President Obama, fresh off of his high of signing his health care bill into law, has decided to take on the Tea Parties.  In fact, he says that the Tea Parties have a "core group" that are birfers and that also believe he is a socialist.  I am a Tea Party leader and I can say that I am not, nor have I ever been a birfer.  The birfer movement reminds me of a guy I ran into the other day that claimed Dick Chaney stole $1 trillion dollars and has it stashed in some secret account.  I decided to play along and I asked him was that a Swiss Bank account to which he gave me that "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" look.  As far as President Obama's second point, I will agree with him 100%.  I believe Obama is a socialist from the things he has said, the things he has done, and the things he plans on doing.  In other words, look at the title of this article again.  Running for re-election, Harry Reid is trying to raise money and in doing so, he also claimed that you, I, and others should pick up a dictionary and look up the word socialism.  Here's what Harry Reid had to say:

"I double checked the definition of 'socialism,' and it's defined as a political philosophy that advocates for government ownership of private industry. Absolutely needless to say, not a view I agree with in the least," Reid writes.

Again, look at the title of this article.  Ok, I'll meet your challenge Sen. Reid.  I thought I'd look up the definition of socialism in a dictionary (Merriam-Webster to be exact) to see what it said:

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

2 a : 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

Maybe Merriam Webster had it wrong.  Better look at a few others just to make sure.  From FreeDictionary.com:

so·cial·ism

n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., 2000, 2009)

socialism 

n

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system

3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

(Collins English Dictionary, Complete and Unabridged 6th ed. 2003)

Seems pretty consistent.  Well Sen. Reid, let's look at Merriam-Webster's 3 definitions one by one and see if we can prove you and President Obama wrong.

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

So there are "various economic and political theories"?  So I guess we can call our version of socialism Obamaism then.  "Government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" would be like the government taking over GM (means of production) or the closing of dealerships (distribution of goods)?  Or would it be like taking over the health care industry and how those services are administered?  Or what about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was supposed to save or create 3 million jobs?  Is that not centralized planning of the economy?

2 a : 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

Currently, there is a bill that Sen. Christopher Dodd has proposed which would give the Treasury Dept the power to seize those financial institutions that are in danger of failing.  Considering how TARP has been expanded radically past what the law actually says, I don't think it's past imagining that this law could be expanded to takeover other businesses like AT&T, Caterpillar, etc. (you know, the companies being dragged in front of Rep. Waxman's inquisition on April 21st).  I can hear the critics saying, "that will never happen".  Sure, I believe you.  We've only been warning about what was in store for our nation since we heard Obama speaking about what he intended to do, who his influences were and who he chose to associate himself with plus who was running Congress, but nobody listened (especially the majority that elected them last November).  

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

Now we come to the meat and potatoes of the argument.  "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."  Does this sound similar (not in exactly word for word) to what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been spouting to anyone that will listen or the platform of just about every Democrat?  If you have, you should also know that the quote is taken directly from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.  It doesn't help Reid and Obama's case when they have Howard Dean running around explaining that the new health care law is a a "re-distribution of wealth", or Sen. Max Baucus declaring there is a "mal-distribution of wealth" that the health care law will address.  Since we are somewhere inbetween capitalism and communism (which started in the last part of George W. Bush's term in case we get criticized for "unequal distribution of blame"), I would say where our government is right now satisfies the rest of this definition.

If President Obama and Harry Reid need to say they are not socialists to make themselves sleep better at night, that's fine.  It would be much easier on their sleep patterns if they would just come out of the closet and say they were socialists.  Even if they won't admit to being a socialist, we know when it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, and passes legislation that is socialist....you get my point.