Here are dictionary definitions of both terms from dictionary.com:

Fascism:  a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Socialism:  a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Hmmm.  Can it be that he’s a little of both?  Most often when we think of Fascist Governments we think of Italy during WWII or Nazi Germany.  While it may be true that Hitler was a Fascist, many people also forget that the Nazi party was also called the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

While we all easily remember the most heinous acts of the Nazi Party (genocide, aggressive world dominance goals, etc.) sometimes we forget that other hallmarks of the Nazi party were suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities.  The government didn’t take over the means of production as they would in a true socialist country – but rather they exerted extreme control.

Right now, there are examples of both Fascist and Socialist tendencies of the Obama administration.  Regardless of what you label it, the policies of this administration are antithetical to a free market economy and the American way of life.

You may find the following book interesting:  Liberal Fascism

I am getting very weary of you rationalizing your excessive spending on the situation that was left for you “by the previous administration.”  The spending you have undertaken has been foolish, and it is you and your failed congress’ responsibility.  Sure, I agree, that there may have been a need for some of the TARP money – but that program has actually brought in income to the government as it has been repaid.  But there definitely shouldn’t have been ANY funding for the automakers and no s0-called “stimulus” spending.  Government spending doesn’t lead to economic growth – only the private sector can significantly impact economic growth.  Your solution to basically double the federal deficit is irresponsible, dangerous, and will damage, not mend, the economy.

Your freeze on government spending is laughable.  You do record spending and then say you’ll freeze government spending except for in the largest government programs.  What you are doing is akin to someone who has a job paying $60,000 but spending $65,000 a year, saying “I had some unusual expenses due to health care bills and therefore I need to borrow to make some additional investments to make more money in the future, therefore this year I’m going to spend $70,000 in the coming year.  But not to worry I won’t freeze any spending in the following areas: mortgage of $24,000 a year, property taxes of $6,000 a year, car payments of $4,000 a year, health insurance of $3,000 a year, groceries budget of $6,000 a year, dining out budget of $4,000 a year, vacation budget of $5,000 a year, and  child support/alimony payments of $12,000 a year.  That’s right, I’ll allow $64,000 of spending to increase, but will freeze $6,000 of spending.”  Anyone with any common sense would tell such an individual that the solution to their problems isn’t to spend more money indiscriminately, and instead move to a cheaper house, sell the car and get a less expensive one, and slash their dining out and vacation budget.  So, why is it so difficult for the government to figure this out?

Also, by raising taxes on those who create jobs you are only shooting yourself in the foot.  You claim to be a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, but it is obvious to me that you don’t agree with his philosophies, for it was Lincoln who said, “You can’t help the wage earner, but pulling down the wage payer.”

You are delusional if you didn’t get the message sent from the VA and NJ gubernatorial elections and the MA senate election:  Americans don’t want more government.  As Ronald Reagan said, “government isn’t the answer to the problem, government IS the problem.”  These words are as true today as they were in the 80s.

The uncertainty that all of your “change” is causing is the biggest inhibitor to economic growth.  If you’d quit tinkering with things, quit spending taxpayer money, and get out of the way, the private sector will cure our economic woes.

A year ago you won the state of Massachusetts by 26 points.  Now, a state that hasn’t had a Republican senator since the 70s, and that clearly supported your policies prior to your election, has voted to elect Scott Brown as its Republican Senator.  Do you understand what this is about?

The citizens of this country like you as a person, but they think the policies you have pursued during the past year and the way that you have promoted them stink to high heaven.  We don’t want health care reform that is anywhere close to the current house and senate bills.  We don’t want cap and trade.  We don’t want the government bailing out automakers or financial institutions (or any other types of companies, for that matter).  We don’t want stimulus spending, and would instead like the deficit and debt to be slashed.  We don’t want tax increases, we want government spending cuts.  We don’t think that greater government regulation and involvement in the economy is the solution to the problem, rather we think that government regulation and involvement in the economy IS the problem (i.e. Fannie & Freddie being quasi government agencies with private profit opportunities but socialized risk).

The sleazy political techniques have no place in national politics, either.  We don’t want special deals for some groups of people (i.e. the union members in the health care bill – it reminds me of Orwell’s Animal Farm quote “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”).  We don’t want behind-closed-door negotiations.  We don’t want partisan politics that only pay lip service to seeking bipartisan support.  We don’t want artificial deadlines to force important legislation.  We don’t want our congressmen voting on 2,000 page bills that they see a day before a scheduled vote, and couldn’t possibly have read.  We don’t want a president that tries to over-control the news media.

If you want ANY chance of being re-elected, you need to do a quick about face and move dramatically right.  The citizens of this country are NOT happy with your policies or techniques.  In fact, we’re mad as hell!

I find the criticism that your administration is making of Fox News and attempts to discredit it particularly non-democratic and totalitarian.  One of the reasons that Fox News gets high ratings is that CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and other major news media have become so liberally biased that many Americans don’t trust them to critically cover stories that are at odds with liberal political philosophy.  This liberal bias is EXTREMELY apparent – a good example is when Breitbart came out with the videos of ACORN encouraging illegal activity.  Initially the liberally-biased major media tried to sweep the story under the carpet.  The odd thing is “why?”  It would seem to me like a story like this would cause objective, critically-thinking media to look more closely at whether or not there was something worth further investigation, but instead they initially tried to discredit those who developed the videos.

I think you would agree that if the tables were turned and 90% of the major media were conservatively biased it would be troubling.  What makes the US great is not having a government controlled single-line of thought, but rather to have competing ideas vigorously debated and allowing the ideas that have the most merit to survive.

Your administration doesn’t need to agree with Fox News’ opinions, but it is EXTREMELY inappropriate for the executive branch try to influence other news media and the public to ostracize this organization.  I suspect that your administration is actually scared to death of Fox News because you recognize that your ideas and policies will be critically examined, and many of your administration’s ideas won’t look so good / survive when they are fully vetted.  Trying to suppress the communication of political opposition is not what the US is about – it is more similar to what would be be expected in China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina during the dirty war, East Germany from post WWII to 1989, or Nazi Germany.

Social Security payments should not go up automatically year after year.  If there are cost of living increases then, yes, it may be appropriate to adjust payments to reflect those increases.  But right now we are in a deflationary time, and that means that seniors can buy more goods and services for less money.  So, why should we be issuing an additional $250 payment?  It’s time to stop spending money like a drunken sailor.  This has got to stop.  You are doing intergenerational theft, leaving future generations with an astronomical debt burden caused by irresponsible spending.

It sounds like you were as shocked and surprised as the rest of us that you were selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, particularly since you were nominated after serving only 11 days in office.

When you consider that Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for the award five different times and never received it, doesn’t it seem odd to you that you have been chosen to receive the award?  You have certainly had some significant accomplishments in your life:  you have written a few best selling books, obtained a law degree, served as a state of Illinois legislator, served as a US senator, and now are serving as US President.  While you’ve shared lots of ideas on your vision for a more peaceful world, none of your ideas have been successfully implemented, yet.  In fact, some of your ideas are already appearing to be pollyanna-ish, and many countries and groups are demonstrating that their dislike for the US had nothing to do directly with Bush or partisan policies, but rather they are opposed to the very ideas that make America great: freedom (of speech, religion, pursuit of happiness), self determination, free enterprise, etc.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee did not select you for accomplishments in creating peace, but rather that they are trying to manipulate, influence, and bribe you into behaviors that are consistent with your idealistic campaign rhetoric, but which may very well be antithetical to America’s best interest?  I would urge you to reject the Nobel Peace Prize.  Strategically, I believe this will even cause you to be held in higher esteem worldwide than the award itself.  Nobody can take away the fact that they DID choose you to receive it, but by rejecting it you send a very clear message that you will not be influenced by those in other countries.  You would be elevating the importance and integrity of the office of the US Presidency above the Nobel Peace Prize.  To have international success it will be important to be respected as an independent thinker who listens to others, but without the appearance of being manipulated or pressured by others.  It is clear to me that the Nobel committee’s primary goal in selecting you was to try to influence your behavior going forward.

On Labor Day, while speaking to the AFL-CIO, you were highly critical of Republicans for their lack of a solution for fixing the health care system.  This is disingenuous.  If you believe that no solutions have been presented, then you aren’t listening (or, I suspect, you are ignoring them because you don’t like what you hear).  There have been many solutions provided but your partisan congressional leaders don’t want to make them part of any reform.  Some of the key ideas that have been presented by Republicans include:  significant tort reform; allowing individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax returns (not just businesses); repeal government mandates about what must be covered by health insurance; and repeal all laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

I find it interesting that you continue to blame Republicans for the dying popularity of a health care plan with a government provider option.  Has it ever occurred to you that this is simply a very poor idea?  According to The Hill, “At least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose the massive healthcare overhaul touted by President Barack Obama.”  Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority.  If the health care scheme were such a good one, and it was only partisan politics inhibiting the plan, then there would be no problem or concern with getting democrats to go along with it.  However, despite massive propaganda and many media channels that refuse to critically assess and provide the public with accurate information on the plan (i.e. ABC) you are losing a significant amount of support for the plan in your own party.

It’s time to take responsibility for bad ideas, and stop blaming others.  I am getting very weary of you blaming everyone else.  Yes, you inherited a struggling economy, but had you implemented appropriate corrective action (i.e. tax cuts for corporations, tax credits for anyone buying a house – not just first time home buyers, elimination of double taxation of corporate profits, etc.) we would likely be seeing a much stronger recovery by now.  Instead, you promoted dangerous, government-expanding, anti-free market policies which you claimed would limit the rise in unemployment.  You were wrong.  Your ideas were wrong.  We are now likely experiencing worse pain than if you had done nothing at all. Your policies are making things worse, not better.  The ideas are yours.  Take ownership of them.  If they aren’t working, then try listening to and implementing views from across the aisle.

More specifically, please drop the current form of health care reform.  Instead, focus on reducing government and legal regulations and costs that make health care expensive.  Repeal the so-called stimulus spending – a growing national deficit and debt are going to lead to long-term financial disaster if you don’t get government spending under control.  Reduce tax rates to spur economic growth – this may not be consistent with your populist views but it worked under Kennedy and Reagan.

I recognize that it is bad form to be critical of those who have just passed away.  However, I must take great exception with your hyperbolic glorification of Senator Ted Kennedy.  Today, after learning of his death you said, “Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”  If you truly believe that Ted Kennedy was the greatest U.S. Senator of our time, then God help us.

Instead of honoring someone who evaded justice due to their family legacy and wealth, I would like to take this opportunity to remember Mary Jo Kopechne.  Had Ted Kennedy been a more honorable person, perhaps he would have attempted to save Mary Jo after driving her off the bridge in Chappaquiddick in 1969, or at least notified the police immediately after the incident occurred so that they could try to save her.  Instead the “greatest US Senator” went back to his hotel and didn’t bother notifying authorities until the next morning.  Experts believe that if the police had been notified, Mary Jo could have been saved.  I’m sickened that justice never occurred, and that the people of Massachusetts kept re-electing him.  I, for one, am not saddened by his passing.

I’m surprised that your administration and many in congress are so adamant and confident that the current proposed form of healthcare reform are in the best interest of the nation while totally disregarding alternate viewpoints.  What happened to the bipartisanship that you promised?

You and many members of congress chide those opposed to socialist-style government healthcare which over-time would likely turn into a single-payer system.  I hear you say that opponents of the plans only say “no” without posing good alternatives, but your criticism is not accurate.  There are many people presenting alternate suggestions and plans on ways to improve health coverage and reduce healthcare costs, you simply aren’t listening.

For example, in today’s Wall Street Journal, there is an opinion piece written by John Mackey, the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, titled “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare.”  When I go into a Whole Foods grocery store I feel like I’m in a bastion of liberalness.  So, I found it surprising that the CEO of that store has such pragmatic ideas for healthcare reform that are so dissimilar to the plans currently being promoted by congress.  I would strongly encourage you to change course, abandon the idea of universal government healthcare, and instead incorporate ideas such as those presented by Mackey.  Mackey offers eight steps to improve health care without adding to the deficit:

1.  Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

2.  Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

3.  Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4.  Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

5.  Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

6.  Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what healthcare treatments cost.

7.  Enact Medicare reform.

8.  Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Please notice that John Mackey’s solutions ultimately call for less government, not more.  These are common-sense reforms that will lower healthcare costs, improve care, and won’t cost trillions of dollars.  These are the types of reforms that the majority of Americans will support.

The town hall meetings you have been hosting have been very carefully managed.  The people that attend have been hand selected by your staff, and allowable questions carefully screened.  How do I know?  Because the questions and comments that arise are laughably out-of-synch with the questions and concerns that the majority of Americans I talk with express about government healthcare.  In short, the healthcare town hall meetings are nothing more than propaganda.

On today’s Drudge Report and Fox News websites there were a variety of links to videos that show non-scripted town hall meetings held by senators and congressmen, that I believe are more reflective of how most American’s feel about your Health Care scheme.  I would suggest you view them and take into consideration what the “silent” majority really think about your healthcare plan, not just the patsy’s you have selected to participate in your town hall propaganda shows.

Senator Arlen Specter (D – PA) Q&A

Congressman Tim Bishop (D – NY) protest

Congressman Lloyd Doggett’s (D – TX) meeting on Obamacare

Furthermore, an interesting video emerged which indicates that you are not being truthful with the American people about your goals for healthcare.  Recently, you have been reassuring citizens that you are not striving for a single payer system, and don’t want to put private insurers out of business.  Yet, this video which was posted on the Drudge Report website shows you, in your own words, describing that a single payer system is your ultimate goal but that it will take a while to achieve it.  Listen closely, Mr. President:  the majority of American’s don’t want socialized, universal, government health care!  In case you can’t remember what you said here’s a link to a video that captured what you have said:

UNCOVERED VIDEO: OBAMA EXPLAINS HOW HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL ‘ELIMINATE’ PRIVATE INSURANCE