Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 
Please post additional items to Barack Obama -- Marxist thread.

This duplicate thread is closed but contains useful information . . .

__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Waging war on the middle class

In these threads, I have repeatedly stated that Marxists have always destroyed the middle class. They have to. That's where resistance to their "collectivist" policies has always been.

In this respect, Barack Obama, who portrays himself as a "champion of the middle class," is no different than Castro, Kim, Chavez, Mao or even Stalin. Only his tactics are dissimilar.

Is it fair to say this man is a Marxist?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
SocalJay

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #3 
USA Today is providing cover for Obama in the wake of photos showing a handshake between Castro and Obama at Mandela's memorial service.  Truth Revolt is quick to call them out on this.   All the more interesting when PJ Media points out that not only was Mandela a committed Marxist as the leader of the ANC, but a terrorist to boot.  So it should surprise noone that Obama puts himself in a position to take advantage of the successful campaign by progressive operatives and media to disguise this fact from the public.  What is sobering to me is that Pres. Bush allowed himself to be exploited this way.  Sadly, this can only mean one of two things, that his handlers are idiots, or that he is a closet progressive, something I have suspected for awhile now.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Latter-day Marxist

David Horowitz says a week ago, the White House Marxist declared that income inequality was the "defining challenge" we face. If Obama really means what he says (which he almost never does) he could begin by giving up the millions he has already pocketed and the fancy houses and the fancy vacations he funds with taxes coming from Americans who are scraping to make ends meet. Or he could close down ObamaCare, the largest redistribution of income from the have nots to the haves in our lifetimes. Or he could end his economic and regulatory programs, which have produced poverty and deprivation not only for the present generation but for generations to come. But don't hold your breath. None of the filthy rich progressives around Obama will see the light or give up a dime. You can rest assured of that.

I guess if one is so eaten up with envy of the other guy's toys, or is delusional in the Marxist vein, income inequality can seem a problem and even a challenge. But no person in their right mind thinks that all people are equal in ability and talent. Not even a five-year-old. Consequently, unless you are prepared to take away individual freedom (which, granted, is a thought in the back of every progressive mind) there will be income inequality forever. It's inevitable. And just that simple. The only question is whether rewards for those extra brains and talents will be distributed by an impersonal open market, or by a political mafia that will make sure the redistribution flows into the pockets of their political friends. Now where do you think all that Obama stimulus money actually went?

Every battle with the left -- progressives, Marxists, Democrats -- is a battle for freedom: freedom of the individual to earn as he or she sees fit to earn; freedom to keep and spend the fruits of his or her labor. (Every tax dollar is time spent in indentured servitude to the government.) Barack Obama is an enemy of freedom. And the whole Democratic Party along with him. His fight against income inequality is a war against us all.

Horowitz is a rehabilitated Communist.  If he pegs someone as a Marxist -- you can take it to the bank -- the guy is a Marxist.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #5 
I totally agree with Beckwith's enlightened comments, But somewhat disagree with the comparison to Orwell's statement:

"Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power." 
In that the Obamunists want the "wealth and luxury" because they think it is their due, they wish to punish the 'white system', and they "can't help it"- control themselves, they have the "Nuevo Rich Syndrome", and what's better - it is not their money in any way. The more they spend, the more they punish the taxpayers, whom they consider to be the Evil White People.  Not necessarily so, but they don't care, just another excuse for their desired excesses, and the welfare parasites and the Poverty Pimps support it. A real 'Socialist' would be horrified at waste that could be better used to improve the conditions of The Collective.

But ultimately the pure fact is the Obamunists seek power, unlimited power, total power over your daily lives, your children, your property, and even your most basic purchases.  If they don't approve of it, you should not be allowed to do it.

Whatever is not Mandatory, is Forbidden! That is their ultimate basic position.  They are much smarter than you, and more deserving, you must obey!  They have decided. They are Intellectual Theorists, you are nothing, if not one of Them.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

At his core, Obama is a Cultural Marxist

But I refer to Obama and the people around him as Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Machiavelli, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed, Muhammad, Alinsky, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power. 

An Obamunist believes that all wisdom resides in them, the enlightened ones, and they disseminate their decrees through the bureaucracy, to the People.  They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans -- "hope and change" -- but their goal is power -- and they believe they are entitled to it.

Orwell and power

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.

Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.  All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.  The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.

They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.

We are not like that.  We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.

Power is not a means;  it is an end.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;  one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution.
The object of torture is torture.
The object of power is power.

--  George Orwell, 1984

"...no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it." 

This is precisely the mindset of the murderous, Machivellian, Gramscian Marxists who have gotten their hands on the apparatus of the American State.  They are monsters, all of them.  You can neither reason with them nor negotiate with them.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #7 
Re: #50  back up a page.

Obama is a Marxist in that he uses the promises of socialism to buy votes, but he is an Elitist wannabe.  He is the worst of both worlds. Lying to the people and wasting fortunes on extravagant life styles, often for no reason. I can understand him blowing a fortune on a luxury estate for a Martha's Vineyard family vacation (not his money) but flying the dog in a V-22 Osprey was simply an insult, especially with all the Debt and Sequester.  He is either intentionally arrogant and insulting, or he is a total fool, unthinking and oblivious.  Maybe both, and doesn't care. 
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Berkeley on the Potomac

Paul Mirengoff says my cousin’s  guest post about the radicalism of Bill de Blasio, New York City’s new mayor, made me wonder whether de Blasio is appreciably more radical than Barack Obama. I don’t believe he is.

In 1990, de Blasio, having been inspired by the Sandinistas, stated that his goal was to bring Democratic Socialism to the United States. Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated that this almost certainly was Obama’s goal at that time and beyond. He has also shown that some of Obama’s closest political associates in the 1990s make de Blasio look almost moderate by comparison.

In 1996, when Obama went into electoral politics as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, he did so as the hand-picked successor to Alice Palmer, an avowed socialist. (Palmer, however, decided to fight Obama for the seat after she lost a special election for Congress; Obama kept her off the ballot by successfully challenging her petition signatures). Palmer is the author of such articles as “Socialism Is the Only Way Forward.” And she attended the Twenty-seventh Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1986.

Palmer would not have hand-picked Obama if she did not have good reason to believe that he shared her socialistic vision.

In 2000, when Obama ran for Congress against the prominent leftist incumbent Bobby Rush as a member of the socialist New Party, the Democratic Socialists of America, though not endorsing either candidate, spoke of Obama in glowing terms while describing Rush as a disappointment to the left.

The Democratic Socialists of America would not have praised Obama if it did not have good reason to believe that he shared its socialistic vision.

Obama served in the U.S. Senate from 2005-2008. As Kurtz notes, one prominent index rated Obama the most liberal member of the Senate during that period -- more liberal than even Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.

Would Bill de Blasio have compiled a more leftist Senate voting record than Barack Obama did? It’s difficult to see how.

Obama is more cautious than de Blasio. For example, he and Michelle did not honeymoon in Cuba, as de Blasio and his wife did. But then de Blasio probably never dreamed of running for President.

Obama’s presidency reflects his caution, but also his radicalism. ObamaCare has been exposed as redistributionist at root, though Obama favored the more radical single payer system that he called for as a State Senator.

As Kurtz has shown, the Obama administration has quietly been promoting a form of “regionalism” the intent of which is to take resources from affluent suburbs and distribute them to the inner city and inner-ring suburbs.

Finally, Obama has tilted American foreign policy in favor of the likes of Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now Iran. They are among America’s most virulent enemies and, in that sense, can be viewed as the modern-day counterparts of the Sandinistas with whom de Blasio so strongly sympathized.

If there is any space between the ideologies of Barack Obama and Bill de Blasio, that space is probably small. And to me, it is not entirely certain which of the two politicians, deep down, is further to the left.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

From De Blasio to Obama

Paul Kengor says something fascinating and surprisingly honest has happened at the New York Times. In two separate articles, the Times took a page it would usually attribute to Joe McCarthy. In profiling the background of Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, who will likely be New York City's next mayor, and fittingly so, the Times has shed much-needed light on de Blasio's disturbing political past. It's a past that includes cheerleading for Nicaragua's Sandinista government and Fidel Castro's barbarous regime in Cuba.

The  feature piece was done by Times reporter Javier Hernandez, who should be commended for his atypical bravery. In the liberal church, where the Times is both Old and New Testament, Hernandez's blasphemy is worthy of excommunication. Mr. Hernandez, a vile sinner, has committed a grave heresy that merits accountability before the entire congregation.

To be sure, the intrepid Times writer didn't exactly excoriate de Blasio's dark past. The piece was mild at best. Hernandez won't be confused with the long, lost brother of J. Edgar Hoover. Nonetheless, for the Times, it's remarkable to see such facts in print.

Blasio, naturally, dismisses this shameless examination. He describes himself as a merry "progressive" pursuing "social justice." Of course he does. In fact, that's normally the Times' take for any leftist from Angela Davis to Gus Hall to Karl Marx.

But even more interesting is  a shorter piece on de Blasio posted at the Times a couple of days later. Written by reporter David Chen, it included several gems under a photo of a beaming Blasio with political soulmate Barack Obama. Among the gems, this Chen item especially struck me:

Later, when asked whether he had ever agreed with Marxist ideology, Mr. de Blasio, looking a bit flabbergasted, said: "It's 2013. I'd like to note, I'm not going to stoop to Joe Lhota's [the Republican mayoral nominee] level here."

He added: "I've read lots of wonderful books of all different viewpoints, and I've been exceedingly consistent throughout my career. I am a progressive who believes in an activist approach to government. You can call it whatever the heck you want."

All of which leads to a more intriguing question that should be directed not at de Blasio but at Obama namely: Has Barack Obama ever agreed with Marxist ideology?

Yes, yes. We've been through this before. That is, conservatives like myself have been pushing this question for a long time, but never with access to Barack Obama. We can't get this question asked, and thus it has never been answered.

I wrote a 400-page  book on Obama and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a literal card-carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA no. 47544). There, I include transcripts of lengthy interviews I did with Dr. John Drew, who knew Obama at Occidental College in the early 1980s. Drew is completely credible. There's no good reason to (at the very least) not take his account seriously enough for some follow-up queries.

Drew was a Marxist at the time -- as was, he insists, a young Obama. That was how the two came into contact. Drew was a leader among campus Marxists.

Drew told me about the moment he first met Obama, who was introduced to him as "one of us." "Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met in the fall of 1980," said Drew. Drew is certainly cognizant of the gravity of that statement. "I know it's incendiary to say this," he continued, but Obama "was basically a Marxist-Leninist." He underscored how Obama, in his memoirs, Dreams from My Father, recalled attending "socialist conferences" and how he "hung out" with Marxist professors, but what Obama did not explain, said Drew, is that he "was in 100 percent, total agreement with these Marxist professors."

I asked Drew if he believed Obama still believed some of those things today and, for the record, where and when and how Obama broke with some or all of that radical ideology. On that, Drew and I both speculated at length. Our mere speculation sent liberals into fits of blind rage. But it need not be that way.

Our speculation has been made possible, and facilitated, only by the malfeasance of liberal journalists. Speculation is fostered when information to the contrary isn't even sought out, let alone presented. In Obama's case, it hasn't been even sought out, which is patently ridiculous.

Any person who runs for and seriously competes for the position of president of the United States -- or even mayor of New York -- ought to expect to be asked about his political past. Such is part of not only the normal vetting process but of standard biographical portrayals by journalists. Often, the beliefs of the political figure in his early 20s end up a mere curiosity or mere marker along a broader political path and evolution.

We all know, for instance, that Hillary Clinton had been a Goldwater girl before her move to the left in college. We knew that George W. Bush had alcohol problems. We knew that Ronald Reagan had been a progressive Democrat, a duped Democrat, a self-described "hemophiliac liberal," before his migration to the right. In my  book Dupes, I covered countless communists and communist sympathizers who became anti-communist liberals or stalwart Cold Warrior conservatives. I dedicated that book to Herb Romerstein, a onetime communist (at the same age that Obama would have been one) who ultimately became one of America's leading anti-communists.

In all of these cases, none of these individuals ran from their past, and no journalist let them. No journalist was afraid to inquire. Each of these individuals willingly shared their conversion narrative: "Here's how I changed, and why…."

That, of course, begs a compelling question: Where is Barack Obama's conversion narrative? If he truly left that left-wing radicalism behind, then he must have one.

Why have journalists never posed to Obama the routine questions given to other politicians -- such as the one asked to Bill de Blasio this week? Imagine this surreal scenario: Blasio and Obama together for a photo op, and only Blasio gets asked about his radical past. Obama must have thought to himself: Gee, I'm glad they've still never asked me that question.

Why haven't they?

Surely, if they were confident that Obama was never a Marxist, or had unequivocally fled and rejected Marxist ideology -- and that guys like me are Neanderthals for pondering the thought -- they'd have no hesitancy accumulating the ammo to shoot us down. A firm on-the-record repudiation by Obama would pull the rug out from under the "right-wing" claims that our president was or remains a Marxist in some degree. It would be like producing the birth certificate.

Why not ask? This would be such an easy question for Obama to dismiss. "Hey, guys, I was young and, yes, a little radical back then. It was college, the late ‘70s. Many of us flirted with some crazy ideas back then. But that was then. Do you still believe what you believed in college? I've rejected all that. Here's why and when…."

We're still waiting. We're waiting less on Barack Obama than we're waiting on just one honest mainstream journalist with access to the president. If the inquiry is okay for the potential mayor of New York, then why not for the leader of the free world?

My own take on Obama and Marx . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

When Marxists meet

Beth DeFalco is reporting that Barack Obama -- who endorsed Bill de Blasio for mayor on Monday and is in town for the UN session -- has set time aside to meet face-to-face with the Democratic candidate Tuesday night, The Post has learned.

The meeting comes as de Blasio leads Republican rival Joe Lhota by more than 40 percentage points in public polls.

Earlier Tuesday, de Blasio defended his support of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas by comparing himself to FDR.

"I'm a progressive and I'm a Democrat and I'm very much in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt," de Blasio said on WPIX TV, explaining why he traveled to Nicaragua more than two decades ago to support a government the U.S. was trying to topple.

"I think U.S. policies at the time were wrong. I was very proud to be involved with that work," he added.

Bill de Blasio's Marxist credentials are sanitized by The New York Times.

Barack Obama's Marxist credentials.

As shown in its publication, People's Word, The Communist Party USA regularly uses the term "progressive" to describe themselves and their agenda.

[CPUSAProgressive]

Progressive = Communist = Socialist = Marxist = Maoist = Democrat

Only style separates them.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Electing the Enemy -- the anti-American philosophies underlying Obama's policies

Col. Lawrence Sellin, PhD, says the anti-American political philosophies underlying the policies of Barack Hussein Obama can be defined as the juncture of three ideologies: socialism, Islam and opportunistic racism to foster resentment among minority groups and promote race and class conflict as a lubricant for his radical transformation of the United States.

On face value, there would seem to be no more unlikely an alliance than between Western leftists and Islamists, the latter of whom emphatically and unambiguously reject virtually everything for which the socialist left has traditionally professed to stand: the peaceful resolution of international conflict; respect and tolerance for other cultures and faiths; civil liberties; freedom of expression; freedom of thought; human rights; democracy; women's rights; gay rights; and the separation of church and state.

Not only have socialists proved to possess none of those beliefs, but, as David Horowitz has noted,  they have been brought together with Islamists by the one overriding trait they do share -- their hatred for the United States; their belief that our country is the very embodiment of evil on earth and, therefore, must be destroyed. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society's collective "soul" of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism -- those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.

Both socialism and Islam fuse religion and government. In "Sociologie du Communisme" (1949), Jules Monnerot wrote that communism and by extension socialism combine a secular religion with the state, while:

"Islam has provided the type of society in which the political and the sacred are indissolubly merged. The law of the Koran was religious, political, and civil all in one."

British philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" (1920), said communists are, like socialists and Islamists, "religious fanatics," who are "impervious to evidence and commit intellectual suicide in the service of an expansionist empire which is striving for world dominion."

Both socialists and Islamists, imagine themselves possessing a morally superior position determined by Allah and historical inevitability, respectively, which justifies any action or behavior contributing to the goal of worldwide submission to their agenda.

Just as Islamists attempt to impose their religion on the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will enforce a universal brand of "social justice" on all mankind.

In his brilliant and prescient book, "Radical-in-Chief:  Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism," Stanley Kurtz wrote:

"From his teenage years under the mentorship of Frank Marshall Davis, to his socialist days at Occidental College, to his life-transforming encounters at New York's Socialist Scholars Conferences, to his immersion in the stealthily socialist community-organizer networks of Chicago, Barack Obama has lived in a thoroughly socialist world."

It was, however, Obama's friendship with Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour and his sponsorship of Obama as a prospective Harvard law student that probably helped harden Obama's Islamist, leftist, black-nationalist and anti-American views. It is likely that Obama, while attending Columbia University, became closely associated with al-Mansour when the latter was invited to lecture by Obama's Columbia professor and later friend, the Yasser Arafat apologist and Israel-hating Edward Said.

Formerly known as Donald Warden, al-Mansour, an American, was a mentor of Black Panther founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the early 1960s. He changed his name after studying Islam and learning Arabic. He is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker and an outspoken enemy of Israel, the United States and white people, in general. His writings and books are filled with anti-American rhetoric reminiscent of Rev. Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright, Obama's disgraced former pastor. Al-Mansour is a personal advisor to Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world's 19th wealthiest person and the individual, who allegedly funded Obama's Harvard education.

Alwaleed bin Talal is the Saudi sheik to whom Mayor Rudy Giuliani handed back his $20 million check in the aftermath of 9/11 because of bin Talal's intemperate remarks at the time about American foreign policy.

Many Obama policies seem inexplicable to patriotic Americans because they often run counter to the interests of the country. They include unsustainable federal spending, lax border security, a weakened military and the undermining of individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

There are also persistent questions by a growing number of Americans regarding the extent of Obama's allegiance to the United States. Two recent examples provide fuel for those misgivings.

It has been reported that Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal warned that the kingdom's oil-dependent economy is increasingly vulnerable to rising U.S. energy production. He specifically indicated that the boom in U.S. shale oil and gas will reduce demand for crude from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Assuming that bin Talal was indeed the benefactor responsible for financing Obama's Harvard education, it would explain Obama's opposition to the Keystone pipeline and his refusal to increase oil and gas exploration on federal lands.

Even more troubling, the recent revelations by CNN's Jake Tapper regarding the ongoing Benghazi terror attack cover-up and the analyses found here, here and here suggest that Benghazi was a gunrunning operation to Syria in support of the Sunni Islamist rebels sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are fighting against the government of Bashir Assad buttressed by radical Shi'a Iran and Hizbullah. In essence, Benghazi was not a terror incident per se, but a state-sponsored, terrorist-executed attack in retaliation for Obama's support of the Sunni-dominated and al Qaeda-infiltrated Syrian rebels.

It is clearly not in the interest of the United States to be a proxy in a war where both sides are radical Islamists and where either outcome is a losing proposition for us.

Is there now any doubt why Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Obama and Marx’s ten-point platform (Part II)

Mark Hendrickson continues and having gone over, in Part One, how far Barack Obama has gone to implement the first five of Marx’s ten points for how to convert a society to socialism, let’s pick up the narrative by reviewing the other five points.

#6. State control of means of communication and transportation.

Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation, has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine,” and has expressed hostility toward free speech, seeking to use regulations to shape and limit the public. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation,” such as electric cars and biofuels.

#7. Increase state control over means of production.

Besides increasing government control of financial institutions (including having virtually nationalized the mortgage industry by taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) Obama has moved to centralize control of health care and insurance; has dictated policies, and even hand-picked a CEO, of American automobile companies; and has done his best to increase government power over the energy industry through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, and via EPA regulation.

#8 Establishment of workers’ armies.

Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of Americorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.

#9. Control over where people live.

Under Obama, The Department of Housing and Urban Development has launched a plan to change where some people live to achieve an indefinite goal of a more even racial distribution of the population.

One of the implications of cap & trade or other attempts by Obama to regulate how much carbon dioxide Americans emit via fossil fuel consumption is the prospect of government limiting human mobility by raising the cost (even to the extent of imposing financial penalties) for exceeding government-determined limits on how far a person may travel.

In Brian Sussman’s book, Eco-Tyranny, you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.)

#10. Education for all children in public (i.e, governmentally controlled) schools.

Marx’s tenth point is the most far-reaching and potentially dangerous of all. It’s target—control over how and what people think -- is the ultimate tyranny. That is why every communist state uses schools as institutions of indoctrination, just as they use media outlets as instruments of propaganda. That is why George Orwell featured “Newspeak” -- the mutilation of truth and reason by distorting the meanings of concepts. Every illiberal regime seeks to impose mental programming that produces “the new Soviet man.”

Obama has done more than any previous president to centralize control over education in Washington. He has essentially nationalized the student loan market. He has repeatedly tried to limit school choice, instead siding with would-be teachers’ union monopolists.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, which I attended, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs, including mandatory nationwide schooling for everyone up to age eighteen, regardless of aptitude, interest, or willingness.

Obama has sought to extend the tentacles of federal control over how state education policies by arbitrarily granting waivers exempting some states from George W. Bush’s misguided No Child Left Behind Act. In doing so, Obama has trampled on the principle of federalism and most assuredly granted waivers with strings attached, thereby reducing states’ independence.

Most recently, Team Obama has been pushing the Common Core State Standards -- a follow-up to his “Race to the Top” program that spent over $4 billion to induce states to switch to federal standards for curricular guidelines. While Race to the Top and Common Core may sound innocuous or even reasonable, the actual effects are deleterious. Both programs essentially bribe states to replace their existing standards with federal standards, even though, as California has found out, states have had to “dumb down” their standards to conform to federal standards that are lower.

More ominously, the Obama administration is using the Common Core program to invade privacy (think NSA, IRS, and the CFPB -- see Part One of this article). In 2011, the Department of Education unilaterally, without congressional approval, altered the regulations based on the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 -- loosening them so that mounds of personal data about students may be collected. The personal data include not just academic records, such as grades and whether students complete homework assignments, but also disciplinary records, Social Security numbers, records of discussions with school counselors, as well as information about families’ voting status, religious affiliations, medical history, and income.

As the obnoxious cable TV commercials say, “But wait, there’s more!” If that isn’t invasive enough, the intrepid Michelle Malkin has reported that Team Obama’s Department of Education is preparing to use the most advanced technologies (e.g., cameras to judge facial expressions, electronic seats that report posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse, biometric wraps on wrists, etc.) to assess a wide variety of student attitudes -- “appreciation for diversity,” “empathy,” “bias,” “cultural awareness,” etc.

You can imagine the mischief to which such data-mining could be put -- a “brave new world” in which the government uses the data collected in schools to single out “right thinkers” for the fast track to the best schools and key government positions, and putting dissidents from the desired orthodoxy on black lists. You can see the totalitarian potential of such data mining performed under the pretext of “education.” Surely Comrade Marx would commend Barack Obama for his diligent efforts in the field of education.

The bottom line in all of this is that if Barack Obama is not an economic Marxist at heart, he is doing a superb imitation of one. The fact that he enjoys such unflagging support for his agenda from a significant part of the population shows just how far our country has gone in forsaking our founding principles for the siren song of socialism.

References here.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Obama and Marx's ten-point platform (Part I)

Mark Hendrickson says it can be startling to realize how much of Karl Marx's ten-point platform to socialize an economy (set forth in Chapter Two of "The Communist Manifesto") has been implemented in the United States. I even wrote a book about it in 1987. Never before Barack Obama's presidency, however, has a president pushed so assiduously to advance all ten points in Marx's plan. Is it just a coincidence that Obama's mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a card-carrying Communist and that Obama gravitated toward radicals such as alleged Cuban agent of influence Bill Ayers? Or, as the following synopsis shows, is Obama's economic agenda is actually Marxist?

This cursory examination of Obama's Marxian policies will be presented in two parts. The first part below will cover Marx's first five points, and Part Two will review the second five points. The two planks in Marx's platform that pose the greatest threat today are Numbers Five and Ten, so I will cover those in greater detail.

Here is a brief summary, with Marx's wording being edited for simplicity's sake:

#1. State control of territory.

On repeated occasions, Team Obama often has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies through arbitrary regulatory control over massive tracts of federally owned land and restricting drilling in American waters off our coasts.

#2. Progressive income taxes.

Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with further raising taxes on "the rich" even though the top 1% of earners already pays almost as much of the federal income tax as the bottom 95% of taxpayers combined.

#3. Abolition of inheritance.

Obama has succeeded in reinstating federal inheritance taxes and recently proposed raising them further by reducing the dollar threshold at which the tax kicks in and no longer allowing that amount to be indexed to inflation.

#4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.

#5. Centralization of the country's financial system in the hands of the state.

Certainly this trend was well established before Barack Obama became president. Thanks to decades of deficit spending, enabled by an accommodating central bank willing to help underwrite the federal government's chronic over-spending, Big Government and Big Finance have become joined at the hip. This was dramatically demonstrated in 2008 when George W. Bush gave his blessing to a federal bailout of Wall Street. By that time, the heavily indebted federal government had grown far beyond Main Street banks' ability to finance its massive fiscal operations. Only the colossal financial infrastructure of the megabanks and other gigantic financial institutions was sufficient to maintain an orderly market for the federal Treasury's seas of red ink, and so federal intervention to rescue Wall Street was an inevitable act of self-preservation on the part of Uncle Sam.

Yet, even though in some ways Obama is merely continuing in the direction charted by his predecessors, he has found a way to accelerate the centralization of credit in the hands of the state. I am referring to the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill -- both its content, which Obama supported, as well as the aggressive ways in which he is having it implemented.

Dodd-Frank established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and designed it in such a way that its director would be completely unaccountable to congressional or judicial review while giving the director the power to set its own budget. It is difficult to imagine a less democratic, more autocratic power than that wielded by the director of the CFPB. The word "czar" has been used to describe certain presidential appointees, but the CFPB director has such broad powers and is so insulated from checks and balances that the description "czar" seems to be literally true.

While the stated purpose of Dodd-Frank was to reduce dangerous degrees of financial leverage, the larger import of the bill is the way it increases the government's political leverage over a wide range of financial firms. President Obama, Sen. Dodd, and other supporters of the bill assured us that this law would protect Americans from the financial fallout of major bankruptcies by authorizing federal regulators to shut down financial institutions "in an orderly fashion" when they start to fail, or to bail them out. [Although Obama himself insisted that Dodd-Frank didn't contain bailout provisions, two members of the president's own party did. Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) stated that the bill expands "the safety net … to cover ever-larger and more complex institutions heavily engaged in speculative activities," thereby "sowing the seeds for an even bigger crisis." Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) categorically declared, "The bill contains permanent bailout authority."

Such life and death power, of course, gives the CFPB tremendous leverage over financial institutions. It doesn't require a lot of imagination to anticipate how such immense power could be used as leverage (what in the private sector might be called "extortion"): "Listen, Ms. CEO, the guys at Treasury think you should do A, B, and C. You're free to do what you want, but if you don't do what they suggest, we at the CFPB may pull the plug on you. On the other hand, make them happy and they'll name you ‘systemically important.'" The Dodd-Frank law has the potential to make vassals and serfs out of all financial institutions, which is exactly what Karl Marx wanted.

Lest you think Barack Obama wouldn't use the powers of the CFPB to promote his own agenda, he couldn't even wait until the director of CFPB, Richard Cordray, was duly confirmed (which the Senate finally did earlier this month) before the abuses started. As reported by Paul Sperry in Investor's Business Daily on July 3, the Obama administration already was using the CFPB to "compile a massive database of personal information" about "your bill-paying and spending habits." In the context of a presidential administration that already has given ominous indications of being of the Big Brother type (e.g., NSA and IRS data collection) it seems that the Obama administration is moving in the direction not only of total financial control over financial institutions, but over all of us as individuals, too.

[To be continued in Part Two]

Sources at link above.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama toasts failed African socialist

The Daily Caller is reporting that Barack Obama toasted the founding dictator of post-colonial Tanzania on Monday, who collectivized the nation's low-tech agricultural sector, established a one-party state and left that African nation's economy in ruins.

"[Y]ou might say an American child is my child. We might say a Tanzanian child is my child," Obama said after quoting the Tanzanian saying "my neighbor's child is my child."

"In this way, both of our nations will be looking after all of our children and we'll be living out the vision of President [Julius] Nyerere," Obama continued.

"The core values that he proclaimed for Tanzania also describe what both our countries seek -- wisdom, unity, and peace -- Hekima, Umoja, na Amani," Obama said at a state dinner, held at 9:00 p.m. local time.

"So what I'd like to do is to propose a toast … to our gracious Tanzanian hosts, to our Tanzanian friends and to wisdom, unity and peace that we all seek in the world. Cheers," he told the invitees at the dinner, which took place in the Tanzanian capital, Dar es Salaam.

The problem is, Nyerere "led a one-party state that nationalized key industries and created ujamaa, a rural, collective village-based movement of 'African socialism' and 'self reliance,'" according to a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service.

That ujamaa policy was very fashionable among U.S. and European progressives in the 1980s, when Obama was attending Colombia University and Harvard University.

But it wrecked the nation's economy, just as similar socialist planning wrecked the partly-developed economies of numerous African countries after European powers gave up their territorial claims in the continent.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 
On the current Marxist Revolution

Trevor Loudon says given Barack Obama‘s obvious Marxism, it's hard to argue with the logic presented here.

February 2013 by Partisan

This white paper will examine a Marxist Revolution under the assumption that Barack Obama wants to incite Marxist Revolution in America.

When Vladmir Lenin came to power, he introduced a set of socialist policies that literally crashed the Soviet economy by 1921. After pure socialism visibly failed, Lenin introduced what was called, “New Economic Policy,” a modified form of socialism more akin to state-capitalism. Various industries were allowed to remain in private hands while others were wrangled into the purview of government control.

As we recount the industries over which the government is now in control – healthcare, energy, education, student loans – how can one not draw similarities as the contemporary version of Lenin’s state-capitalism? And if we conclude that Obama is a Marxist in a still very much un-Marxist nation, how can we think this is the end of his efforts? As long as the material needs of the neo-peasant class go unmet, the Marxist’s work is never done. (As long as there is a neo-peasant class…) Socialism is only the first step in the march towards “single class” Marxist communism; and that makes us the counter-revolutionaries.

Proletariat revolution and the peasant class.

Obama’s thrust to power was the result of the perfect Proletariat revolution. Because the neo-peasant class was able to vote their revolution into place with the aid of the Marxist bourgeois, a violent revolution simply wasn’t needed. But there’s still plenty of work for the Proletariat revolution. Obama still needs to continue constructing socialism in order to get to Marxist communism.

This begs the question, How do you sideline, neutralize, or otherwise silence opposition? Conservatives and libertarians make up around 50% of the nation but that number is reportedly declining; therefore a violent Marxist revolution is out of the question. The Marxists simply don’t have the guns.

Counter-constitutional activities.

We would expect Obama to not only engage in anti-constitutional but counter-constitutional activities. This includes circumventing the established and separated powers of government; disabling the rule of law in America by selective enforcement; and propaganda campaigns that include how anachronistic the document created by racists is. Further, we can deduce that Obama doesn’t care for large portions of the Constitution and he would probably like to get rid of it altogether. We would expect Obama and his staff to create a culture of non-compliance with the law, introducing new harmful laws while giving party-affiliated organizations breaks from those laws.

Threat of military coup.

As long as counter-constitutional activity is continued, and before it’s achieved total victory, the Marxist revolution is susceptible to compromise. To mitigate the risk of a military coup by high level leaders who are upholding an Oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, we expect Obama and party leadership to identify and replace conservative and Patriot military leaders.

Furthemore, if Obama wanted to prevent a military coup, why not take the teeth off the conventional military by fostering dissension among the ranks? It’s unlikely that policy changes would incite a coup, and we’re unlikely – under Obama – to get involved in another ground war. Allowing openly homosexual soldiers accomplishes two things: it bolsters the Marxist Obama’s standing in that community and it sows discord among the ranks of conservative military members.

As for introducing females into line units, no one has proved that this will increase combat efficiency; and there are volumes of data that women can’t compete at the same levels as required in combat units. Walter Williams cites Defense Department statistics and says that dating back to 1994, only 2.9% of females can achieve the male’s standard of pushups and two-mile run time. Defense Secretary Panetta suggested that if women were incapable of meeting the same standards that the Defense Department review those standards and determine if they were too high.

Disarm the opposition.

Disarming the opposition would include a literal disarmament along with a political one. In 1993, before the first Assault Weapons Ban was enacted into law, Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” The first step in 2013 is to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban, with no expiration date. When that surprisingly doesn’t end all gun violence, the administration go after other firearms until the end goal is achieved.

Speaker Boehner recently claimed that Obama was trying to “annihilate” the republican party. As long as it destroys itself, Obama will have cooperation in its demise. Part of the plan to destroy the GOP is to introduce millions of democrat voters through amnesty and other citizenship programs for current “undocumented visitors”.

Removing effective representation will leave the Patriot-class severely under represented. The administration will continue to alienate the Patriot community and polarize the issue and, eventually, they could blame the racist, clingers to guns, religion, and low taxes as the cause of their problems; much like Hitler did the Jews in the 1930s and 40s. The ninth rule of Saul Alinsky’s Rule of Radicals is, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” By arresting and publicizing the “most dangerous” Patriots – those with expertise, say veterans – the administration could successfully push the threat of the Patriot and citizen militia as a preeminent national security threat.

Destroy and reassign wealth.

The first rule in the playbook of politics is that power is derived from money. Global banking founder Mayer Rothschild infamously said, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” As long as the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, our currency will suffer from manipulation to the detriment of the many for the benefit of the few. Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” As I’ve said before, $16 trillion isn’t debt you pay back with money you have in the bank; but with money that you will create. The Federal Reserve, at the behest and cooperation with the federal regime, will destroy the dollar in the process. After all, inflation is just a stealth tax.

In a Marxist revolution, wealth and capital destruction is also achieved through progressive income taxes (“The rich must pay their fair share.”); and the reassignment of wealth to the state through confiscatory death and estate taxes, effectively abolishing inheritance. Assuming state control of the financial and banking industry is the next step. The administration will design federal programs to “protect” pensions, 401Ks, and IRAs until the machinations result in the reassignment of wealth back to the state.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Obama's radical friends

Lachlan Markay is reporting that the new Obama advocacy nonprofit Organizing for Action is reportedly considering a merger with a left-wing umbrella group whose financiers have ties to Palestinian terrorists and Central American Marxists.
 
The Common Purpose Project (CPP), an affiliation of left-wing activist groups, may merge with Organizing for Action, the new 501(c)4 iteration of the Obama campaign’s 527 group, Organizing for America.

The Common Purpose Project held periodic meetings attended by top liberal groups during President Barack Obama’s first term. Top White House officials regularly attended the meetings and the president himself has even attended one.

Erik Smith and Laura Burton Capps -- CPP’s founder and the group’s managing director, respectively -- have reportedly attended at least 50 “planning sessions” at the White House.

Among CPP’s donors are Sandor and Faye Straus, founders of the left-wing Firedoll Foundation. The couple has funneled money to a host of radical organizations through Firedoll.

According to Firedoll’s form 990 filings, it has provided $30,000 in grants to a group called the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ). AFGJ’s president Katherine Hoyt worked for Nicaragua’s Marxist Sandinista government.

The Nicaragua Network, one of AFGJ’s “core projects,” was created with the explicit goal of overthrowing the government of Anastasio Somoza Debayle, the predecessor to the Sandinista regime. Somoza was expelled from power in 1979, months after the Network’s inception.

Other Alliance activities in Latin America have included defending leftist leaders Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador against charges that they supported the Colombian narco-terrorist organization FARC.

Ron Arnold, an investigative journalist and author of Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics, and the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, said the radicalism of these and other Firedoll grant recipients could reflect poorly on Organizing for Action (OFA).

“Does [OFA chief Jim] Messina really want to associate his brainchild with these sorts of organizations?” Arnold said in an email, adding that groups like AFGJ “cross the line from liberal to outright radical.”

Other Firedoll-funded groups include the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, which has financial ties to the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity shuttered by federal law enforcement authorities for financing Palestinian terrorist groups.

A spokesperson for the foundation declined to comment on its grants or grantees.

“I think it is sad and disappointing that OFA and the president would see no problem in merging with an organization whose donors are associated with funding of dictators, terrorists, and other human rights violators,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former attorney in the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

The insular nature of the left’s funding apparatus can blur the line between mainstream groups and the left-wing fringe, according to Arnold.

“You’ve got a select group of people that finance so many of these organizations, so you’re bound to get some overlap between the so-called professional left and the real anti-capitalist, anti-American radicals,” said Arnold.

The Common Purpose Project did not respond to requests for comment.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

File under:  "I have a bridge to sell you" -- Obama says he's not a socialist

Donovan Slack is reporting that Barack Obama on Thursday brushed aside concerns that he favors socialism, saying in an interview with Univision that his policies are so mainstream that he would have been considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s.

Via the transcript of the interview by Alina Mayo Azze of "Noticias Univision 23" in Miami:

AMA: One issue that Cuban-Americans are worried about is, they believe that you favor a socialist model for our country. Cubans and Venezuelans especially because of what they have gone through. What do you think of that?

PBO: I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that. The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican. I mean, what I believe in is a tax system that is fair. I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure. I do believe that it makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick, so the things I believe in are essentially the same things your viewers believe in.

Obama for years has been dogged by critics who say that his policies -- the stimulus, the bailouts, the health care law, the proposed tax hikes on the rich -- bear the hallmarks of socialism.

Former opponent Mitt Romney, sensing a potential weakness for Obama with Latinos, ran a Spanish-language ad in Florida linking Obama with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Obama has tried to squelch such criticism before, notably telling a business group in 2010 that he is an "ardent believer in the free market." But his responses have done little to allay the questions.

Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed, Muhammad, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power.

An Obamunist believes the orders come from them, the enlightened ones, through the bureaucracy, to the People. They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans, but their goal is power -- and they believe they are entitled to it.

But at their core they are Cultural Marxists.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

Socialism -- ideas so good, they have to be mandatory

Posted by Barack Obama's cousin, Dr. Milton Wolf.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Hey!  That's just a coincidence

Does this sound familiar?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler 

The hand sign on the right is that made by The hands of the Führer Adolf Hitler as he organized his speech. This picture captures Hitler's hands as he speaks of the unity of the National Socialist and socialist ideas.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Barack Obama spoke against "propaganda" that said government doesn't work and the need to "pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #21 
SocalJay

Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #22 

— Four years ago, Barack Obama was America’s Rorschach test upon whom voters could project their disparate yearnings. To govern, however, is to choose, and now his choices have clarified him. He is a conviction politician determined to complete the progressive project of emancipating government from the Founders’ constraining premises, a project Woodrow Wilson embarked on 100 Novembers ago.

As such, Obama has earned what he now receives, the tribute of a serious intellectual exegesis by a distinguished political philosopher. In “I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism,” Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College rightly says Obama is “playing a long, high-stakes game.” Concerning the stakes, Obama practices prudent reticence, not specifying America’s displeasing features that are fundamental. Shortly before the 2008 election, he said only: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming” America. Tonight, consider Obama’s acceptance speech in the context that Kesler gives it in the American political tradition.      

Progress, as progressives understand it, means advancing away from, up from, something. But from what?

From the Constitution’s constricting anachronisms. In 1912, Wilson said, “The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power.” But as Kesler notes, Wilson never said the future of liberty consisted of such limitation.

Instead, he said, “every means ... by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of government” should be used so that “individual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.” Rights “adjusted and harmonized” by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the “New Freedom.” The old kind was the Founders’ kind — government existing to “secure” natural rights (see the Declaration) that pre-exist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress. The pedigree of Obama’s thought runs straight to Wilson.

And through the second transformative progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, who counseled against the Founders’ sober practicality and fear of government power: “We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal” and are making government “an instrument of unimagined power” for social improvement. The only thing we have to fear is fear of a government of unimagined power:

“Government is a relation of give and take.” The “rulers” — FDR’s word — take power from the people, who in turn are given “certain rights.”

This, says Kesler, is “the First Law of Big Government: the more power we give the government, the more rights it will give us.” It also is the ultimate American radicalism, striking at the roots of the American regime, the doctrine of natural rights. Remember this when next — perhaps tonight — Obama discourses on the radicalism of Paul Ryan.

As Kesler says, the logic of progressivism is: “Since our rights are dependent on government, why shouldn’t we be?” This is the real meaning of Obama’s most characteristic rhetorical trope, his incessant warning that Americans should be terrified of being “on your own.”

Obama, the fourth transformative progressive, had a chief of staff who said “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” More than a century before that, a man who would become the first such progressive said a crisis is a terrible thing not to create. Crises, said Wilson, are periods of “unusual opportunity” for gaining “a controlling and guiding influence.” So, he said, leaders should maintain a crisis atmosphere “at all times.”

Campaigning in 1964, Lyndon Johnson, the third consequential progressive, exclaimed through a bull horn: “I just want to tell you this — we’re in favor of a lot of things and we’re against mighty few.” He learned this progressive vernacular from his patron, FDR, who envisioned “an unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress.”

In 2012, Americans want from government not such flights of fancy but sobriety; not ecstatic evocations of dreamlike tomorrows but a tolerably functioning today; not fantasies about a world without scarcities and therefore without choices among our desires and appetites but a mature understanding of the limits to government’s proper scope and actual competence. Tonight’s speech is Obama’s last chance to take a first step toward accommodation with a country increasingly concerned about his unmasked determination to “transform” what the Founders considered “fundamentals.”

— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

We've had it with Obama's Socialism

J.D. Longstreet marvels at the MSM's spinning of the polls and Obama's obvious glide to oblivion in order to paper over what will be a devastating Democratic Party loss of the Oval Office and, very likely, the US Senate, as well, in less than seventy days.

Look, the denizens of the Mainstream Media already KNOW the Obama team is in serious trouble.  They just don't want Democratic party voters to know it.

The Prez?  Well, most normal folk have concluded that he is delusional and THAT explains his surety of demeanor.  Delusional people rarely ever live in the real world.

I sense a slow but consistent swing toward the republican candidate across the country today. 

In my state of North Carolina, we have gone from being an Obama state to a battleground state, to a Romney state.  Obama can mark The Old North State off his list.  It ain't gonna happen for him here.

The thing is -- it's happening across the country, this slow turning away from Obama.  The pendulum is swinging from left back to right.  That's a good thing.

So -- what happened?

Obama happened

To be a bit more specific, it was/is Obama's socialism, his obvious love for Marxism, and his burning desire to -- as he said -- "fundamentally transform" this country. 

Here's the thing:  Americans don't want fundamental change.  Oh, we will allow you to fiddle around the edges, a bit, but when you begin fooling around with the basic fundamentals of what America means, what America stands for, and you begin to demean America in the eyes of Americans -- you are finished.  Obama is finished.

I think America was willing to give the first black President of America a chance.  The electorate did that in 2008 -- and many now rue the day.  His first two years in office he had control of two branches of the three-branch US government made up of his team players -- democrats. He blew it -- pushing the largest socialist program to come down the American pike in the history of the country -- socialized medicine known as Obamacare.

By the time he had completed that task he had so angered Americans that the die was cast. His days in office were numbered. 

In 2010 the electorate deliberately sent a new team of conservatives to Congress with the mission to block, obfuscate, or plainly put, do whatever was necessary to stop Obama and see to it that he could do no more harm to the country until we could get back to the polls in November of 2012 to rid ourselves of the Obama menace to America and to America's capitalist society.  Yes, it was self-imposed gridlock.  Obama and his minions HAD to be restrained for the sake of the country -- and, for the most part,  they were. 

For nearly four years now Americans have had a taste of what a socialist system would look like in America.  It finally became clear that if Obama and his fellow socialists had their way -- America's middle class would cease to exist. 

It took a while for this lesson to sink in.  But it did, and now Americans are fighting mad.

So, they are turning to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the GOP candidates for President and Vice-President, to use their skills at business and economics to stop America's slow collapse and begin the restoration process so at least SOME of the damage done by Obama can be repaired.  It will, we know, take many years to right our ship of state and our economy.

There is a poll I'd like to suggest to the various polling companies.  How about asking how many voted for Obama and are now ashamed of their vote.  I think, there is a huge swath of the electorate who did, in fact, vote for Obama, believing he could do all those things he touted and promised.  They are now embarrassed by that vote -- but they are not going to openly admit it.  They will make a conscious effort to atone for that mistaken vote in the voting booth in a few weeks.

Look.  America is NOT just another country -- no matter what the political left says.  American exceptionalism is a fact.  Evidence of American exceptionalism is the fact that Americans are not in open revolt at this moment!

We Americans ARE different.  We ARE unique.  That which works for Europe will not work for the USA.  Most of us hail from families that left Europe generations ago to come to America PRECISELY BECAUSE America was/is different.  Opportunity in America was limited only by a man's ambition and ability. The individual American built this country -- not the government.  In fact, it was the individual Americans from the thirteen colonies that built the US government. 

The task is clear.  Our government is in trouble.  It has grown so huge and become so intrusive that IT has now become the primary obstruction in the path to the continued success of individual Americans.  That must change.  It must change NOW.  Four years from now will be too late.

Obama's socialism has no place in America.  It is a policy of personal defeat practiced by the defeated people of a defeated nation who live in constant fear.  Obama's agenda to foist his brand of socialism off on America has enraged the populace in a manner I have not experienced in my (well over) seven decades of life.  It is palpable.  Obama's agenda is not to build America up and help her claim the high ground again.  No!  His agenda is to manage America's decline!  How totally un-American is that?!

"Live free or die"  is not just a state motto or a nice sounding slogan.  It is the TRUTH.  A nation cannot truly live unless it is free.

We Americans must reclaim our birthright of freedom in November and get our country restored, set right, and moving upwards again.  Else -- we die.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

Obama's Liberal-Progressive-Socialist vision of social justice

Thomas E. Brewton says Barac Obama's actions in office, no matter what he now says about his "business-friendly" administration, reveal his thoroughly ingrained ideology of socialism.  That ideology is evoked in sharp focus in his campaign mantra that "the rich" should pay their fair share of taxes.

Supposedly Obama's monstrous deficit spending and mountainous increases in government debt would be significantly reduced by raising taxes only on the top 10% of tax-payers, who already pay two thirds of all income taxes.  Inferentially, income redistribution via those higher taxes on "the rich" will rejuvenate our moribund economy.
 
One can hope that Obama has abandoned some of the Marxian doctrine of revolutionary violence that he absorbed from avowed socialist Frank Marshall Davis during his youthful days in Hawaii.  Of Davis, Wikipedia notes, "The London Telegraph described Davis as an "early influence" on the young Obama, and confirmed that the character "Frank" from Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father, was based on Davis."
 
Revolution, violent or legislative, underlies Obama's constant appeal to fairness, blatantly aimed at stirring up the class warfare advocated by Karl Marx.
 
Emulating Adolph Hitler's 1930s campaign strategy of the Big Lie and scapegoating the Jews, Obama's campaign boils down to blaming "the rich" for our Great Recession and absolving himself from any responsibility.
 
Obama, during his presidency, regularly has called Wall Street executives "fat cats," bondholders "speculators," and accuses doctors of giving patients unnecessary and harmful surgery.
 
He has regularly blamed private companies rather than the government for the financial crisis. Indeed, the only blame he gives to the federal government is that there wasn't enough regulation.
 
Obama's campaign rhetoric is straight out of Karl Marx's teachings.  See Chapter Nine, The Liberal Jihad -- The Hundred-Year War Against the Constitution.
 
Marx and Engels resurrected an old theory that declares the value of anything is strictly the amount of labor required to produce it. The point was to elevate the importance of workers, ultimately labor unions, and to downgrade the importance of entrepreneurs and skilled managers. The labor theory of value is opposed to the free-market axiom that goods and services are worth only what a willing buyer is prepared to pay for them.
 
The labor theory of value has several implications, among them:
 
First, income from investment of savings or inheritance is immoral, because it is not earned by physical labor. The IRS pays obeisance to the labor theory of value by classifying and taxing differently so-called "unearned income," interest and dividends from investments.
 
Second, entrepreneurial and managerial competence doesn't count. The wages of the owner or manager ought to be the same as the wages of any other worker, based on the number of hours that he does physical labor. In a socialized economy, there are no entrepreneurial owner-founders (such as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs), just managers hired by government planners.  In that regard, note Obama's recent statement that entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses, someone else (i.e., the government) did it.
 
Third, business profit that accrues to owners is simply theft of what rightfully should be workers' wages. Anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in an 1840 book expressed the anti-capitalist sentiment with his notorious assertion that "Property is theft!"
 
Liberal-progressives point to many inequities in American society, which they blame on the individualistic nature of our original Constitutional structure. Their remedy is to eliminate the Fifth Amendment's protections of private property rights and to ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, which reserve to the states and to the people all powers not expressly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. The tyranny of money, say liberals, permits one person to have more than his fellows. There can be no freedom, they say, in a society that permits some people to exercise the power arising from unequal distribution of income.
 
As there is no evidence for it, this theory must be the basis of oft-repeated charges of widespread racial discrimination bruited by Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden.
 
The bottom line for the liberal-progressive-socialist jihad is equality of income and wealth, or, to put it more accurately, enforced equality of consumption. Everyone, under liberal-progressive-socialism, is entitled to satisfy his needs from the socialized output of society, regardless of whether he contributes to that output. This is to be financed by taking wealth from more productive individuals and giving it to selected social classes of people.  Hence Obama's insistence upon higher taxes for "the rich."
 
In that perspective, the original Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, was focused wrongly upon individual political liberties to forestall arbitrary exercise of government power. Equal opportunity, in that view, is a delusion, because it gives free rein to individual abilities, which inevitably will mean that some people become wealthier than others. Liberal-progressive-socialists aim for a political society in which all goods and services are available to everyone, solely on the basis of need.
 
Re-electing Barack Obama will keep in the presidency a man whose personality is deeply imbued with that liberal-progressive-socialist myth of egalitarian harmony.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved