nationalism.

  • edintexas

    When the government feels free to take from the producers at will, and give the product (money) to those it wishes, is there really “private property”? If a worker, which includes business owners, is not in full control of the product of his labor, there is little private property and limited freedom. We aren’t quite there yet, but we’re well on the way. (and not just from Democrats, though they are at the forefront).

  • lineholder

    Erick is right about this one. There are members of the current admin who would prefer to see this become a socialistic society. They aren’t going to be genuinely honest in saying that straight out because that they know that the greater majority of Americans still have enough of a sense of national pride that we would be dead set against it.

    It would cost them power to be honest about, you see, and power is the one thing they have to maintain in order to succeed.

    So they are moving forward in their goals by implementation of various methods and tactics, including excessive regulation and executive orders.

    This is the hard-cold reality of what we are facing. I’m sorry if you aren’t willing to face that head-on, but the reality remains all the same.

  • powertothepeople

    is it because you are soooo arrogant you think no one will catch you?

    See, I find your lie above offensive because you dare to think you are anywhere near as intelligent as me much less the rest of the people on this site.

    So lets see what Webster has to say about socialism and see if your convenient definition is the right one or the only one.

    so?cial?ism
    noun \?s?-sh?-?li-z?m\

    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

    2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    Funny, seems to be more of a definition to socialism and it seems to fit the agenda of the idiot we call president. Go shovel your BS somewhere else, we do not drink the Kool Aid here.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Since you can’t handle your addiction to going onto political sites on company time and insulting people, *I’ll* do it for you.

    Because I’m just swell that way.

  • johnt

    And I might add, clueless. Most of the people on what might be called our side think we are only dealing with differences of degree, that maybe The O and leftists in general are too much in a rush, have maybe too much faith in the curative powers of central government.
    But if only we can sit down and talk, is the attitude. No, Luntz sad to say is only one of a crowd. The wolves are in the kitchen and the lambs are blind to it. And we get to pay the price.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • jaykali

    I am not a political science expert or anything but in the literal since Democrats (except Bernie Sanders) aren’t coming out in favor of controlling the means of production. But they do want to pull the strings, they want you to have to go through them if you need a permit, they want to regulate private business so they can prop up businesses they support (and that support them) while ‘punishing’ so-called evil businesses.

  • jaykali

    I hear statist heard a lot, and that might be a more accurate description of modern liberals but socialism has a nicer ring to it.

  • jaykali

    I know we’re debating semantics, but once we decide the people’s money is what the government ‘allows’ them to keep I think we’ve crossed over.

    The next election will be the most clear cut choice of differing ideology we’ve had in quite some time, should be interesting…

  • gunslingr45

    like any good little Socialist, you only use what fits your propaganda line.

    ?A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one?Alexander Hamilton.”