Obama and Socialism

Custom Search

  

  

Socialism is socialism
 

     

 


help fight the media
  
 

    

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in order of discovery . . .
Obama Is Really A Revolutionary
  

The most radical US President -- ever!  (07:09) -- YouTube link
    
Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd, states that Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel."  Dr. Rubenstein states that Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim -- to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."
Types Of Socialism

Lenin -- Class-based International Socialism
Hitler -- Race-based National Socialism
Obama -- Class- and Race-based Post-National Socialism

America’s Bolshevik
Obama denies being an ideologue or a Bolshevik, why?  Is he ashamed of his heritage and convictions, just intent on keeping his motivations covert until the right time to spring his true nature upon us, or is there a technicality that we need to grasp?

Perhaps we should analyze the term Bolshevik.  Historically, the Bolsheviks were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), founded by Vladimir Lenin.  They split from the Menshevik faction in 1903, during the Second Party Congress.  They eventually gained control during the October phase of the Revolution in 1917.  Bolshevik means "majority" or "large" and the nickname resulted from having the majority rule in a crucial vote.  Later on after gaining complete control, Lenin maintained that since there was no opposition, there was no longer the need to call themselves the majority party or Bolsheviks, thus they named themselves the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Eventually, Lenin died and Stalin gained control of the party.  Trotsky was exiled and wrote extensively condemning Stalin’s "incorrect" version of Communism by referring to it as Bolshevism, a derivative of Bolshevik, in apposition to Leninism.  Consequently the term Bolshevik developed negative connotations for the "pure" Communist; perhaps this explains Obama’s displeasure at being called a Bolshevik.  He like many others must feel the sting of those who are critical of Stalin’s regime.

The term, Ideologue, evolved in the highly contested political and philosophical debates of the French Revolution; coined by Destutt de Tracy, initially, it referred to the study of the science of ideas or the study of ideas and the means and logic of those ideas.

Later, Napoleon used the term as a pejorative toward his political opponents, since that time it has been used as a term of derision in political discussion to point out an opposing politician’s inability to grasp ideas that are different than those of his party line, thus reflecting a pettiness and lack of cognitive ability.

Obama's taking exception to being considered an Ideologue becomes a matter of conjecture when examining the platform of America’s Communist Party.  Although Obama denies any association with the Communist Party of the United States, (CPUSA) they are in express agreement with all of his policies.  They could not have had a better representative if they had won the election.

The CPUSA’s stated goals are to achieve a free, prosperous, and peaceful society free of racism, sexism, homophobia, and exploitation, in which all people have the opportunity to develop to their full potential.  These same goals were espoused by Obama during his campaign, the same goals of the Social Democrats and of the Progressive Democrats.  The Communists above all maintain that they advocate a peaceful Socialist Revolution and a peaceful transition to Socialism.  Obviously if they didn’t, the Communist Party would be outlawed; therefore the claim is probably one of expediency and is purely academic.

All things considered, I understand why a true Marxist in the Russian tradition balks at being labeled a Bolshevik.  It is an insult from the days of Trotsky’s bitter writing over his ouster and banishment.  Being upset at being labeled an Ideologue is a matter of history.  In the context of the early days of the French Revolution, Obama should consider it a compliment to be called an ideologue.  If his frame of reference is from the Napoleonic perspective, he is indeed an Ideologue, after all Karl Marx frequently implied that it was essential to be an Ideologue.  Obviously Obama is confused over these issues as he seems to be over many issues.  It would probably be a much easier if he would just be honest with the American People and admit that he is a Communist Ideologue, with his reelection chances diminishing daily, he has reached the point where honesty can only improve his ratings.  Of course if he had been honest in the beginning, he would have never been elected.

Posted by Skookum on the Flopping Aces blog.
    
There can be little argument that the agendas of Obama, the Democrat Party, and the CPUSA are strikingly similar -- cursor down on the Flopping Aces link to review a condensed version of the CPUSA platform.
Young Obama's Marxist Socialist Perspective
  

Dr. Drew says, "He was already an ardent Marxist socialist." (01:00)
    
NewZeal blog has a 45-minute interview with former student Marxist John C. Drew, on his meeting at Occidental College with fellow Marxist Barack Obama that Loudon says is very credible.
       
Endorsed By The New Party
In 1995, Obama, as part of his first run for the Illinois State Senate, began seeking the endorsement of the New Party.  The New Party's objective was to push forth the socialist principles of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), that claimed Obama as a member, by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. 

Obama had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, an executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a communist front group, and an affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front group.

The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party.  Obama signed that pledge, choosing to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists.  The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of DSA members and a good number of members of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a democratic socialist group in the United States which originated in 1991 as the Committees of Correspondence, a moderate, dissenting wing of the Communist Party USA.

When allegations surfaced early this summer of the New Party's endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization.  The DSA and New Party then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, John Hinderaker of the PowerLine blog discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website.  The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races.  Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

      


So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996.  Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial:


New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.


Barack Obama chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists.  As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals.  Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with.  What does it say about Barack Obama, that he chooses to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

Obama's Our Guy

The Democratic Socialist Party of America was slightly more modest in claiming Senator Obama as an adherent:

      

      

Still, it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy--one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States.  It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.

The Socialist New Party
During his run for the Illinois state senate seat, Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  Obama was an associate of the Chicago branch of the DSA, and a member of the "New Party," and signed documents seeking their support.

Obama actively
sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998.  The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).
  
  
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats.  The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.
  
  
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America (Obama was an associate of the Chicago branch), and the militant organization ACORN.  The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
Endorsed By The Democratic Socialists Of America
In 1996, Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for the Illinois state senate seat.  Obama is an associate of the Chicago branch of the DSA.

Here is a video of Obama enthusiastically campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for less than two years.

On November 1st, 2007, Obama made this startling comment, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."

His "solutions" will sound familiar to those who listened to Lyndon Johnson's poverty gurus and their fellow travelers under Jimmy Carter who promised massive government assistance:
      

"When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does. I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again -- organize our workers and lift up our middle-class. And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens by passing my plan to provide universal coverage and cut the cost of health care by up to $2500 per family."

"The philosophy behind the project is simple -- if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can't just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually w
orks."

      

Stealth Socialism
Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code -- socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times.  "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted.  "That's what this election is about."  Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to.  His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat.  It's a euphemism for socialism.

He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" -- "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":
    

•  "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
•  "Free" college tuition.
•  "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
•  "Free" job training (even for criminals).
•  "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
•  "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
•  More subsidized public housing.
•  A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
•  And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

•  "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

       
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters -- first-term stuff.

Read more here . . .
"Change"
Most Americans revile socialism, yet Obama's poll numbers remain competitive.  One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.

One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.  They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

Saul Alinsky had no time for liberalism or liberals, declaring that "a liberal is (someone) who puts his foot down firmly on thin air."  He wanted nothing less than transformational radicalism.  "America was begun by its radicals," he wrote. "America was built by its radicals.  The hope and future of America lies with its radicals."  And so, "This is the job for today's radical -- to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight.  To say, '. . . let us change it together!' "

Obama called his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had."

Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause.  "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity."

Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

More . . .
"Change" -- A Metaphor For Socialism
Following his election, Obama set up a new website, Change.gov, that featured his socialist policy proposals on everything from tax, the war, gun control, education and health care, seemingly cut and past from his campaign website, BarackObama.com.

Over the weekend, the webpage disappeared.

The list was replaced by a single paragraph committing Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden to "...a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives".

Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said: "We are currently retooling the web site."

Well, nothing gets deleted from the web, and here is the page.  Lots of reparations by another name, lots of free money, lots of "inner city" and "urban" programs, no racial profiling and bring back the gun bans.

The federal government spent trillions on Lyndon Johnson's "The Great Society" -- to no avail.  Now, Obama plans on bringing us "The Great Society -- Part Deux," which is nothing more than the biggest redistribution of wealth in the nations' history.

Mo' money -- that's what this woman heard -- "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car.  I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage.  You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me." (video)
Change For The Greater Good
ABC's George Stephanopoulos wrote on his blog:

"I asked the president-elect, 'At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your campaign some kind of grand bargain?  That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?'

"'Yes,' Obama said.
Nationalizing America's Industries
After the election, when Barack Obama talked about realigning the American automobile industry he was quick to offer a caution, lest he sound more like the incoming leader of France, or perhaps Japan.  He wants to nationalizing America's industries.

"We don't want government to run companies," Obama told Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press." "Generally, government historically hasn't done that very well."

But, what Obama went on to describe was a long-term government bailout that would be conditioned on government oversight.  It could mean that the government would mandate, or at least heavily influence, what kind of cars companies make, what mileage and environmental standards they must meet and what large investments they are permitted to make -- to recreate an industry that Obama said "actually works, that actually functions."

It all sounds perilously close to a word that no one in Obama's camp wants to be caught uttering: nationalization.

Obama, Officials, Democrats Support Global Socialism

But at a "Global Progress Conference" in October, Barack Obama's pollster, Joel Benenson, acknowledged that socialized medicine in the U.S. faces a serious obstacle.  He said that while Europeans are receptive to the expansion of government in their lives, in America there is an anti-government culture which prevents people from "expecting the State to solve their problems."

 

"This explains why Obama will find it difficult to implement the social coverage plans such as a broader health service," Benenson reportedly said.

 

The conference was held in Madrid, Spain under the patronage of Spain's socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, whose pro-homosexual and pro-abortion policies have led to street protests by thousands of supporters of traditional values.  Zapatero is also under fire for a jobless rate of nearly 18 percent.

 

Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said on December 8 that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party has "intensified significantly" over the last several years and involves "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels."  He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides."

        

Dean's comments came in a video address in which he joked that his failure to personally attend the Party of European Socialists (PES) convention, which was advertised as a "carbon neutral congress," was actually a smart move because he avoided flying and contributing to global warming.  "We've saved a lot of carbon," Dean said.

 

In his comments, Dean called for a "long-term global vision" for the transformation of the global economy and mentioned that disgraced Democratic President Bill Clinton had previously spoken at a meeting of the PES-sponsored Global Progressive Forum.  The April 2-3 Global Progressive Forum also featured Robert Borosage of the left-wing group that calls itself the Campaign for America's Future.

 

The Global Progressive Forum is also sponsored by the Socialist International, whose U.S. affiliate, the Democratic Socialists of America, includes long-time backers of Barack Obama.

 

"Free-market globalization alone cannot achieve social justice," Dean told the PES convention. "What the world needs is a global New Deal."
 
Continue reading how this will happen here . . .

The British Get It
You have to pinch yourself -- a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, has become President of the United States.

And apparently it's considered impolite to say so.
Two Faced
Ron Russell says we've all heard the expression, "a mirror image."  Most think the image and the reflection are the same when in reality -- they are opposites.
    
    
What we saw and heard from Obama on the campaign trail was one thing (the mirror image), and what we are getting now is the true Obama.  A far left politician with an almost alien agenda.  He simply wants to change American into his personal vision of what he thinks America should be.  His ideals come from years of influence by people who believe that capitalism is an evil and corrupt system.  He is using the economic downturn, which is a normal part of a free market system, to advance his agenda.  An agenda not of the European socialist kind, but one far more radical and foreign to the traditional American system.  This is a power grab that puts the efforts of Hugo Chavez to shame.  Its beginning to take shape and some see the looming danger it presents while others stand in awe waiting for the next words of the great orator.

Obama Begins His Assault On Your Life Savings

Terry Jeffrey says the welfare state and your life savings are two cars heading down a one-lane road in opposite directions.  One must yield, or there will be a crash.

For Americans who believe in the old-fashioned virtues of hard work, self reliance and respect for private property, the solution is obvious.  The welfare state must yield.  For politicians who believe in the welfare state and redistributing wealth, the solution is equally obvious. Your savings must yield.

Barack Obama is of the latter group.  In the new health care proposal he outlined this week, he suggested a series of unprecedented tax increases that would extend the greedy hands of government into the life savings of hard-working Americans.  These new taxes would essentially construct a new fiscal pipeline capable of carrying money out of the savings of private citizens and dumping it into government coffers specifically for subsidizing Medicare under the new health care system Obama envisions.  The White House summary of Obama's proposal presents this would-be pipeline as a facilitator of economic justice.
    

"Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness," says the summary.  "The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.  In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations)."

    
There are, of course, multiple unanswered questions here.  For starters, wouldn't increasing the Medicare payroll tax on "households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly" violate Obama's pledge that, as his campaign literature put it, he would "not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period."  Plenty of single Americans, who are raising children or taking care of other dependents, file their taxes claiming "head of household" status.  Aren't they "families" covered by Obama's tax pledge?

Secondly, wouldn't slapping these households with a new 2.9 percent tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents also violate Obama's tax pledge?

But the most important question is this: Would allowing the government to tap into the savings of one group of Americans to pay entitlement benefits to another group create a system of taxation that could swiftly destroy the American dream?  Yes, it would. Here's how:

When Obama took office, the federal government confronted a massive long-term fiscal problem.  The nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimated that revenues expected under the current tax system would fall $56.4 trillion short of covering the current federal debt and the long-term costs of promised entitlement benefits.  That $56.4 trillion equaled $184,000 for every living American and $435,000 for every full-time worker.  Given the fiscal trajectory at the end of 2008, the government was headed toward spending 18 percent of gross domestic product by 2028 just to cover the annual costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt.

To put that in perspective, the entire federal government cost only 18.2 percent of GDP in 2001 and only 19.6 percent as late as 2007.  By 2028, if overall government expenditures were held at the 2001 level as a share of GDP, welfare-state entitlements would squeeze out all other federal spending -- including maintaining an Army and a Navy.

The Mack truck of the welfare state was speeding down the one-lane road straight at the little compact car of your life savings.

How did Obama respond?  He massively ramped up short-term spending, submitting a budget that will spend an average of 24.13 percent of GDP over the next four years -- more than the average of 19.13 percent FDR spent during the Depression and World War II.  For the long run, Obama is trying to establish a national health care system in which the federal government will subsidize health insurance not only for the elderly and the poor but also for the middle-aged and the middle class.

Redistributionist politicians like Obama see their core constituents as the net recipients of government benefits, not the net payers.  Increasing the number of net recipients serves their ideology and political interests.

The new taxes Obama wants to impose on interest, dividends, annuities and rents to pay for his health care plan are in fact taxes on the life savings of the net payers -- on their 401(k)s, savings accounts, paid-off mortgages and life insurance policies -- to cover benefits for the net recipients.  The redistributionists would ultimately need $435,000 from every full-time worker to cover the welfare state's unfunded liabilities -- even if Obama's health care plan were never enacted.

Obama is pointing them down the road where they will find it.
Obama Rejects Cries of Socialism
Reuters is reporting that Barack Obama launched a vigorous defense of his economic agenda Wednesday, rejecting critics who call his policies "socialism" and insisting he aims to boost U.S. competitiveness abroad.  Speaking to the Business Roundtable, Obama said, "Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market."

Obama said his efforts to enact sweeping legislation to overhaul financial regulations and set caps on carbon emissions to fight climate change were not aimed at thwarting businesses.

"We have arrived at a juncture in our politics where reasonable efforts to update our regulations, or make basic investments in our future, are too often greeted with cries of 'government takeover' or even 'socialism'," Obama said.

"Getting this balance right has less to do with big government or small government than it does smart government.  It's not about being anti-business or pro-government; it's about being pro-growth and pro-jobs," he said.

Despite Obama's protestations, our cousin's in England have his number.

Adam Shaw, a Brit, says those of us across the pond who analyze American politics know exactly who it is you have in the White House.  Obama is not some new post-political entity.  Nor is he some form of Stalinist that will set up a USSA.  He is a normal, well-spoken, charismatic socialist who in Britain would sit quite happily towards the left of the Labour Party alongside figures such as Tony Benn, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, and Ed Balls.  To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, and it is not fear-mongering; it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the media to take a deep breath and admit it -- America has a socialist leading the country.

Welcome to the club.  It stinks!

Obama lies, and lies, and lies, and lies...

Lately, Obama has been telling the American People that he's not a socialist -- because it suits his purposes.

In the 1990s, Obama told these people that he WAS a socialist -- because it suited his purposes.

A little over a year ago, ABC's George Stephanopoulos wrote on his blog:

"I asked the president-elect, 'At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your campaign some kind of grand bargain?  That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?'

"'Yes,' Obama said.


Obama can deny all he wants.  AT BEST, he's a socialist, and in ObamaWorld, the end ALWAYS justifies the means, and lying is just part of the job -- "for the greater good."
Obama's Unprecedented Attack Against The American People
Sher Zieve says that for the first time since the loyalists to King George III and the British army moved against the American colonists and patriots, the government is moving en masse to both stop and silence any opposition from the American people to Obama and any and all of his and his Marxist-Democrats.

While watching Thursday's faux Obama-organized Health Care Summit (planned as a day of photo-ops and sound-bites for Obama's 2012 campaign), it became clear to me and others that the Democrat leadership had and have no intention of listening to sound arguments against the ObamaCare Death Plan, Cap & Trade or any of the other ulterior-motive clandestine procedures they have planned against We-the-People.

Instead, Harry Reid had already announced the day before -- Wednesday -- that he and the Dems would affect reconciliation (the "ramming and shoving" process), probably next week, in the Senate in order to force the despotic ObamaCare Death Plan onto us.  Note: Reconciliation -- incorporating a simple and not a super majority -- is supposed to be used for budgetary items.

In fact, this Obama "summit" quickly degraded and devolved into Obama shutting down any Republican who offered alternate proposals and opposing comments, while Democrats engaged in ongoing "kiss the tyrant" moments.  In fact, Obama told Republicans that he could speak as long as he wanted because…"I'm the president!"  Apparently, the rest of the Democrat leadership believed the same about their own self-inflated self-importance as comment-time from the far-left was twice as long as comments from the right.  Note: That's also "right" as in "correct."

During Thursday's Health Care Summit, I viewed the patently totalitarian Marxist-Democrat Party telling We-the-People that we no longer matter to them. Our voices are -- once and for all per the Democrats -- of no further importance.  Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Dictator-in-Chief Obama made it crystal clear that the American people WILL accept whatever draconian plans they force upon them -- and like it -- or else.  Each and every time the questioning and contradictions from the right to false statements made by the dictator-in-chief became too uncomfortable for his fragile ego' or simply presented the truth in too bright a light, Obama shut down the questioner with reprimands similar to "you're off of the subject" or "stop your talking points" or "the campaign is over and I won."

During much of the time Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) was quoting directly from one of the voluminous Democrat ObamaCare plans, Obama refused to make eye contact with him and, with increasingly tightly-pursed lips, started shuffling through some of the papers in front of him.  Note: This was a Judge Judy moment.  Whenever this happens on her television show, Judge Judy Sheindlin says sternly to the offender: "Put down your papers and look at me!"  Wish she'd been there.

As long as any of the Marxist-Democrat Party members are in power, their abuses of said power will continue to escalate.  This is what despots do.  When asked at the ObamaSummit if the Democrat leadership was even listening to the American people, the response was either silence or a quick change of the subject.

Not since the first American Revolution War officially began in 1775 has the oppression against We-the-People from the government been so intense and so relentless.  Now, for the first time in our history, the majority leadership within the US Government is moving against its own people with increasing alacrity, force and determination.  They have told us and continue to shout to us in myriad ways that they will refuse to listen to anything we say unless it is to thank them (our new "masters") for placing us into bondage and slavery.

Despite increasingly overwhelming opposition from the American people to Obama's and the Democrats' Orwellian plans for us, they are moving even faster and harder to oppress us and shut us up.  This is how tyrannies are formed, folks.  And we are now firmly smack-dab-in-the-middle of our own.
Obama Just Getting Started On Expanding Government
David A. Patten writes that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, the chairman of the conservative FreedomWorks organization, is warning that an "emboldened" Obama, fresh off a big healthcare victory, will redouble his efforts to transform America by escalating the size and reach of government.
         
In an exclusive interview conducted Tuesday with Newsmax.TV, Armey says Obama won liberal Democrats' votes by pledging to promote their top issues.  Now, he says, those liberals will be looking for him to deliver.

"When he went to get his last few votes," Armey tells Newsmax, "he went to the liberals who said they won't vote for it because it's not enough.  He said, 'give us your votes; we'll get our foot in the door, we'll make that first step, and we'll give you single payer [healthcare system] down the road.'"

"So he's not done with this; don't kid yourself," Armey says.  "But now he's emboldened."

Obama's apparent triumph in altering the one-sixth of the U.S. economy represented by healthcare, Armey says, increases "immeasurably the likelihood of him saying, 'All right, now it's time to go for climate change.'"

Those committed to fighting further federal expansion must prepare for the next battle, says Armey.

"We're going to have to go after that front now, and fight this fight for liberty on the front of the politics of greed wrapped in the language of love for the environment," he says.

According to Armey, the common theme of Democrats' initiatives, from near-universal healthcare to environmental legislation to card check rules limiting a worker's right to a private ballot on unionization, is the establishment of new categories of government-dependent citizens who are more likely to cast ballots for Democrats.

"I've been stunned with their arrogance," Armey says of Democratic leaders.  "They have boldly said to America, We want to complete this job because we believe five years from now when we have more Americans dependent on the government for their healthcare, that it will mean the Democrats will retain their majority for a longer period of time.

Continue reading here . . .
Chicago Does Socialism
Victor Davis Hanson says, "Connect the dots of Obama’s first year in office, and an ugly picture emerges."

We can have a rational debate on any one item on Obama’s vast progressive agenda, arguing whether adjectives like "statist" or "socialist" fairly describe his legislative intent.  But connect all the dots and lines of the past year, and an unambiguous image starts to materialize.

The problem is not individual legislation, whether passed or proposed, involving the gamut of issues: health care, bailouts, stimuli, education loans, amnesty, cap and trade.  Rather, the rub is these acts in the aggregate.

Obama promises a state fix for health care; then student loans; and next energy.  There are to be subsidies, credits, and always new entitlements for every problem, all requiring hordes of fresh technocrats and Civil Service employees.  Like a perpetual teenager, who wants and buys but never produces, Obama is focused on the acquisitive and consumptive urges, never on the productive -- as in how all his magnanimous largesse is to be paid for by someone else.

That Medicare and Social Security are near insolvency, or soon will be; that the Postal Service and Amtrak are running in the red; that a day at the DMV, county-hospital emergency room, or zoning department doesn’t inspire confidence in the matrix of unionized government workers and large unaccountable bureaucracies -- all this is lost on the Obama administration.

Utility means nothing.  So long as the next proposed program enlarges a dependent constituency and is financed by the "rich" through higher taxes and more debt, it is, de facto, necessary and good.  Equality of result is to be achieved both by giving more to some and by taking even more from others.

Continue reading here . . .
Birthers and People Who Think Obama's A Socialist
Yid with a Lid blog reports that Today Show Co-Host Matt Lauer, sporting his brand new tattoo, interviewed Obama on his show yesterday morning.  Typical of Obama he blamed much of the disagreement over his programs on cable news, the blogs, and Republicans for not telling the entire truth about the benefits of his plans.

Obama reserved his harshest passive/aggressive criticism for the American People in the form of the grass-roots Tea Party movement.  While he said many of the people in the Tea Party movement had legitimate concerns, he said over and over at its core the Tea Party is built around a "core group" of people who question whether he is a U.S. citizen and believe he is a socialist.

In the interview, Obama said he feels "there's still going to be a group at their core that question my legitimacy."  After painting the activists with his passive/aggressive "broad brushes," he said he didn't want to paint Tea Party activists "in broad brushes," and he hopes to win over members who have "mainstream, legitimate concerns."

Watch this video to see the disdain Obama has for the American People:
    

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    
Obama's contention that the Tea Party existed before he was elected is complete nonsense.  It was CNBC's Rick Santelli who gave birth to the Tea Party movement on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade.

And note how he dissimulates, framing the "natural born" issue as "not being born in the United States," when in fact it is Obama's citizenship in two or three countries that is the issue.
52% Say Obama Moving America Towards Socialism
CNSNews.com focuses on a New York Times/CBS News poll found that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, think Obama's policies are moving the United States toward socialism

Published April 14, the poll surveyed the political, racial, and social opinions of both the general pubic and self-described members of the Tea Party movement.  It found that while Tea Party participants are generally more conservative than the broader population, they are also better educated and slightly more successful.

The poll found that almost the entirety of the Tea Party movement -- 92 percent -- shared the views of most Americans that Obama was turning the United States into a socialist country.

The poll asked respondents specifically whether Obama’s policies "are moving the country more toward socialism."  Fifty-two percent answered "toward socialism" while only 38 percent answered "not toward socialism."

A mere six percent of self-described Tea Party Americans answered "not toward socialism."

The poll also found that while Tea Party members generally shared the economic concerns of the broader population, this did not motivate their strong opposition to Obama.  That opposition was based on his policies, not on the poor economy or on other factors, such as his race.

In fact, the racial attitudes of Tea Party members fell in line with those of the rest of the country, with 73 percent of Tea Party members saying that blacks and whites had an equal chance of success -- a view held by 60 percent of Americans.

Tea party activists are strongly motivated by traditional conservative issues, such as the size of government and federal spending, according to the poll.  Ninety-two percent of Tea Party members said they would prefer a smaller, less intrusive federal government to a larger one -- a view they shared with 52 percent of Americans.

Eighty-nine percent of Tea Partiers thought that Obama has expanded government too much in trying to deal with the recession, an opinion which fell in line with the views of 50 percent of the country.

Tea party activists also agreed with the rest of the country – though in higher proportions – on the issue of federal bank bailouts. Seventy-four percent of Tea Partiers said the economy would have improved without the bailouts -- a view shared by 51 percent of Americans generally.

When it came to questions of who are Tea Party members, the poll found that 50 percent described themselves as "middle class" and 26 percent described themselves as "working class."  Only 29 percent of Tea Partiers do not have at least some college education, a figure that far outpaces the rest of the country, of which 47 percent have no college education.

Perhaps the most important statistic in this election year found that Tea Party activists were more likely than other Americans to favor the current two-party electoral system 52-48 percent.

The finding that should most worry incumbents who do not share Tea Party members’ views was that 97 percent of the activists are registered voters.
Obama's Stealth Attack On Our Legal Foundations
Walt Elgin says bowing to foreign power was not just a matter of misplaced etiquette.  As its creeping socialism morphs into a quirky gallop, Obama's State Department is supporting an International Criminal Court (ICC) with jurisdiction over what has always been sovereign U.S. powers:
    

..."Pragmatic cooperation" with the ICC-for example, helping it with investigations and sitting in on court bodies, [proponents argue] would give the U.S. a voice on decisions that affect its interests, such as helping the ICC define the "crime of aggression."  U.S. officials were stunned that a recent draft defining aggression was so wide-reaching that NATO would have been criminally liable in the 1999 Kosovo war...

...The ICC's indictments have so far targeted nasty characters in Africa, but the court has always resisted outside oversight, especially from the U.S.  What's more, no amount of reform of the founding treaty will change the ICC's inherent flaw.  The ICC is a child of the doctrine of "universal jurisdiction," which holds that courts can adjudicate crimes [by their definition] committed anywhere in the world.

    
And other Obama acolytes support a constitutional overhaul to allow more direct control to those in power, without the messiness of congressional action -- as originally stipulated in the Constitution.  Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court Justice, has warned about Obama's "living constitution" views:
    

...the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts.  It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution -- not the Framers' Constitution, but a "constitution for our times," a "living constitution," resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe.

As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, [the constitution should] be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new "rights," and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality.  However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges.

      

Obama-Style Socialism

Jonah Goldberg has written an important article in Commentary on what he calls the "neo-socialism" of the Obama administration.  David Horowitz likes this label.  He says is both accurate and more palatable than the term "neo-communism" which I have applied to the hard left.  But given the twenty-year political partnership between a neo-Communist like Billy Ayers and Obama, and Obama’s coterie of Communist Party mentors and allies, it is at bottom a distinction without a difference.

 

Neo-socialists are fellow travelers of neo-Communists and  vice-versa.  The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians, and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality.  Since people are born unequal (in talent, capability, brain power and physical beauty and prowess) and since they develop unequally through circumstance, the only way to make them equal is to take away everyone’s liberty.  And of course this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace constitute a new and oppressing ruling class.

 

This truth is the focus of Federalist Paper #10 and is enshrined in the Constitution which is why every leftist is at war with it and is dedicated to rewriting it.  So-called progressives are the 21st Century’s true reactionaries who have failed to learn the lessons of the most horrific social experiment ever inflicted on the human race which murdered 100 million people and destroyed the lives of billions.  The term "neo-socialism" attaches them to that awful legacy and serves as a warning to present and future generations of the price that will be paid to achieve "social justice" and also of the fact that the pursuit "social justice" is an evil fantasy which can never be realized.

 

Horowitz has two quibbles with Jonah’s excellent piece.  First, it was Rousseau (in The Social Contract), not Babeuf who identified private property as the root of all evil.  Second, "social justice" is not a milder socialist impulse -- it is in fact a code for communism in the hardest sense.  Hayek wrote a brilliant book called The Mirage of Social Justice which argued that 1) there is no such entity as "society" which distributes wealth.  Hence the call for social justice is simply a mask -- a fake rationale -- for distributing wealth politically and thus arrogating to one political faction totalitarian control of everyone else.

Pro-Obama Group Demands Socialist Media
Cliff Kincaid says a socialist-oriented "media reform" group with ties to the Obama Administration is calling for new federal programs and the spending of tens of billions of dollars to keep journalists employed at liberal media outlets and to put them to work in new "public media."

The group, which calls itself Free Press, is urging "an alternative media infrastructure, one that is insulated from the commercial pressures that brought us to our current crisis."

However, Free Press didn’t say one word about the well-documented liberal bias that has contributed to the decline in readers and viewers for traditional media outlets and has enabled the rise of the Fox News Channel, conservative talk radio, and the Internet.  Instead, Josh Silver of the Free Press attacked the "bellowing ideologues" on the air and declared that "The entire dial is empty of local news in many communities."

This was a tip-off that, in order to take conservative radio hosts off the air, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be flooded with complaints that "local news" has been shortchanged by stations airing conservative personalities with national programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Michael Savage.

Free Press, whose June 2008 "media reform" conference in Minneapolis turned into a virtual Obama for President campaign rally, is in a position to provide those complaints to the FCC.  It claims nearly half-a-million supporters and a staff of 30, mostly in Washington, D.C.

As part of the proposed new "media infrastructure," Free Press is calling for a $50 billion "Public Media Trust Fund" to underwrite the creation of new jobs for journalists and the use of the existing federal AmeriCorps program "to include journalistic activities as part of its mission" in the form of "journalism positions" and "journalism projects."  AmeriCorps is a federally-funded national and community service agency.

The group is also urging a direct federal bailout of liberal media institutions, declaring that "The Department of Labor could design a program aimed at keeping reporters employed at existing news organizations or at new outlets."  Free Press explains, "If the government were to subsidize 5,000 reporters at $50,000 per year, the cost would be $250 million annually, a relatively modest sum given the billions coming out of Washington."

In addition to the $50-billion "Public Media Trust Fund," another one of the proposals from the Free Press group is a $50-million "government-seeded innovation fund for journalism," described by Craig Aaron of Free Press as "a taxpayer-supported venture capital firm that invests in new journalism models."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's Socialist Agenda Threatens The United States
NewsMax.com is reporting that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says Obama’s socialist agenda threatens our way of life.

"We have two mortal threats," he told FT.com in a video interview.  "First is radical Islam.  The other is a secular socialist model of government dominating and defining life that would be fundamentally alien to historical American experience."

In the last 10-15 years secular socialism has strengthened in universities, courts, the bureaucracy and the media, says Gingrich, author of the new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine."

Obama’s commitment to a combination of Chicago machine politics and radicalism presents grave danger, Gingrich says -- "comparable" to Hitler and Stalin.

"Had the Nazis won, the American system would have died," Gingrich said.  "If the Soviet Union had won, the American system would have died."

This is another moment of existential crisis in our country, he says.

"What is it we have to do for this very unique, freedom oriented system of entrepreneurship -- the work ethic, the belief that our rights come from God not from the state -- what do we have to do for that system to survive?"

The God versus state issue is crucial, Gingrich says.

"We are a country that historically said rights come from God to you as a person.  You loan power to the state.  The state doesn’t loan power to you."

But Obama doesn’t abide by that rule, Gingrich says.

"Obama represents a very European model.  This is much more of European socialism and secularism.  He’s very comfortable to Europeans because he’s a much more European personality."
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
Thomas Sowell says when Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.  Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.  Obama's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that Obama has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation?  Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated, but our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion -- or $50 billion or $100 billion -- then so be it, but the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
No Undue Edge For Nations
MSN News is reporting that, on Sunday, Barack Obama said that countries must not have any "undue advantage" if the world is to build a strong and durable economic recovery.

"A strong and durable recovery also requires countries not having an undue advantage," Obama told journalists at the end of G20 talks in Canada.

"So we also discussed the need for currencies that are market-driven," he added, welcoming China's decision to let its yuan float more freely against the dollar.

Obama means the United States.  This is why he keeps shafting the US economically.

Obama is a Marxist ideologue.  As such, his political agenda is Marxist in orientation, not American.  The worldwide Marxist ideological vision demands that the U.S. position in the world be knocked down a few pegs, so that the U.S. and it’s current leadership role cannot threaten their world government agenda.

RelatedObama said about his profligate spending:  "Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I'm not sure that's good politics.  I'm doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it's the right thing to do.  People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step-up because I'm calling their bluff.  We'll see how much of that, how much of the political arguments that they're making right now are real and how much of it was just politics."

And that statement about "next year."  How ominous is that?
Majority Agree, Socialist Accurately Describes Obama
Fox News is reporting that a majority of likely voters think "socialist" is a fair description for Barack Obama, according to a new poll that looks at how well Obama's critics have been able to tag him with that buzzword and its often negative connotations.

The poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, estimates that 55 percent of likely voters believe "socialist" is a somewhat accurate description of Obama.  Poll respondents were asked about a list of words and how well they related to Obama.

When asked about "a socialist," 33 percent of likely voters said it described Obama "very well," 22 percent said "well," 15 percent said "not too well," and 25 percent said "not well at all."

A majority of likely voters, 56 percent, also found that Obama is too liberal -- 35 percent saying it describes him as "very well," 21 percent saying "well," another 21 percent saying "not too well" and 17 percent saying "not well at all.
It's Official:  Obama Is A Socialist
Fox Business News is reporting that Obama is a socialist.  That's the view of 55% of American voters, according to a new poll.  And this isn't coming from a Republican pollster.

It comes from Democracy Corps, a polling group started by life-long Democratic operative James Carville and his partner Stan Greenberg.  When the group asked 1,000 voters in mid-June how well the term "socialist" fits Obama, 55% said "well" or "very well."

This must scare the hell of the elites in the media and academe, who think such talk is just the province of Glenn Beck, not the majority of voters.  But, yes, and yes again.  It is Glenn Beck and it is the American people who think that.  And when you look at the evidence, it's hard to dispute.

Nationalizing companies and whole industries and big-footing time-honored laws regarding property rights are socialist policies.  It's fair to assume that the man directing socialist policies is a socialist.

And Americans have always been fair.

They were fair to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and elect him.  And after seeing him in action, they're fair to think of him as a socialist.

His recess appointment of the new health czar, Donald Berwick, helps confirm that impression.  Remember, he's the guy who says that the only way to improve health care in America is to force the redistribution of wealth in this country.  That's the kind of socialist nonsense that you hear in academic circles all the time.

And in academic circles, this talk usually goes unchallenged.  These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich.  They even extend that belief to the whole world, believing that the only reason poor countries are poor is because they're exploited by rich countries.  That's called "dependency theory," but it's really just warmed over socialism.  And it's got the same emotional core as socialism, drawing its energy from guilt, envy and jealousy.  When these ideas are isolated in academic circles, they're just another theory to argue about late at night, over coffee and cigarettes.

But when they're played out in reality, they can cause devastation.

The world has buried in it far more corpses resulting from the envy of socialism than it does from the greed of capitalism.  And the affluence of America’s middle class has nothing to do with socialism or redistribution of wealth -- it has to do with the creation of wealth.

Now, thankfully most Americans, even inside the Beltway, understand that income redistribution is not the key to our social problems.  They understand that the ultimate outcome of that belief is to make everyone poorer.  Americans don't want a society that pushes people down, but one that brings everyone up -- or at least provides the opportunity for everyone to succeed as high as they can go.
Obama's Backwardness
Greg Reese says Barack Obama is leading our nation backwards into chaos parallel to the early years of 20th-century Russia.  In the early 20th century, Bolshevik revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin pieced together a bureaucratic authority that quickly developed into a totalitarian government.

Barack Obama is laying the foundation step by step for a superstructure not unlike the apparatus by which the Soviet Union functioned.  The bureaucratization of America is an attack on capitalism, the free market, the private sector, and ultimately private property ownership.

Obama, like Lenin, imposed government on the people and will systematically dismantle personal freedom.  As more and more of the private sector is regulated and controlled by big government, all categories of society will fall under the umbrella of one central authority.

Lenin imposed upon Russia a Decree on the Suppression of Hostile Newspapers justifying a series of measures to stop all of the press that spoke out against the revolution.

Obama, once inaugurated into office, commenced a campaign to silence opposition opinion.  White House staff and the president singled out private citizens, groups, and news agencies as illegitimate.

Vladimir Lenin, in establishing the young USSR, assigned a Control Commission to oversee the government departments for the sake of imposing authority and policing rumors or insinuations that are critical of the party.

Parallel to Lenin's actions, Obama categorically assigned czars throughout the many departments of government.  Many of these czars wield managing power and are not bound by constitutional checks and balances or congressional oversight.

Obama is replacing every facet of our society with bureaucracy.  Once our system of private sector and individual freedom is subverted, then we will find ourselves dominated by a dictating government from of which we cannot break free.

Marxism did not collapse with the fall of the USSR.  Obama shares the same philosophical dream as Vladimir Lenin.  Marxism is the faith and religion of the ultra-left.  Barack Obama is an evangelical Marxist.  The American people have not recognized Obama's Marxism because Marxism has changed its vocabulary.

In his trademark chameleon-speak, Obama deliberately articulates his language, delivering rhetoric open to interpretation -- he speaks in code.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's Agenda Founded On Anti-Capitalism
Ronald Kessler says, that by words and deeds, Obama has cast a pall on American business, jeopardizing the economic recovery.  From the healthcare industry to Wall Street, Obama never misses a chance to demonize business.  From taxation to regulation to healthcare, he has undercut incentives for businesses to thrive and hire more employees.

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said this week, Obama has neglected job creation and has sown economic uncertainty with burdensome tax and regulatory policies.

Behind it all is the fact that Obama abhors capitalism.  If you doubt that, look at his own words -- and the words of his wife.

At the NAACP convention this week, Michelle Obama referred to "stubborn inequalities" that "still persist -- in education and health, in income and wealth."

By its very nature, capitalism produces inequality in income and wealth.  By and large, those who strive to achieve do better under capitalism than those who do not.  Thus, the Obamas made $5.5 million last year, largely on royalties from Obama’s best-selling books.  We have yet to hear Obama or his wife complain about the inequality in income that suggests.

When talking about financial regulatory reform, Obama said in April, "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money."

During the campaign, Obama famously said that he thinks the economy works best when "we spread the wealth around."  In a Sept. 6, 2001, radio interview, Obama expressed regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t engaged in wealth redistribution.

If you doubt that Obama is pursuing that goal, look at Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’ description of the healthcare legislation as "an income shift."  Baucus explained that, in recent years, "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind."  The new healthcare legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."  It will, he said, achieve a "shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans."

Obama’s views are not dissimilar to those of Karl Marx, who said, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

The Soviet Union was founded on that premise and eventually disintegrated because citizens had no incentive to work hard, innovate, or be efficient.  In the meantime, Communist Party leaders helped themselves to riches that they claimed no one should have.

Based on the fact that Obama spent 7 years being mentored by a communist, being introduced to politics by a communist, and listening to the anti-capitalist ravings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, no one should be surprised at Obama’s leanings.  What is surprising is that America elected a man who so totally rejects a fundamental reason this country has been so successful.

It's not surprising at all.  Obama's allies in the ObamaMedia just kept their leftist mouths shut.
Obama IS A Socialist
David Asman says that's the view of 55% of American voters, according to a new poll, and this isn't coming from a Republican pollster.

It comes from Democracy Corps, a polling group started by life-long Democratic operative James Carville and his partner Stan Greenberg.  When the group asked one thousand voters in mid June how well the term "socialist" fits President Obama, 55% said "well" or "very well."

This must scare the hell of the elites in the media and Academia, who think such talk is just the province of Glenn Beck, not the majority of voters.  But, yes, and yes again.  It is Glenn Beck and it is the American people who think that.

And when you look at the evidence, it's hard to dispute it.  Nationalizing companies and whole industries and overriding Constitutional laws regarding property rights are socialist policies.  It's fair to assume that the man directing socialist policies is a socialist -- and Americans have always been fair.

They were fair to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and elect him, and after seeing him in action, they're fair to think of him as a socialist.

His recess appointment of the new health czar Donald Berwick helps confirm that impression.  Remember, he's the guy who says that the only way to improve health care in America is to force the redistribution of wealth in this country.  That's the kind of socialist nonsense that you hear in academic circles all the time.

And in academic circles, this talk usually goes unchallenged.  These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich.  They even extend that belief to the whole world, believing that the only reason poor countries are poor is because they're exploited by rich countries.  That's called "dependency theory," but it's really just warmed over socialism, and it's got the same emotional core as socialism, drawing its energy from guilt, envy and jealousy.  When these ideas are isolated in academic circles, they're just another theory to argue about late at night, over coffee and cigarettes, but when they're played out in reality they can cause devastation.

The world has buried in it far more corpses resulting from the envy of socialism than it does from the greed of capitalism.

Now, thankfully most Americans, even inside the Beltway, understand that income redistribution is not the key to our social problems.  They understand that the ultimate outcome of that belief is to make everyone poorer.  Americans don't want a society that pushes people down, but one that brings everyone up, or at least provides the opportunity for everyone to succeed as high as they can go.

Related:  Of course Obama's a socialist.
Obama's Socialist Takeover Must Be Stopped
Jeffrey Kuhner says Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors.  The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda.  Yet more must be done: Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly -- piece by painful piece -- erecting a socialist dictatorship.  We are not there -- yet.  But he is putting America on that dangerous path.  He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above -- one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines.  Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon.  His policies are Balkanizing the country.  It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.  His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress.  It was -- and remains -- opposed by a majority of the people.  It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation.  The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson -- taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes.  Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service.  This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet ObamaCare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion.  Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children.  This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide.  It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists -- evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews -- have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values.  As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent.  The result will be a cultural civil war.  Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights.  The BP oil spill is a case in point.  BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf.  There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Obama has behaved more like Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee.  In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda.  Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims -- much of it to Democratic constituents.  This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America.  He has created a command-and-control health care system.  He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry.  He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government.  The state is intervening in every aspect of American life -- beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds.  Under Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" -- granting amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens.  This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority.  It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty.  Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion.  It means the death of American nationhood.  We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law.  He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans.  His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.  He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders.  Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's Soft-Core Socialism
Steve Forbes says a comedian or satirist could not have come up with the recent scenario of Treasury Chief Timothy Geithner and other Administration officials suddenly trying to reassure corporate chieftains that the Obama Administration is pro business and loves free enterprise.  A close and powerful Obama aide, Valerie Jarrett, sent Verizon CEO (and Business Roundtable chairman) Ivan Seidenberg a letter declaring: "While we may disagree on some issues, we have an open door and are always willing to consider input and ideas from everyone, including the business community."  That's like Dracula saying he prefers bottled water to blood.

Consider the letter's condescending tone regarding the Administration's open door extending even to the "business community."  The business community employs 110 million workers.  Companies and the people who work for them pay most of Uncle Sam's taxes.  They are the font of the innovations that enable us to enjoy an ever improving standard of living.  Now the Administration deigns to entertain input from the business community!  How wonderfully nice and tolerant of the Obots to do so.

No sooner had the charm offensive been launched than the government showed its true colors by defiantly reimposing a ban, which had been overturned by a federal court, on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and by straight-facedly proclaiming that all the stimulus spending has saved or created upwards of 3.6 million jobs and is a huge success.

The truth is that not even the Franklin Roosevelt Administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as this Administration is.  Almost every action Obama officials take underscores their belief in the stereotype that businesspeople are mostly amoral, corner-cutting, consumer-shafting, pollution-loving menaces.  The economy itself needs to be tightly controlled and rigidly guided by Washington mandarins because free markets are inherently and destructively unstable.

One hesitates to bring up the economics of Benito Mussolini and his ilk because fascism means ugly nationalism and racism, as well as mass murder and aggressive war.  So let's label the economic part of that ideology as neosocialist, corporatist, statist or -- to be sophisticated and use a French word -- dirigiste.

Under the corporatist state, private companies exist but take their direction from government.  Competition is seen as wasteful and destructive and therefore must be "managed."  There is a basic hostility toward small businesses precisely because there are so many of them, making them harder to regulate and more apt to do things without government permission.

Continue reading here . . .
How Socialist Kickstarted Obama Propaganda Machine
Trevor Loudon has contended for some time that Barack Obama owes his political career by three Marxist organizations, Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and Democratic Socialists of America. Of the three, Obama's decades old ties to Democratic Socialists of America are most easily documentable.

Part of this support has come in the form of favorable media stories about Obama and in orchestrated attacks against his opponents. It is no coincidence that several members of the recently exposed, pro Obama JournoList had close ties to D.S.A.

Harold Meyerson is both a leading U.S. journalist and a vice chair of Democratic Socialists of America. Meyerson is an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post and is the editor-at-large at The American Prospect. While not an identified member of JournoList, Meyerson is professionally and politically associated with several:
    

•  Washington Post "JournoListas" so far identified include -- Alec McGillis, Greg Sargent, Dave Weigel


•  The American Prospect "Journolistas" include -- Spencer Ackerman, Dean Baker, Sam Boyd, Tim Fernholz, John Judis, Ezra Klein (JournoList founder), Mark Schmitt, Adam Serwer, Robert Kuttner (author of two books on the Obama Administration) and Paul Waldman


•  Democratic Socialists of America affiliated "JournoListas" include -- Joel Bleifuss, Todd Gitlin, a Progressives for Obama supporter), John Judis, Michael Kazin, Scott McLemee, Rick Perlstein, Katha Pollitt (Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama) endorser and Robert Kuttner

    
On April 6, 2010, a seminar "Labor, the Left, and Progressives in the Obama Era" was held at Georgetown University -- further evidence of D.S.A. -- JournoList collusion in favor of Obama.

After the success of health care reform, what’s next on labor’s agenda?  How can the labor movement grow and engage with a progressive movement that speaks to the Obama era?  What is the role of younger workers, workers of color, and women?  Is there a new "New Deal" on the horizon?

Speakers included:
    

•  Barbara Ehrenreich -- D.S.A. leader, Progressives for Obama founder


•  Christopher Hayes -- Washington editor of The Nation, JournoList member, affiliate of D.S.A. linked publication In These Times


•  Gerry Hudson -- D.S.A. member , executive vice-president of the very pro Obama SEIU

 
•  Michael Kazin -- co-editor of Dissent, JournoList member, close to D.S.A.


•  Harold Meyerson

    
One of the speakers above, Gerry Hudson has written how the late founder of D.S.A., Michael Harrington would view the election of Barack Obama.
    

It’s tragic for so many reasons that Michael died too young; his voice and his wisdom are sorely needed.  How he would marvel at the election of Barack Obama and the promise that this victory affords all of us on the democratic left!  He is sorely missed.  But were he alive, I would hope -- and expect, that he and others who are informed by this vision of democratic socialism would join with us in SEIU as we seek to take advantage of a moment most of us have spent our lifetimes only dreaming of.

    
It should come as no surprise to learn that Harold Meyerson was the one of the first, if not THE FIRST, journalist to promote Barack Obama outside his his adopted state of Illinois.

Continue reading here -- there's more, and and he's got links to all the people named . . .
On Obama’s Socialism
Jonah Goldberg says Harold Meyerson, who actually calls himself a socialist, wanted it both ways.  In a March 4, 2009, Washington Post column, he argued that anyone calling Obama a socialist didn’t know what he was talking about: "Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism.  And the reason isn’t that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves."

But after the Rasmussen data came out the following month, Meyerson changed his tune.  In a column titled "Rush Builds a Revolution," he argued that conservative attempts to demonize Obama as a socialist had backfired and were leading Americans, particularly young Americans, to embrace the label.  "Rush [Limbaugh] and his boys are doing what Gene Debs and his comrades never really could," Meyerson wrote.  "In tandem with Wall Street, they are building socialism in America."  Moreover, whereas a more "viable, regulated capitalism" at first distinguished Obamunism from socialism, it now defined Obama’s brand of socialism.  "Today," Meyerson observed, "the world’s socialist and social democratic parties basically champion a more social form of capitalism, with tighter regulations on capital, more power for labor and an expanded public sector to do what the private sector cannot (such as providing universal access to health care)."

Surely if fans of Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.
Economic Crisis, Healthcare Disaster, Define Obama Legacy
Lev Navrozov says Karl Marx was born in 1818.  After having graduated from school, he was sent by his father to a university to become a lawyer.  Later he made a discovery owing to which the word "Marxism" became one of the most common words of his century and the next.

In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), the 26-year-old Marx drew the following conclusion: "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces -- the more his production increases in power and range."

In Vol.1 of his Capital (published in 1867), Marx explained that the "deficient money" was paid by capitalists, who thus profited more and more from the whole process of production and sale at the expense of their victim: the worker.

Today most citizens of Western Europe recall Karl Marx as an idiot, fortunately long forgotten by many West Europeans.  When Karl Marx was fashionable in Western Europe, some West Europeans considered him the greatest thinker on earth.

His utopian socialist theory was tried (e.g., in Soviet Russia) and proved to be destructive and deadly to the country.  It led to the destruction of the country’s economic structure, loss of free enterprise, loss of personal freedoms, impoverishment of the people, political repressions, and eventually ended up in usurpation of power by dictatorship.

What about the United States?

Obama, we gather, espouses Marxist ideology.  He was elected on the basis of his seemingly bold, new ideas, actually rooted in those old-fashioned, hackneyed, long discredited Marxist socialist platitudes.

Continue reading here . . .
The Naiveté of the American Public
Andrew Mellon says that suddenly the American public is shocked.  Perhaps there is no economic recovery.  Perhaps the One really does favor Islam.

Democrats and Republicans shake their heads and wonder, how could Obama pursue such divisive and unpopular policies?  What is the rationale for his decisions?  Is he incompetent?  Is he naive?

The answer is none of the above.

I have said before and I will say again, Barack Obama does not share the values of Americans.  His vision is completely anathema to an America based on individualism, private property rights and Judeo-Christian morality.

When one argues that Barack Obama is merely mistaken in his economic program, they completely discount the notion that he knows exactly what he is doing and that he has been 100% successful in achieving his policies and their intended ends, means and ends that any objective viewer would realize were insane.  After all, an economy is nothing more than the collection of mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges of labor and the fruits of labor.  Anything that impedes one's labor, or the trading of its fruits is necessarily bad for the economy.  Hence, almost everything a government does to try to stimulate an economy, impeding the natural spontaneous harmony of such a system necessarily postpones any recovery.

We were in major trouble with unsustainable public and private debt prior to Obama, coupled with a completely insolvent financial system, a destined to fail monetary system and numerous stagnant businesses sucking up economic resources.  A real financial restructuring would have taken significant time, and even the most "fiscally conservative" Executive and Congress would not have been able to move enough roadblocks out of the way to make this recovery painless or quick.  I question whether or not anything could change the direction of the economy in the long run, save for a collapse that would force us to let the free market work and liquidate the welfare state.  But Obama ensures that there will not even be a chance for recovery for many many years, regardless of who the next president is.

And it is all by design.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama's Socialist Takeover Must Be Stopped
Jeffrey Kuhner says Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors.  The Democrat majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda.  Yet more must be done: Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly -- piece by painful piece -- erecting a socialist dictatorship.  We are not there -- yet.  But he is putting America on that dangerous path.  He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.  Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above -- one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines.  Obama is more divisive than Richard Nixon.  His policies are Balkanizing the country.  It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.  His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress.  It was -- and remains -- opposed by a majority of the people.  It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation.  The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson -- taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes.  Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: the federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase goods or services.  This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights.  The BP oil spill is a case in point.  BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf.  There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Obama has behaved more like Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin.  He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee.  In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda.  Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims -- much of it to Democrat constituents.  This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America.  He has created a command-and-control health care system.  He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry.  He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government.  The state is intervening in every aspect of American life -- beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds.  Under Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" -- granting amnesty to 23 million illegal aliens.  This would forge a permanent Democrat electoral majority.  It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty.  Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior.  It signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion.  It means the death of American nationhood.  We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law.  He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans.  His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.  He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders.  Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

Obama is sworn to defend the Constitution and is supposed to respect the rule of law.  Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party.  This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site.  A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest.  Adams says that under Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims -- no matter how much they cry for justice -- are not to be prosecuted.  This is more than institutionalized racism.  It is an abrogation of civil rights laws.  The Justice Department's behavior is illegal.  It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Yo!  Obama!  Pay Attention
Jim Hoft says this will upset a whole lot of leftists -- and Hollywood sure won’t like the news.

First, Cuba's Fidel Castro admitted that the communist revolution in Cuba has been a failure, saying in an interview, "the Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore."

Now, the Castro Regime announced it will fire at least half a million workers by the middle of next year.

Cuba says it will fire at least half a million state workers by mid-2011 and will free up private enterprise to help them find new work -- radically remaking employment on the communist island.

The layoffs will start immediately and run through the first half of next year, according to an announcement Monday by the nearly 3 million-strong Cuban Workers Confederation -- the only labor union the government tolerates.

To soften the blow, it said the government would authorize simultaneous increases in job opportunities in the non-state sector, allowing more Cubans to become self-employed, to form cooperatives run by employees rather than government bureaucrats and to increase private control of state land and infrastructure through long-term leases.

Somebody ought to make sure that Obama gets the memo.

Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they've been tried, but don't expect our glorious leader to get the message.  He's arrogant enough to believe he'll get it right.
Castro Disses Socialism -- Somebody Tell Obama

"Our state cannot and should not continue maintaining companies productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls (and) losses that hurt our economy.  Job options will be increased and broadened with new forms of non-state employment, among them leasing land, cooperatives and self-employment, absorbing hundreds of thousands of workers in the coming years."

    
Did the Obama administration and our Democratically-controlled Congress suddenly come to their senses?  Did Republicans finally come up with a concrete agenda for the upcoming November election?  Did some Tea Party candidate burnish his conservative credentials?

Arnold Ahlert says no, no, and no.  Unbelievable as it may seem, the above statement was released by the official labor federation–of Cuba.  The Communist regime has announced plans to "downsize" their public sector workforce by more than 500,000 employees, and then attempt to reemploy those workers into the private sector.  And that’s just the beginning.  Cuba announced that more than one million government jobs would eventually be cut, and that there will be fewer state-sector openings in the future.

The reason cited for such massive cuts?  To "increase efficiency in the state sector."  In other words, the most steadfast Communist nation in the western hemisphere has embraced one of the most decidedly un-Communist philosophies of all: limited government.

Such a development in and of itself is stunning enough.  But in August, Cuban leader Raul Castro pushed the stake even deeper into the heart of progressive thinking.  Speaking before the Cuban National Assembly, he revealed an attitude remarkably similar to the one held by a substantial number of Americans regarding our own welfare state:
    

"We have to erase forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world in which people can live without working."

    
Raul Castro has very little to worry about in that regard.  Ninety miles to his north, there is a country where millions of people can live without working.  It is a country where "efficiency in the public sector" is an oxymoron.  It is a country which, despite a nagging recession, has increased public sector payrolls at every level of government, even as its private sector has hemorrhaged millions of jobs.  It is a country being pushed to the brink of insolvency by the very same ideological bankruptcy that Cuba is now rejecting.

The latest announcement follows a curious remark made by the former leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro.  At a recent lunch with Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent with Atlantic magazine, Goldberg asked the 84-year-old ex-president if he still thought Cuba’s economic system was worth exporting.  "The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us any more," said the former Maximum Leader.
Marxism, Socialism, Communism, And Obama
Mike McDaniel traces Obama's behavior and opinions back to the source.

"I don’t get it," my friend said, shaking his head. "Obama is supposed to be so smart and such a brilliant politician … "

"Right," I said. "So?"

"So everything he has done or wants to do is a disaster!  It’s all opposed by the majority of the American people.  Even Democrats are running away from him as fast as they can.  If he’s such a great politician, why does he keep doing things most people hate?  And that’s not the worst part.  When people complain, he calls them too dumb to appreciate what he’s doing for them!"

Why indeed.  The answer is deceptively simple: Barack Obama, the alleged president of the United States, is a committed, doctrinaire socialist, and because Marxist philosophy is the foundation of socialism and communism, a Marxist.  Many Americans are reluctant to accept this idea, despite overwhelming evidence, for two primary reasons: they don’t want to accept that they helped to elect him, and they’re not really sure what socialism and communism are, or what all the fuss about communism was about.  After all, the Swedes are socialists -- aren’t they all blondes in bikinis with charming accents?

To begin, as a public service, a Marxist primer: Karl Marx (1818-1883), a German, was the originator of Marxist theory, which was adapted by the leaders of the now defunct Soviet Union as Marxist-Leninist thought.  Marxism is essentially a method of analyzing history through the vehicle of economics.  In Marxist thinking, there are two classes of people who will always be engaged in what Marx termed the "class struggle":

The Bourgeoisie:  The rich, those who own land, the owners of factories, the capitalists who only get richer by exploiting the labor of the workers.  In capitalist societies, they are the owners of the "means of production."

The Proletariat:  The workers who are always helpless and exploited.

The Marxist view of history contends that man has no "natural" rights or tendencies.  He is self-making.  He is constantly changing due to his need to develop new technologies (new means of production).  There is accordingly no "natural" political order, only that created as a consequence of the constantly evolving means of production.  To that end, Marx saw the following historical chronology, which communists believed (and believe) to be inevitable:

Step One -- Violent Revolution:  Capitalism is better, according to Marx, than feudalism, but both are hopelessly corrupt because of the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie.  As the gap between the very rich and the very poor widens (Marx did not foresee the dramatic rise of the middle class), the workers will be forced to revolt and seize the means of production.  This revolt must be bloody, brutal, and total, with the noble final goal being the seizure of all power for the workers who will then labor to establish the next step on the historic path.  This will take place on a country-by-country or region-by-region basis, but Marx believed that this historic "class struggle" would absolutely overwhelm the world.

Step Two -- The Dictatorship of the Proletariat:  This was the perpetual state of the Soviet Union.  Having seized the means of production, the workers will purge society of all traces of capitalism.  They will reeducate -- or kill -- all capitalists.  Because it is impossible to secure the ultimate blessings of communism in this phase of the historic process, the workers must be "guided" (in actual practice, ruled) by an elite group of "scientific communists" who alone know how to keep the revolution moving steadily on the historic path.  While these scientific communists are purportedly part of the proletariat, in actual practice, they resemble the capitalists they deposed.  Marx recognized this as an evil necessary to achieve the final goal.  Many communists were -- and are -- quite fond of this particular part of the doctrine, as they get all the goodies while the workers exist in misery and despair.

Step Three -- True Communism:  Before true communism can be achieved, all democracies (which tend to be capitalistic) must be wiped from the face of the planet.  This is historical destiny; it must occur.  Therefore, any means are justifiable to make it happen.  (Communists often have been called "socialists in a hurry," in that they’re more than happy to kill anyone who even looks like they might be thinking about standing in their way.  Historically, this has translated to the deaths of tens of millions of their own citizens.  Many communists were very fond of this part of the doctrine, too).  It was only the existence of Western democracies which kept the Soviet Union interminably in the second phase.  When true communism was attained, a "worker’s paradise" would exist around the Earth, and there would be no need for government of any kind.  The maxim "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" would apply.  The people would own and operate all of the means of production and absolute social justice would prevail.

Any failures along the path to the manifest destiny of true communism are always attributable to the idea that true communism has not yet been achieved, therefore Marxist theory cannot be falsified.  It can never be proved wrong.  There can never be, by definition, enough communism, and the remedy to the problems caused by insufficient communism is always more and more fervent communism.

Continue reading here . . .
Don't Lose Faith In The Vision
Beth Fouhy reports Michelle Obama asked women on Monday to support Democrats in next month's midterm elections, urging them not to lose faith in her husband's vision for the country even if they are frustrated by the poor economy and slow pace of change he promised.

"I know that a lot of folks are still hurting.  And I know for so many people, change has not come fast enough.  Believe me, it hasn't come fast enough for Barack, either," the first lady told supporters at a fundraiser in New York for the Democratic National Committee and an affiliated group, the Women's Leadership Forum.

Mrs. Obama's appearance at that event, along with a private gathering hosted by fashion designer Donna Karan, helped raked in about $1 million for the DNC.

Earlier, Mrs. Obama campaigned in Connecticut for Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, who's in a tight race with Republican former wrestling executive Linda McMahon to succeed the retiring Sen. Chris Dodd.  She told a crowd of 800 supporters in Stamford that Obama needed Democrats like Blumenthal in the Senate to help him fight for reform.

"Our campaign was never just about putting one man in the White House," Obama said of her husband's 2008 run for president.  "It was always about building a movement for change millions of voices strong and a movement that lasts beyond one year and beyond one campaign."

There it is right there -- there's the Obama agenda -- " a movement for change millions of voices strong..." -- they're talking about a permanent "socialist" party -- with Obama as its leader.
Obama Vs. America
Nancy Pearcey says as we approach the November elections after two years of Obama, oddly enough, a burning question is still, "Who Is Barack Obama?"

That question was the title of a Richard Cohen column, but practically since Obama’s first day in office, the public has been asking -- Is he a socialist?  A Marxist?  Anti-American?  Anti-colonialist?  But there is one category that encompasses all of the above -- and reveals how serious the diagnosis is.

The category Obama fits best is what scholars call the "adversary culture."  Coined by literary critic Lionel Trilling, the term describes intellectuals and artists who feel alienated from Western society and hostile to its fundamental features.

The adversary culture took root in the 19th century when an avant-garde began to define themselves by defiance of established norms.  They castigated the bourgeoisie as philistines caring only about material profit.  They denounced the growing capitalist class as vulgar money-grubbers.

They latched onto philosophies like Marxism that gave them a platform of moral superiority from which to castigate the West.  And Christianity -- well, whatever was popular among the uncultivated masses warranted only contempt.

These attitudes soon congealed into a class consciousness.  Sidney Hook, in the foreword to The Survival of the Adversary Culture, describes many intellectuals' "hostility to American institutional values and practices."  Daniel Patrick Moynihan notes that "the cultural elite have pretty generally rejected the values and activities of the larger society."

There’s little doubt that Obama considers himself part of that intellectual elite.  The current New York Times Magazine quotes a prominent Democratic lawmaker saying that Obama "always believes he is the smartest person in any room."

Many seem to agree.  When Obama was elected, Newsweek trumpeted, "Brains Are Back."  The New Scientist hailed him as "the intellectual president," "a former academic who is deeply familiar with the world of thought."  New York Times columnist David Brooks marveled that Obama’s cabinet consists of Ivy League grads "twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them."

In short, the adversary class is now in power.  Todd Gitlin, former president of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) famously said that after the 1960s student protests, the Left began "marching on the English Department while the Right took the White House."  We now know which was the more effective strategy.

The Left made their way up through the universities, became professors, and inculcated their radical ideas into the minds of generations of young people.  As a result, those who marched on the English department are now in the White House, bringing with them the adversary stance they imbibed in the classroom.  They disdain ordinary Americans as racists, chauvinists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, religious bigots, and fanatical "clingers."

Continue reading here . . .
I Am Glad To Meet An Indian Communist
The Left may have staged protests during his visit, but Barack Obama said that he was "glad" to meet an Indian communist leader.

At the official residence of the Indian head of state banquet, Obama and Communist Party of India (CPM) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury were introduced.  Obama said, while the two shook hands:

"I am glad to meet an Indian communist.  I am told that communists have been part of the (Indian) political mainstream."

    
Yechury told Obama that the Indian communists have been in the political mainstream "throughout".

The night before this exchange, at a private dinner hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Obama asked Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister, about the entry of communists into the Indian parliamentary system.  Mukherjee is understood to have pointed out that Indian communists were part of the mainstream and likened them to social democrats.
Man Up, Media And Open Your Eyes
Ron Futrell says if Obama does not get it after this election, he never will.  If the media does not get it after this election, it never will.

Now, you could easily argue that Obama absolutely gets it and he is doing exactly what he wants done in this country.  He is a cold-hearted social engineer and he thrives only by forcing others to obey him by fiat.  I would be in that camp, have been for a long time.  How could the most brilliant leader in the history of the world not know exactly what he is doing?

Change?  He has never explained what he means by the word change.  The media has never asked him, the media has never pinned him down on this, so, I will take it that they do not want to pin him down on this.  They worship his Vagueness.

Watch this video of a conversation Dear Leader had with Moveon.com the day after getting smacked silly in the mid-terms.
    
    
Change?  He never explains it to the Moveon.com crowd because he doesn’t have to.  They know that change means turn America socialist.  Government takeover of car companies, healthcare and whatever else is next on their hit-list, maybe the food system in this country.  Shouldn’t every American have the right to three squares a day?

Where is the media in all of this?  Man up, media!  Pin this guy down on what change really means to this guy.  Get specific with him, demand he answer, follow up with him for as long as it takes.  Dear Leader has done hundreds of one-on-one interviews since he started preaching the Religion of Change and not a single media person has asked him for chapter and verse.

My guess is he will avoid the question like the plague.  He did give the answer to Joe the Plumber when he told Joe that his goal was to "spread the wealth."  But the activist old media destroyed Joe for daring to ask Obama the question that they still will not ask.  What does change mean?

"We need to keep working hard to give Americans the change they want."  Dear Leader said that.  Did he already forget the election returns the day after America rejected his "change?"  Obama himself said that his agenda was on the ballot for the election and we all saw that America could not be more clear in its rejection of that agenda.

Which brings me full circle to why the libs and the media seem so intertwined.  They have a nearly identical mindset.  Every time Dear Leader does a one-on-one interview and talks about "changing America," real Americans sit there and yell at their TV sets and say, "ya, we know what you mean about change, you said it to Joe the Plumber," the reporter nods and acts delusionary and moves on to the question about what Michelle is planning to wear during their next vacation.  Blind leading the blind.  Reporter and subject cannot see themselves for who they are.

Perhaps it’s much easier for both of them that way -- of course, it’s nearly destroyed our country in the meantime.  Nearly.  The Conservative Wave is building and the beautiful thing is -- neither the liberals or the media can see it.

Change is Obama's often-used euphemism for socialism.  When Obama says "change," you should hear "socialism," and you will understand him.

When Obama talks about "progress," he is referring to the implementation of socialism in the United States.

Talk about him moving to the middle is wishful thinking.  Obama is an ideologue, a true believer, and an Alinskyite.  He will never, ever move to the middle -- he may feint such a move -- but it will be a dishonest tactic.  He will use whatever time he has left to advance his socialist, redistributive agenda until the end.
Is Barack Obama A Socialist?  Part Two
Paul Mirengoff says this is the second in series of posts that, inspired by Stanley Kurtz's compelling book Radical-In-Chief, considers whether Barack Obama is a socialist.  In Part One, I suggested two ways to analyze the question -- biographically and doctrinally -- and then proceeded to examine Obama's ideological biography from his time in college until 1996 when he first ran for elected public office.

I found that Obama unquestionably was a socialist as a college student; pursued the career path -- community organizer -- recommended by socialists as the best means of advancing their agenda; and did in fact advance such an agenda as a community organizer.  As a result of his successes in this enterprise, he ran for the Illinois State Senate as the handpicked successor to an avowed socialist, Alice Palmer [Palmer was actually a communist].  He launched that campaign at the home of a communist (and former terrorist), his political collaborator Bill Ayers.

Now let's turn to the ideological content of Obama's career as an office holder.

In the Illinois State Senate, Obama won high marks for his legislative skills and his ability at times to work with Republicans.  But the substantive thrust of his work in Springfield was quite consistent with the contemporary socialist agenda.

Obama ardently pushed for redistributionist social welfare legislation.  Two political scientists who graphed the legislation Obama sponsored as a state senator found that the bar for social welfare legislation towered over every other category.  The result was similar for legislation that Obama co-sponsored.  The two professors concluded that other than social welfare and a sprinkling of government regulation, Obama devoted very little effort to most policy areas.  This is how we would expect a socialist state legislator to behave.

Not surprisingly, Obama was focused on health care.  Working with a socialist colleague, Quentin Young, Obama repeatedly proposed a state constitutional amendment mandating universal health care.  And he openly favored a single payer system.  Again, his conduct is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that, during this period, Obama was a socialist.  Coupled with the evidence that he came to the state Senate as a socialist, there is little basis for concluding that he was other than a socialist during the state Senate years.

As a state Senator, Obama probably was best known for his effort to combat racial profiling by the Chicago police.  The Republicans thwarted his anti-profiling legislation when they held the majority, but when the Democrats took control in 2003, the bill passed.

Anti-profiling legislation is not distinctively socialist, of course.  But Obama's pursued such legislation in a way that dovetailed with the hard left's long-time goal -- the goal of his allies Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger -- of promoting "liberationist" black churches.  Thus, in 2001, the Hyde Park Herald praised Obama for organizing a "grassroots lobbying effort" on racial profiling that featured, among others, Pfleger and the associate pastor of Wright's church.  This effort was straight from the socialist-community organizer playbook by which a mainstream liberal grievance becomes the vehicle for organizing discontent around a hard-left, incendiary narrative promulgated by radicals.

Perhaps the most telling ideological judgment of Obama the State Senator comes from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its stance in 2000, when Obama ran for Congress against Bobby Rush.  Rush, a former Black Panther, had received a 90 percent rating from the liberal ADA in 2000 and a 100 percent the year before.  His American Conservative Union (ACU) rating was zero.

Obama was a long shot in his race against Rush, and the Chicago branch of the DSA wisely remained formally neutral.  However, it tilted towards Obama, speaking of him in glowing terms while describing Rush as a disappointment to the left.  It's doubtful that there is any non-socialist space to the left of Bobby Rush.

Four years after his failed bid for Congress, Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.  It's well known that Obama was rated by one prominent index as the most liberal member of the Senate.  Sometimes overlooked is the fact that the U.S. Senate contains an avowed socialist member -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  To the left of Sanders there plainly is no non-socialist space.

Thus, Obama's biography strongly suggests that, when elected, he was, and had long been, a socialist.  In my next post on the subject, I'll consider whether his presidency is consistent with the thesis that he is a socialist.
Obama Gives Nation's Highest Honor To Socialist
Aaron Klein says Obama announced this week that he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- the nation's highest civilian honor -- to John Sweeney, president emeritus of the country's biggest union, the AFL-CIO.

Sweeney is a socialist activist and a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, the principal American affiliate of the Socialist International.  The DSA has demonstrated a close relationship with Obama over the years.

Sweeney is a member of the DSA's Boston chapter. He served as president of AFL-CIO from 1995 until his retirement last September.

He previously served for four terms as president of the controversial Service Employees International Union, or SEIU.  During his administration, Sweeney famously aligned the SEIU with ACORN and other leftist groups.

Activist and author Joel Kotkin, a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, observed how Sweeney brought communists into his union leadership.

"The public-sector unions have pushed the entire labor movement to the left," he said.  "The [SEIU] has embraced organizations with a New Left origin, such as ACORN and Cleveland's Nine to Five, and has even set up its own gay and lesbian caucus. ...  The rise of these unions led to the elevation of SEIU's boss, John Sweeney, to head of the labor federation.

"No George Meaney-style bread-and-butter unionist, Sweeney is an advocate of European-style democratic socialism," said Kotkin.  "He has opened the AFL-CIO to participation by delegates openly linked to the Communist Party, which enthusiastically backed his ascent. The U.S. Communist Party [CPUSA] says it is now 'in complete accord' with the AFL-CIO's program.  'The radical shift in both leadership and policy is a very positive, even historic change,' wrote CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall in 1996 after the AFL-CIO convention."

Upon assuming the office of the AFL-CIO in 1995, Sweeney was quick to rescind one of the union's founding rules that banned Communist Party members and loyalists from leadership positions within the federation and its unions.  Sweeney welcomed Communist Party delegates to positions of power in his federation.

Linda Chavez and Daniel Gray, in their book "Betrayal: How union bosses shake down their bosses and corporate America," state Sweeney placed a number of DSA allies in his union office.

The DSA's official website carries an endorsement from Sweeney: "I'm proud to a member of a movement for change that puts the cause of working people at the heart of the matter."

Continue reading here . . .
Case Closed
David Swindle says Barack Obama is a Socialist working to destroy America.

"I don’t know how much I buy this whole 'ex-leftist' thing," one of my old professors wrote to me earlier this year as he was trying to wrap his head around how one of his "progressive" poetry students could somehow devolve into an aggressive, unapologetic, Evil Neo-Con Warmonger working for the demonic David Horowitz.

"From what I remember you always struck me as a pretty moderate dude in your columns," he said.

Why of course I did.  Looking "moderate" and "reasonable" and "liberal" was the objective when in reality in my heart I was a radical and a socialist.  Back in 2004-2006 when I was taking my professor’s courses the public face I wore was one of a "progressive" Democrat.  In my weekly op/ed columns for the Ball State Daily News I argued on behalf of John Kerry and critiqued the Bush administration and the Conservative Movement.

I may have been dumb enough to identify with the Left, but I was smart enough to know that if I told the truth about my political convictions then few people would be persuaded.  So while I might have had six books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on my shelf at the time, their names never showed up in my columns.  How could I persuade anyone if I came out and actually said that racist, genocidal AmeriKKKa was the world’s greatest terrorist state, its clawed fingers dripping with the blood of poor brown people all over the world?  What good would it do to support Ralph Nader in 2004 and point out that Kerry was also an elite member of the Ruling Class -- also part of Yale’s Skull and Bones Society -- and was only a baby step’s improvement over the malevolent George W. Bush?  No, New Left-style honesty in "speaking truth to power" and brutally confronting the American Empire was a road to nowhere.  It made infinitely more sense to just become a Democrat, and yank the established party leftward until the day came when a true leftist could be elevated to the White House to reform a corrupt system.

This is the nature of the majority of the Left today from the most inconsequential, amateur blogger to the Commander-In-Chief: radical Che wolves in liberal Democrat donkey costumes.

So why is it then that it’s taken so many conservatives so long to finally begin to accept that Barack Obama is actually a radical seeking to destroy America from within?  Simple: conservatives follow the evidence.  And up until now, while various pieces have certainly been available, there just has not been enough to prove conclusively that Obama is a socialist.  Billy Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, "spread the wealth around," etc. etc. -- were we in a court of law all these data points could legitimately be tabled as merely "circumstantial evidence."  Associations, off-the-cuff remarks, and friends don’t prove Obama’s core intellectual and political convictions and intents.

Just a few months ago the Freedom Center prepared the production of a new pamphlet, Breaking the System: Obama’s Strategy for Change.  The point of the pamphlet was to show how the Obama administration was utilizing the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy to intentionally try to bankrupt the government.

When we started the project I was skeptical of the premise.  Was Obama really employing Cloward-Piven?  Short of getting Obama on film admitting it how could we actually prove it?

As the early drafts of the manuscript came in, though, the weight of the evidence was overwhelming.  I was convinced.  There was no way that Obama and his administration could be doing what they were doing by accident.  There was no way they could have no idea what the effects of their policies would be.  Was it more likely that the administration was stupid or malevolent?  If they were idiots then how could they have been so competent as to accomplish their objectives?

And now that we have Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism we can know conclusively that the negative economic consequences of the Obama administration’s policies are no accident.  It is the single most important political book released in the last three years.

What makes Kurtz’s book so unique and vital among all the other anti-Obama tomes to come out?  Simple: Kurtz did original research, digging through obscure archives of socialist groups and piecing together the history of socialism in America in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s -- and Obama’s extensive, overwhelming, intricate connections with it.  It’s a challenging book to try and summarize adequately. (The whole point is to just try and take in all the evidence that Kurtz has assembled.)

For his entire political career Obama has been an unassembled jigsaw puzzle, allowing others to project onto him their own readings of his political philosophy based off of the few available pieces.

Continue reading here . . .
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved