Is Obama a Socialist?

[wallis]

"Marxism holds that such a system is exploitive as well as, in the final analysis, economically irrational. Marxism aims at the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a classless society in which goods are produced for their usefulness not profitability; and distributed according to the principles of (at first): "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work"; and finally, in the most advanced stage: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Thus far, I have not witnessed President Obama moving in this direction. And, since it is widely publicized as a great danger, I believe in the American people, that they will not allow our President or our Congress to move in such dire directions.

From listening to President Obama's speech last night, I heard that he is trying to put people back to work. That he might be tightening some screws on the 1% of the capitalistic wheelers-and-dealers could be interpreted as some as being Marxist, IMO this is a feeble attempt at a few who desire to hold onto their power (and their money), the very same that would prefer to set up an oligarchy in place of a republic.


"For Marx, a person is exploited if they perform more labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume. A person is an exploiter if they perform less labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume.^[7] Exploitation is thus a matter of surplus labour, the amount of labour one performs over and above what one receives in the form of goods. Exploitation has been a feature of all class societies, and is one of the main features that distinguish one class from another. One class's power and control of the means of production enable it to exploit another class. In capitalism, Marx held that a labour theory of value is operative. This theory is that the value of a commodity is equal to the total labour time required for its production. Under that condition, surplus value (the difference between value produced and value received by a labourer) is an equivalent term for surplus labour. Under capitalism, exploitation takes the form of the capitalist pumping surplus value out of the worker.
In precapitalist modes of production, exploitation was achieved by direct physical coercion or the threat of it. In the capitalist mode the same result is achieved more subtly. Since a worker does not own any means of production they must "voluntarily" enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to receive the necessities of life. Their entry into exploitation is voluntary in the sense that they can choose which capitalist to work for; but they must choose to work for some capitalist or starve. They cannot escape exploitation. The voluntarism of exploitation in capitalism is illusory."

Since I have been teaching management now since 1993, I have witnessed the introduction of Theory Z, which offsets Theory X (where capitalists exploit the working class through coercion and threats) and Theory Y (where the workers are given freedom to work as they please). Theory Z encourages ownership of the working class, that they own their jobs and are as contributory to the production of goods as much as the owners.

I do not see that either the President or the Congress moving in a direction that will overthrow the owners and give the companies to the workers (under government control, of course, as we have witnessed in so-called communist countries).

It is interesting to note that in "a letter to the French workers' leader Jules Guesde and to his own son-in-law Paul Lafargue," Marx wrote that "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

[American Patriot]

At the risk of driving this thread completely off topic, I can NOT allow you to pass such bullshit, Wallis.

It is very OBVIOUS to anyone with a clue, which you apparently do not have, that Obama is not only a Socialist, he's outspoken about it. There's ample evidence for this, and in his own words.

This guy lays it out pretty accurately.

---

---

Is Obama a socialist?

---

Posted: October 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009


Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.


For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism.


Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.


Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.


Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)


The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone.


Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]mortgages[/color][/color] for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.
(Column continues below)

The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."


The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen to Obama's promises to La Raza in 2007.


The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."
The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.


The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.


Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]enterprise[/color][/color], capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady diet of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other "feel good" slogans.


Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, "it's good for everybody." They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]energy[/color][/color] and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.


Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.


Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.

[American Patriot]

Since the Left has their OWN Liberal Actors who are never at a loss for words, I offer our own Conservative actor...

VOIGHT: My concerns for America

Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people

By | Monday, July 28, 2008



OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.


Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.


The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.


The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.


Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.


Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.


If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.


Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.


This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.


Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.

[American Patriot]

Daily Bell Archive Issue 223 • Tuesday, March 10, 2009

"Every aspect of Western culture needs a new code of ethics - a rational ethics - as a precondition of rebirth."

- Ayn Rand

Is Obama a socialist?


Getty Images
President Obama was so concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist that he called the newspaper from the Oval Office to clarify his policies. "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday. Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter," he said it wasn't he who started the federal government's intervention into the nation's financial system. - Washington Times

Dominant Social Theme: Silly question.

Free-Market Analysis: Yes, of course Obama is a socialist, if a socialist is someone who wishes to uses activist government at a Federal level to create massive social change and more governmental control. What is almost as important as Obama's political persuasion is his sensitivity on the topic. The second time round, according to the article above, he said he inherited many of his big-spending policies from the previous administration. He then said there was no question as to whether he believed in free markets. He did.

But he has a funny way of showing it. The $3.2 trillion budget, the continued trillions in Federal Reserve outlays and the Tarp money all bear witness to one overriding objective: Obama has no wish to stimulate the economy directly, only through large corporate and governmental entities.

No, it is not pointed out much by the mainstream media, but the real problem with Obama's overall approach is that he will do almost anything it seems to keep meaningful amounts of money out of individual pockets. This is a big government man and the previous president was too. (That's another reason why this point isn't made more often, and more clearly - it's embarrassing to the Republicans.)

Very recently uber-investor Warren Buffet gave an interview saying that the economy was falling off a cliff and American's could see inflation that surpasses that seen in the late 1970s. The major liberal US newsweeklies, Newsweek especially, are starting to take aim at Obama. This is fairly unheard of. It gives rise to a number of legitimate if seldom asked questions. Obama is surrounded by the most high-powered Wall Street tycoons since ... Bush. If these individuals are starting to turn critical, then the question arises as to whether Obama is doing what he supposed to do, or if he has "gone off the reservation."

Conclusion: Obama is a preternaturally cautious young man. The idea that he is recklessly implementing policies on his own is fairly hard to believe. What is more likely is that the problems have gotten so large they can't be ignored. The left has to speak out as well, or it will lose credibility. But these calculations put Obama out on a limb long before it might have been anticipated. It can't be a comfortable position. What he ought to do right now is get as much money into the hands of individuals as possible. He should return to a gold standard as well. But he and those around him will literally turn themselves into fiscal pretzels before they'll stimulate the American economy by giving back money directly to those who can spend it, no strings attached.

[American Patriot]

I am starting this thread to remove some posts from another thread - where they really do not belong (about NATO stuff). I'll move the messages shortly.

[American Patriot]

Messages are moved now.

[American Patriot]

"Marxism holds that such a system is exploitive as well as, in the final analysis, economically irrational. Marxism aims at the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a classless society in which goods are produced for their usefulness not profitability; and distributed according to the principles of (at first): "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work"; and finally, in the most advanced stage: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

We all know what the definition of Marxism is... and the meaning of "is" doesn't change in MY world, Wallis.

Thus far, I have not witnessed President Obama moving in this direction. And, since it is widely publicized as a great danger, I believe in the American people, that they will not allow our President or our Congress to move in such dire directions.

You're correct, the American people, including me, will not allow the President or Congress move in that direction. However, NOTE that we are now being considered "Right Wing Extremists". What the HELL is that about? What about the assholes Liberal Extremists? Give me a break.

The very FACT that his administration is viewing people who are upset with our taxes being spent in an inappropriate manner (bailing out companies, nationalizing banks and so forth) as "extremists" is a "first step" of Marxism - an attempt to set the stage to remove people from the political venue.

With that, I give you the following quotes, direct from the man's mouth and other sources.

Socialists for Obama wants to “change this country from the current capitalist unfair system, into a real socialist, democratic system for all.” What “democratic” means in this context, only a moonbat could tell you. http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php...wthread/42158/

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."

"I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

"I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race."

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds. One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..."

"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community." --UPDATE: Barack Obama decides to "disown" him on Tuesday, April 29th after he realized his campaign was in severe turmoil due to his association with Mr. Wright.

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."

"That’s just how white folks will do you."

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Call to Islamic prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”

(Obviously from this statement he EXPECTS us to throw out the Constitution, via the courts. To examine redistribution of wealth. That, Wallis, IS socialism)

From his wife...

"The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit, but that's out of reach for them. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

(That, Wallis, IS SOCIALISM).

S. Ann Soetoro (Obama's mother, an Atheist who married a Kenyan Muslim)

Obama's Father is a black Muslim. Obama's Mother is a white Atheist.

"They (Americans) are not my people!"

From listening to President Obama's speech last night, I heard that he is trying to put people back to work. That he might be tightening some screws on the 1% of the capitalistic wheelers-and-dealers could be interpreted as some as being Marxist, IMO this is a feeble attempt at a few who desire to hold onto their power (and their money), the very same that would prefer to set up an oligarchy in place of a republic.

Sounds like socialism to me... specifically, "That he might be tightening some screws on the 1% of the capitalistic wheelers-and-dealers could be interpreted as some as being Marxist, IMO this is a feeble attempt at a few who desire to hold onto their power (and their money),"

Here's why... Money is what makes capitalism work. Taking money from others is what makes Socialism work.

And it is more than 1% that are being targeted. The top 5%-7%. In fact, Wallis, the top 10% of Americans (wage earners and money makers) pay more than 90% of the taxes in America. Why does your side INSIST on saying things like "They need to pay their fair share".

That group of people we're discussing ARE the REASON there are jobs. The Government does NOT create jobs. While there are jobs working IN the government, that money paid out to those people comes from our taxes. This includes Congress, President, all the GS civilians, military and so forth. Some of the jobs are essential. Creating "jobs" by creating a "civilian security force" is not creating jobs, and it's taking more money out of MY pocket. Creating jobs like FDR did (CCC camps and such) is taking MONEY out of PUBLIC coffers, and again, out of MY pocket.

It IS socialism.

"For Marx, a person is exploited if they perform more labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume. A person is an exploiter if they perform less labour than is necessary to produce the goods they consume.[7] Exploitation is thus a matter of surplus labour, the amount of labour one performs over and above what one receives in the form of goods. Exploitation has been a feature of all class societies, and is one of the main features that distinguish one class from another. One class's power and control of the means of production enable it to exploit another class. In capitalism, Marx held that a labour theory of value is operative. This theory is that the value of a commodity is equal to the total labour time required for its production. Under that condition, surplus value (the difference between value produced and value received by a labourer) is an equivalent term for surplus labour. Under capitalism, exploitation takes the form of the capitalist pumping surplus value out of the worker.
In precapitalist modes of production, exploitation was achieved by direct physical coercion or the threat of it. In the capitalist mode the same result is achieved more subtly. Since a worker does not own any means of production they must "voluntarily" enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to receive the necessities of life. Their entry into exploitation is voluntary in the sense that they can choose which capitalist to work for; but they must choose to work for some capitalist or starve. They cannot escape exploitation. The voluntarism of exploitation in capitalism is illusory."

In this day and age, workers are not "exploited" in the manner that Unions were created to stop. In fact, Unions are really the biggest waste of time and effort on the planet now. And Unions are RUN by Marxists. Many people do not want unions - and yet the Unions and Obama want to remove the right to a private ballot when voting for or against a union. This allows public intimidation! This is Socialism.... even fascism.

Since I have been teaching management now since 1993, I have witnessed the introduction of Theory Z, which offsets Theory X (where capitalists exploit the working class through coercion and threats) and Theory Y (where the workers are given freedom to work as they please). Theory Z encourages ownership of the working class, that they own their jobs and are as contributory to the production of goods as much as the owners.

And your point? There are pros and cons for each system... Socialism is STILL socialism, no matter what letter you assign it.

I do not see that either the President or the Congress moving in a direction that will overthrow the owners and give the companies to the workers (under government control, of course, as we have witnessed in so-called communist countries).

Then you are blind. (I can say that right? This is what I am continually accused of being when I refuse to believe the bullshit the left pushes... blind, brainwashed, extremist... chose your phrase - but either way, this is what you are if you can not see that which is plainly in front of your own face.)

It is interesting to note that in "a letter to the French workers' leader Jules Guesde and to his own son-in-law Paul Lafargue," Marx wrote that "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

Of COURSE NOT. Neither is Obama, according to himself.... Even Marxists and Socialists deny it... because it is much easier to continue to hide their agenda, keep it less noticeable until it is too late to turn back.

[wallis]

Whatever.

The title given to Presisdent Obama was Marxist, not Socialist.

My issue was with the term Marxist. Is President Obama Socialist? Probably very much so, as are many of our current leaders this decade and past.

But, I would ask in complete sincerity, that if we are going to go about and label people wrongly or scandalously, how much credibility does that give this forum?

There are folks here who believe they understand my politics, and they are completely in the wrong. For the most part, I am very a-political. (I used the dash to emphasize the word.)

So, lambashing me on some sort of "point of order" is rather embarrassing (in this case to lump Marxism, Socialism, Stalinism, and Kimism, to mention a few) for you.

It is quite obvious that not everyone here, either participating in or reading these threads, do know what Marxism is all about, its theory, and the like--only what our own propaganda organs have turned out and caused us what to think.

Your insults and innuendoes, Rick, fall on deaf ears. The same manner that your mind has closed to any rational discussion that I offer, in limiting the profane and incindiary rhetoric that fan the flames of fanaticism. We have enough leftist pundits out there that are truly trying to divide this nation, splinter this nation under labels that are both meaningless and and immediately divisive. Conservatives should spend less of their time promoting these labels and start working to maintain a strong union, a nation that will be stronger long after President Obama and the Socialist Democrats are out of office.

[American Patriot]

Whatever.

Right... "Whatever".... VERY intelligent response...

The title given to Presisdent Obama was Marxist, not Socialist.

Unfortunately, that isn't true.

The title given to him consistently is SOCIALIST. Socialism, Wallis IS Marxism. Give the language a REST and stop trying to obfuscate.

My issue was with the term Marxist. Is President Obama Socialist? Probably very much so, as are many of our current leaders this decade and past.

Again, stop playing word games. Marxism IS socialism - certainly there are several definitions, including "Classical Marxism" - and you cited a referrence before about a letter Marx wrote in an attempt to say "I'm not a Marxist". As you stated... "Whatever".

But, I would ask in complete sincerity, that if we are going to go about and label people wrongly or scandalously, how much credibility does that give this forum?

The credibility of this forum is not in question. The credibility of those like yourself who argue in favor of socialist manifesto however, is in question. Labeling WHO "wrong and scandalously"? The President?

Might I REMIND you that the Left, your side of aisle spent eight years screaming that Bush was a "liar" and pointing to him being some part of a big conspiracy. The Left spent YEARS denigrating him, trying to say how "stupid" he was.

That, sir, is the pot calling the kettle black. There was simply zero evidence for the Left's wrong assertions regarding Bush (and before him the other Bush and Reagan)... and yet, you want to whine about someone being "scandalous"? Give it a rest.

Not only are you incorrect in your assumption that I'm personally wrong in my own assertion, I've given you plenty of evidence in the form of Obama's OWN WORDS. If his actions, deeds and words do not define him, then, what pray tell does?

There are folks here who believe they understand my politics, and they are completely in the wrong. For the most part, I am very a-political. (I used the dash to emphasize the word.)

You are whatever you are. I could care less what you think you are, or wish us to think you are. Everyone here can plainly see where your politics lie - and repeated lies are the basis for most of them.

So, lambashing me on some sort of "point of order" is rather embarrassing (in this case to lump Marxism, Socialism, Stalinism, and Kimism, to mention a few) for you.

I didn't lump all of those things together, and I'm far from embarrassed. I made my statements quite clearly and yet, you take them out of context and imply - attempt to imply in this case - I said things I didn't say at all. Go back, as I have admonished you in the past and re-read the material I posted.

I made NONE of it up. I posted Obama's own words. I posted his wife's words.

It is quite obvious that not everyone here, either participating in or reading these threads, do know what Marxism is all about, its theory, and the like--only what our own propaganda organs have turned out and caused us what to think.

No, Wallis, it's not obvious and you can make that assertion all you like but you'd be absolutely incorrect. I've been studying Marxism, Socialism, Communism since I was much younger than I am now. I believe it is you and not me that doesn't understand Capitalism. You have stated in the past that capitalism is a bad thing. I know where you stand. Apparently YOU are the one brainwashed by Marxist crap. You hate large companies, you hate the oil companies, you detest the fact they make money.

You fail to give them credit for creating JOBS. Giving people a chance to make a living. Instead, you believe the government is responsible for caring for each and everyone one of us from cradle to grave. You believe that if I make more money than "I need" it should be taxed to the point to bring my wages down, take some of it and give it to some homeless people living on the street.

Funny thing is, Obama believes that same tripe.

Your insults and innuendoes, Rick, fall on deaf ears.

Deaf ears and a dumbed down mind. Look Wallis, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to get you to OPEN YOUR mind for once, instead of believing the nonsense YOU spout. Logic and reason in my messages above had no impact on you. Words of the President and his wife themselves had no impact.

The fact is that you want to "believe" rather than understand and that, Wallis is PRECISELY what is wrong with the Left today (and certainly some people on the right - I'll cite Alex Jones and Jeff Rense as two examples of the "right wing" side of things).

The same manner that your mind has closed to any rational discussion that I offer, in limiting the profane and incindiary rhetoric that fan the flames of fanaticism.

AH! Now we have it, the meat of a Losing Liberal argument. When you can't win a legitimate DEBATE because the evidence is too much in favor of the other side, you resort to claiming I have a "closed mind".

That argument is LAME, Wallis, idiotic and childish. It is immature of an intelligent person to resort to making the claims of "closed mindedness" because I don't believe as you do. I Do NOT believe as you do - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with being closed minded.

Wallis, I don't a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or some other "right wing voice" sitting here with their hand up my ass making me say things. I'm an intelligence, VERY WELL read individual that makes up MY OWN MIND about things.

Don't insult with me with your "brainwashed" "rhetoric repeating" nonsense. I speak FOR MYSELF and NO ONE ELSE. I don't say what I'm told today. I'm not a "government agent" as Hoagland suggested more than once. I'm not a "disinformation officer" for the Government as others have said. I don't work for any group, organization or venue other than my FAMILY.

I'll say this, I have interracial marriages in my family, gay family members, I am NOT religious, I don't cowtow to Bible Thumpers, Socialists or Fascists, and I dislike conspiracy theorists. I believe what I BELIEVE because there is HARD EVIDENCE, FACTS and DATA and the resources to back that information up, that supports those things I believe in - including the Constitution of the United States and Capitalism. NOT because I've been "indoctrinated".

For some reason you, like many other like to lump me into some group of people to which I do NOT belong instead of treating me like an individual.

This is a shame - and a sham, I'm an individual and am NOT EVER to be lumped into any other group of people unlike yourself - who belongs to the largest group of misinformed, and MISINFORMING people on the planet... the Liberal Left.

We have enough leftist pundits out there that are truly trying to divide this nation, splinter this nation under labels that are both meaningless and and immediately divisive.

Yes we do. They have been trying to do this for years. Nothing has changed. We have too many on the RIGHT trying to do the same thing.

Conservatives should spend less of their time promoting these labels and start working to maintain a strong union, a nation that will be stronger long after President Obama and the Socialist Democrats are out of office.

I Do agree that the United States should be strong. I don't believe it should fall to one or the other party line exclusively however.

Conservatives should NEVER compromise, period, any more than they have in the past. You see, compromise now means "Think like a Liberal".

We have enough crappy moderates in the Republican party that we don't NEED to "compromise".

I'm tired of watching everyone try to "move to the middle" without logic and reason, continually compromising principles because the other side screams about the right being "extremists" or "Nut jobs" or calling them "racist". ALL of those things should be fought diligently and just as hard as the Left works to denigrate the right.

It's all about principles, Wallis, not about making people change their ways.

[American Patriot]

By the way.... just food for thought here....Not socialism eh?

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

[quote]

Q. What is Marxism?

A. Marxism is the system of Marx's views and teachings. Marx was the genius who continued and consummated the three main ideological currents of the 19th century, as represented by the three most advanced countries of mankind: classical German philosophy, classical English political economy, and French socialism combined with French revolutionary doctrines in general. Acknowledged even by his opponents, the remarkable consistency and integrity of Marx's views, whose totality constitutes modern materialism and modern scientific socialism, as the theory and program of the working-class movement in all the countries of the world.

Q. What do people mean when they say they are "socialists"?

A. As for "socialist" well, there are again 2 types - genuine ones fighting for the abolishment of wage labor and the rule of capital, and reformists. Many reformists call themselves "socialist" but have generally imperialist policies. For example, the French government is currently "socialist" - yet they are pursuing criminal imperialist aims such as the bombing of Yugoslavia!

In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism - the transition to a system in which we can truly have "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". So genuine Marxists can be interchangeably called socialists so long as they have as their goal the abolishment of capitalism and the establishment of genuine worker controlled, democratic socialism. Just remember, those who call themselves "socialists" need to be taken with a grain of salt - look at the contents of the jar before you eat it - don't rely only on the label!



Q. Why must socialism be international?

A. The need for internationalism flows from the position of the working class internationally. This in its turn has been developed by capitalism through the organisation of world economy as one single indivisible whole. The interests of the working-class of one country are the same as the interests of the workers of the other countries. Because of the division of labour established by capitalism, the basis is laid for a new international organisation of labour and planned production on a world scale. Thus, the struggle of the working class on all countries forms the basis for the movement towards Socialism.


Capitalism, through the private ownership of the means of production, developed industry and smashed the local particularism of Feudalism. It broke down the archaic customs dues, tolls and exactions of Feudalism. Its great creation is the national state and the world market. But once having accomplished this task, it itself has become a fetter on the development of production. The national state and private ownership of the means of production hamper the development of society. Production possibilities can only be fully utilised by abolishing national barriers and establishing a European and World Federation of Workers' states. These, with state ownership and workers' management, are a necessary transition stage on the road to socialism. It is these factors which dictate the strategy and tactics of the proletariat, as reflected in its conscious leadership. In the aphorisms of Marx "the workers have no country" and therefore "Workers of the world unite".

[wallis]

Rick, who are you talking to? Because it certainly is not me. You have confused me with someone else.

#1. The poster DID write Marxist Obama. Check it again, please.

#2. There IS a big difference between Marxism and Socialism. They are not equal (as in A=B, B=A). It is just easier politically (and materially as we kill these subhumans) to think so.

Ah, but you let your slip show when in an earlier post you wrote "in my world." There is a much bigger world than just yours, my friend. And issues are not just black-and-white.

#3. You called me a leftist? Excuse me while I laugh on the floor a while. Wrong person. Not me.

#4. You accuse me of writing that capitalism is bad? Good grief, man. I know all my people look alike, but 'tweren't me.

#5. I'll state it again: I'm apolitical. You believe that I really like that Socialist crap such as Social Security (money I put in that I'll never recover), Medicade, Medicare, and all of the other social programs the government instituted? When all these things could have been done in the private sector at, perhaps, half the cost?

So, you have painted me red or pink (not sure which one is worse), because in your world your evaluations are absolute and absolutely correct. Just remember that when I'm fighting right next to you, taking back our country from the real socialists (as well as the fascists, anarchists, oligarchists, and any other internal enemies of our Republic).

[American Patriot]

Rick, who are you talking to? Because it certainly is not me. You have confused me with someone else.

I'm not confusing you with anyone else. haha

#1. The poster DID write Marxist Obama. Check it again, please.

No, *I* didn't call him Marxist. Please pay attention. *I* called him a Socialist.

#2. There IS a big difference between Marxism and Socialism. They are not equal (as in A=B, B=A). It is just easier politically (and materially as we kill these subhumans) to think so.

No, Wallis, there is NO difference. The GOAL of Marxism is Socialism, albeit as a "middle ground" - but it is STILL socialism.

Ah, but you let your slip show when in an earlier post you wrote "in my world." There is a much bigger world than just yours, my friend. And issues are not just black-and-white.

No, the world IS black and white. There are certainly many other shades of gray and they (the political shades) are all over the place. But, when it comes down to America - this is STILL a two party system and if you don't like it, it's time to get off the boat.

There is Right, Left, Republican, Democrat. Everyone else in between matters, but, they don't have a say in the parties. That's not MY doing. That's the way things work here. People might not like it (and have formed other parties) but honestly, they simply "don't count".

So in a way it IS Black and White. And when I say "My world" you have to understand where I'm coming from. I read the news daily, I watch most of the news agencies (not just one or two) and I OBSERVE their bias.

An intelligent person doesn't listen to one side of a story - they listen to all sides and then make their own, informed decisions. That's what I do. As I said before, I don't have someone telling me what to say. I'm sure you don't either.

But - you might sit and claim to be "apolitical" and yet your bent to the left is something everyone here can see. Ask around. Others besides myself will say it as well.

Do I think this makes you a "bad person"? No. What makes you a bad person sometimes are your rude, insulting remarks (like you used to do on Anomalies). For instance making claims that I was a "bad sheriff" as one example. No, I wasn't. I enforced the rules. The rules got broken.

I don't use "equal force" when it comes down to a battle. I use OVERWHELMING force and that's the right thing to do to stop the bullshit.

#3. You called me a leftist? Excuse me while I laugh on the floor a while. Wrong person. Not me.

Laugh all you like. You have called me similar things... "Right Wing" nut job etc. At least you imply it every chance you get. lol

#4. You accuse me of writing that capitalism is bad? Good grief, man. I know all my people look alike, but 'tweren't me.

"All my people"? Wallis, I have no idea what you look like. To me you're a lot of bits and bytes on the internet, with an opinion. Your skin color, ethic background, eye color, religion, genetic makeup are nothing to me. I don't CARE about any of that.

So... curiously you BRING that up as if it is something that defines my thinking about you.

It's not. It's your words.

And honestly, to bring such a thing up in those words is racist. It's what LEFTISTS DO. Thus, your actions and words speak for yourself. (Again, I have no idea what "race" you might be, or why you would say "all my people look alike" but the only time I've ever heard that was during racist remarks by blacks and whites.)

#5. I'll state it again: I'm apolitical. You believe that I really like that Socialist crap such as Social Security (money I put in that I'll never recover), Medicade, Medicare, and all of the other social programs the government instituted? When all these things could have been done in the private sector at, perhaps, half the cost?

Then why do you stand up for a President that wants you to put MORE of that into the public coffers? You should be as upset over raising taxes, "sharing the wealth", and his other SOCIALIST remarks as everyone else is.

So, you have painted me red or pink (not sure which one is worse), because in your world your evaluations are absolute and absolutely correct.

My evaluations ARE absolutely correct. Whether you are or aren't in real life is another point and you're failing to make this clear with your continued remarks. Backing a SOCIALIST President makes you a socialist.

Just remember that when I'm fighting right next to you, taking back our country from the real socialists (as well as the fascists, anarchists, oligarchists, and any other internal enemies of our Republic).

I will remember it, Wallis.

You and I have a lot of differences - but keeping our country AMERICA is what this is all about. Politics aside, I appreciate your debates (I don't like your sometimes well veiled insults and it's one of the things that put me off about you. I like your open ones better, at least I know where I stand). An example above is the "(as well as the fascists)" which you know full well I was called by several people back on Anomalies and you also know full well its not true.

[vector7]

WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: Farrakhan, Ayers, Wright, Sharpton, Jackson are in da house

There are consequential, disturbing revelations to be found when flipping through the visitors list at the White House. Bill Ayers is there no less than three times, Louis Farrakhan at least once, but there is also a separate visit for his family, and the infamous hater Jeremiah Wright is there at least five times (four times under Jeremy, one under Jeremiah).

Contemptuously, Farrakhan’s visit is tagged as “MEETING WITH SCIENCE CLUB MEMBERS”…Al Sharpton is there twice, and Jesse "hymietown" Jackson is a regular (six times).

It bears noting that despite solid evidence that Obama was tight with these haters, inciters and revolutionaries and traitors, he distanced himself from them during the campaign and outright lied about his ties to them. Mr. Ayers, for example, was dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”

Obama lied about his friends and nefarious colleagues because he he knew that his connection to them was deadly.

He knew these were bad characters, and that his being involved with them would not sit well with the American people. He knew. And so he lied. And now they are regulars at the White House (while the Dalai Lama and Netanyahu are begrudgingly ushered in the side door or seen chilling with the trash).

These are terrorists, inciters to genocide, America haters, the underbelly of an ugly America -- and they are in the House.
Much thanks to Mark.

Excel sheet:

Scary priorities

>

Bill Ayers admits writing Barack Obama's "Dreams From My Father"

October 07, 2009

Ayers admits writing Dreams

American Thinker

By James Simpson



Last Friday we posted an article on these pages asserting Bill Ayers' authorship of President Barack Obama's 'Dreams From My Father,' based on claims made by Obama biographer Christopher Andersen. It is possible that we have now gotten direct confirmation of this from Bill Ayers himself.

Anne Leary of Back Yard Conservative was passing through Washington, DC's Reagan National Airport yesterday, and was surprised to come across Bill Ayers at Starbucks: "scruffy, thinning beard, dippy earring, and the wire rims, heading to order."

She struck up a conversation with him and snapped the accompanying photo. (I interviewed Anne about it, and thank her for permission to run the photo she took.)

Ayers was in Washington, he told her, for a conference on education.

"That's what I do, education," he said. "You shouldn't believe everything you hear about me... You know nothing about me."

To which she responded, "I said, I know plenty--I'm from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I'll post this."

I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.

But he didn't scowl, and didn't run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: "I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father... Michelle asked me to." Then he added "And if you can prove it we can split the royalties."

Anne responded, "Stop pulling my leg!"

But he repeated insistently, "I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers' other writing.]"

Anne responded, "I believe you probably heavily edited it."

Ayers stated firmly, "I wrote it."

Anne ended the conversation by saying "why would I believe you? You're a liar."

Good for her. But we are left to wonder. Despite her parting shot, Anne was convinced Ayers was in earnest. He was making a public statement. He wanted this news out there.

Was he, as she had asked, pulling our collective legs? Other sources report rumors that Ayers is very upset both about not getting any credit for helping Obama on ‘Dreams,' and may also be put off by being summarily thrown under the bus along with Rev. Wright and everyone else who becomes an inconvenience to this President.
My understanding of communists is that most would know better and keep their mouths shut. But Ayers is a bit different. He is, as he says, a "small ‘c' communist," but he is also, in a certain, slimy way, an entrepreneur, as we explained in Monday's post. (Apologies in advance to entrepreneurs everywhere.) He grew up a very rich kid, used to getting everything he wanted. Even as an adult his career has relied on a hand up from his wealthy father. His past statements and radical activities also mark him as a megalomaniac. In youth he drew attention to himself by blowing things up. As an adult "educator" he merely attempts to subvert children. But that doesn't seem to be going so well.

He is under a lot of pressure, too. Ayers and his horrid wife Bernardine Dohrn are believed to have planned and executed the San Francisco Park Police Station bombing in 1970 that killed police sergeant Brian V. McDonnell and wounded several others. Efforts to bring them to justice have been underway for some time, as brought to light this past March in a National Press Club conference put on by Cliff Kincaid of America's Survival.

Cliff's guests included Larry Grathwohl, the FBI's undercover agent who penetrated Ayers' Weather Underground and produced this stunning testimony about Ayers' plan to massacre 25 million Americans, retired S.F. policeman James Pera, first on the scene at the bombing, and veteran researcher Trevor Loudon.

Now, a recent exposé by San Francisco reporter Peter Jamison has revealed additional evidence, including testimony from other Weather Underground members, that Dohrn planted the bomb that killed Sgt. McDonnell.

Maybe in his overstressed state Bill's megalomania has just gotten the better of him.

[vector7]

Media Mum On Dreams Fraud

©Jack Cashill

WorldNetDaily.com - October 1, 2009

Scores of major media organs have reviewed Christopher Andersen’s new best-seller, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage.

These include CBS News, USA Today, the Chicago Sun Times, the Seattle Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Chicago Tribune, and the Telegraph of London.

This is not surprising. Andersen has written 28 books, including best-sellers on the Clintons, Diana, Princess of Wales, and Caroline Kennedy.

A former People Magazine senior editor, he writes well, checks his facts thoroughly, and appeals to the soft left center of the American media.

The headline of the USA Today review captures the message Andersen hoped to bring to the market, “A glowing 'Portrait' of the Obamas' rock-solid marriage.”

Andersen, however, threw the reviewers one unexpected curve.

In a lengthy and detailed section on the Obama’s financial struggles in the early 1990s, Andersen relates how at the urging of Michelle, a “hopelessly blocked” Obama turned to “friend and neighbor” Bill Ayers to help him with his much acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father.

Andersen’s details are specific. The Obamas were convinced of “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer.” Barack particularly liked the novelistic style of To Teach, a 1993 book by Ayers.

Obama hoped to use a comparable style for his own family history. The problem was that although he had taped interviews with many of his relatives, he could not find it in himself to write the book.

Andersen details Obama’s blown advances, his futile escape to Bali, the growing financial and emotional pressure to finish a memoir he had started four years earlier.

The key sentence in Andersen’s account is the one that follows: “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.”

Adds Andersen, “Thanks to help from veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Book.”

To a book reviewer or to a political editor, this revelation should matter hugely. Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama insisted that he barely knew Ayers. He was just some guy in the neighborhood. Obama was lying.

More troubling is that Obama allowed Ayers to crawl around inside his brain and define to the world who Obama is. Whatever Ayers was, he remains a small “c” communist and a sworn enemy of the “marauding monster” that is America.

Dreams is a politically calculated book, proof of which is the fact that Obama nowhere acknowledges Ayers’ help. Neighborhood radical Rashid Khalidi thanks Ayers for his help in the first sentence of the acknowledgements in his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire. Khalidi had no plans to run for office.

Nor has Ayers gone away. Textual evidence strongly suggests that he was involved, though to a lesser degree, in Obama’s 2006 Audacity of Hope. Keeping this potentially damning “secret” gives Ayers significant leverage in his relationship with Obama.

For Obama’s literary acolytes, which seem to include every book reviewer in the English speaking world, Andersen’s account throws one more devastating psychic punch: Obama is not the literary wunderkind he is cracked up to be.

“I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate,” wrote Christopher Buckley in his National Review swan song, “He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine.”

Buckley is in good company. In their reading of Dreams, the world’s literary gatekeepers, an influential subset of the Obama faithful, have convinced themselves that Obama is too smart, too sensitive, too skilled as a writer to need anyone’s assistance.

They believe this deeply enough to have built Obama’s foundational myth around his presumed genius.

“I was astonished by his ability to write, to think, to reflect, to learn and turn a good phrase,” said Nobel prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison. “I was very impressed. This was not a normal political biography.''

“He wrote it himself!” gushed British heavyweight Jonathan Raban in the Wall Street Journal. “Every sentence has its own graceful cadence! He could as easily be a novelist as a politician!” On the strength of Dreams, Raban calls Obama “the best writer to occupy the White House since Lincoln.”

Obama himself participated in this fiction. "I've written two books," Obama told a crowd of teachers in Virginia during the campaign last year. " I actually wrote them myself."

Now the world knows he did not. He was lying again. To his credit, Andersen cited the literary forensic work I started more than a year ago in WND.

By October of 2008, I was fully convinced that Ayers not only helped Obama, but that he was also the principal author of Dreams. Obama is not a writer.

If the book reviewers wanted to assess the validity of Andersen’s sources, they could have checked the work that I have done. I do not imagine any of them did.

I had not communicated with Andersen in any which way before we talked on the Mancow Show on Monday of this week. Andersen confirmed that he had two sources “within Hyde Park.”

I would not be shocked if these sources were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Ayers has every right to be peeved. To protect Obama’s reputation, critics have had to attack him. Consider the following, and this from Republican bigwig Ken Blackwell:

"Bill Ayers' thoughts have all the leaden quality of most deadening Marxist screeds. Ayers' writing you can't pick up; Obama's you can't put down."

In fact, Ayers writes very well indeed. His 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, is a better book than Dreams. And he gets no credit for it.

When I wrote my book Hoodwinked, in which I detailed the 20th century history of American intellectual fraud, I never expected to find myself at the center of the most consequential literary fraud of our time.

Had the truth about Dreams been shared widely during the 2008 campaign, Obama would never have been nominated, let alone elected.

Yet despite the impact of the fraud, despite Andersen’s revelations, despite the research that I and my merry band of conspirators have done, not one single mainstream reviewer so much as mentioned the Dreams controversy.

Here is hoping the “respectable” conservative media do a little better.

[American Patriot]

So Obama lied that he wrote the book?

A COMMUNIST wrote the BOOK?

What is a Socialist? According to real socialists, it's the "in between place" between Capitalism and Communism.

Therefore, Ayers plans to be the next "Commie President" then?

I'm not confused, I can see clearly now....

[vector7]

Explosive New Book Exposes Obama's Plans to Destroy American Sovereignty



(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100729/DC42832 )
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100729/DC42832 )

NEW YORK, July 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Barack Obama is steering this nation onto a disastrous course to subject American sovereignty to international law, destroy free speech and the free economy, and betray our allies and even the democratic process itself – as is revealed in a shocking new book.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer was released Tuesday, July 27 by Simon & Schuster. The Foreword is by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton.

Author Pamela Geller and coauthor Robert Spencer are available for interviews.

Book Documents Shocking New Information

The book exposes Barack Obama’s true agenda, showing how since the beginning of his political career and on into his presidency he has allied with and worked with a rogue’s gallery of Communists, Islamic supremacists, anti-Semites, and America-haters. These are the very people who are now working within the Obama administration to formulate and advance key policies that are detrimental to ordinary Americans and even imperil America itself.

Exhaustively researched and documented, Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency is the most searching, meticulous and comprehensive exposé ever into the true agenda and goals of the Obama presidency:

to remake America into an authoritarian socialist state where dissent is ruthlessly crushed and the standard of living is Third World level.

The Post-American Presidency contains explosive documentation of how Obama has surrounded himself with top officials who are open enemies of the freedom of speech, advocates of the primacy of international law over American law, and venomous anti-Semites.

Geller and Spencer, the directors of the human rights group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), show that Obama’s policies are helping Islamic supremacists advance their goals in the United States, with potentially disastrous consequences for women, religious minorities, and all free people.

The book provides details ignored by the mainstream media, including about the illegal foreign funding of Obama’s presidential campaign; about how ACORN, a group with which Obama had extensive ties (documented here), destroyed Republican voter registrations; about the alarming and almost universally ignored consistency of Obama’s tendency to appoint extremists and radical hacks to sensitive positions; and about his undeclared war against American Constitutionalism.

The Post-American Presidency also uncovers appalling and previously overlooked new details about Obama’s background, showing the deep and extensive associations he has had over the years with America-haters and race-baiters as well as hardcore socialists and Communists, sexual perverts, and worse. It sheds new light on the strange gaps and missing areas of Obama’s biography, and his close associations with race-baiters, seditionist ideologues, and union thugs.

Among all of all Obama’s unsavory and repellent friends and professional partners, terrorist Bill Ayers has always stood out — but The Post-American Presidency documents for the first time Ayers’s much-overlooked history of anti-Semitism, and how it coalesces with Obama’s relentlessly anti-Israel policies as president.

The Post-American Presidency also explains how Obama’s healthcare policy is just one part of a larger initiative to bring the mighty American economic machine to its knees, and impose socialism upon an unwilling free people. It shows how his benign and supine attitude toward the global Islamic jihad threat should surprise no one — but is making us more vulnerable than ever to terrorist attack and Islamic infiltration.

Above all, Geller demonstrates how Barack Obama, as president of the United States, has worked in numerous ways (including by appointing a proliferation of “czars” who have to answer to no one) to bypass and undermine the system of checks and balances, weakening American democracy while simultaneously working to weaken America’s position as the world’s policeman and sole superpower

— with the goal of transforming America into a Third-World authoritarian hellhole.


Geller began investigating Obama when he first started coming to national attention in 2007. The Post-American Presidency is the fruit of three years of her exhaustive research, and has received rave reviews:
"Sheer brilliance! Sharp, well-written and to-the-point. The ultimate patriot's handbook. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer lay bare Barack Hussein Obama's radical agenda and how to stop it. No true American's library will be complete without this book."

--Brad Thor, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Foreign Influence
"This book is a chilling analysis of how the policy of President Barack Obama is chipping away at the very foundation of America's leading role in the world. It exposes his philosophy of near universal 'moral equivalency': a philosophy that is a dead ringer for the cultural relativism that has been poisoning Europe for the past decades. America is the last man standing and it is vital that the people of Europe adopt the attitude of proud American citizens and learn that it is not shameful to be proud of one's heritage. This book is incredibly fascinating and at the same time holds a deeply disturbing message we should all take to heart."

--Geert Wilders, Dutch MP

"Barack Obama is the most radical individual ever to occupy the White House. This excellent book by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer explains exactly what that means and why its implications are fraught with such dangers for this great Republic."

--David Horowitz, author of Radical Son

"Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are two of the most incisive analysts of events at home and abroad, and you could not ask for better guides to where 'hope,' 'change' and czars are taking us -- and what Americans can do about it."

--Mark Steyn, New York Times bestselling author of America Alone

"In The Post-American Presidency, Pamela Geller shines her laser on President Barack Obama -- his life, his values, his friends and his perceptions of the country he leads. What she reports will disturb not only every American who believes in that America is the Shining City on the Hill and that the American people are what Abraham Lincoln referred to as 'the almost chosen people.' It should also disturb people around the world who recognize that the international system stops working when the American Atlas shirks the burden of its uniqueness."

--Caroline Glick, author of The Shackled Warrior

"With their characteristic attention to detail, clarity and fearlessness, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer assay the wreckage. The Post-American Presidency is must reading for every concerned American who needs to know why we're in this perilous moment, and where we're headed if we don't take our exceptional country back."

--Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review legal affairs editor, author of Willful Blindness and Grand Jihad

More details and ordering information here.

[vector7]

What are the Dreams of Obama's father?
The roots of a Radical Marxist

Glenn Beck 08 09 10 A


Glenn Beck 08-09-10-B


Glenn Beck 08-09-10-C



Glenn Beck 08-09-10-D

[vector7]

Obama boasts of most 'progressive' political triumphs in decades

By Sam Youngman - 08/17/10 06:05 AM ET



President Obama told a Hollywood fundraiser Monday night that he and congressional Democrats have passed the most progressive legislation in decades.

"We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda — one that helps working families — not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three," Obama said.

Obama was joined by a number of lawmakers and celebrities at an event for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that raised $1 million.

Obama is hitting the campaign trail hard this week before he goes on vacation to Martha's Vineyard, boasting of his administration's accomplishments and accusing Republicans of trying to return to the policies of President George W. Bush.

"This is exactly when you want to be president," Obama said. "This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better."

With polls showing Democrats in serious trouble during an anti-incumbent election year, Obama said that helping Democrats get elected in November is his "focus over the next several months."

"I hope you understand why we're here tonight," Obama told the crowd at producer John Wells's home. "It's not to take a picture with the president. We're here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded."

Judd Apatow and actor Taye Diggs joined DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and California Democratic Reps. Howard Berman, Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee, Joe Baca, Laura Richardson, Judy Chu and John Garamendi.

[vector7]

But Obama Is a Socialist

By Jacob Hornberger



Published 09/27/10

Hornberger’s Blog Liberal supporters of Barack Obama become really upset when people call him a socialist. They say that such an accusation is so outrageous that it falls within the category of "extreme" or "fringe."

Let's see.

Consider the following four countries: Cuba, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

Wouldn't everyone concede that all four of those countries have socialist systems?

Let's list some of the key programs and policies that are common to all four of those socialist countries:

1. Government provided retirement pay to senior citizens (i.e., Social Security).
2. Government provided health care (i.e., Medicare and Medicaid).
3. Government-provided, mandatory education to people’s children (i.e., public schooling).
4. Government-provided unemployment compensation.
5. Government-provided welfare payments.
6. Government central planning of monetary affairs (i.e., a Federal Reserve).
7. Government management of the economy.
8. Government-issued licenses for occupations and professions.
9. Government central planning over immigration affairs.
10. Government control over trade.
11. Government equalization of wealth among the citizenry.
12. Government-mandated wage rates.
13. Government control over prices.
14. Government-provided subsidies.

Now, which of those key programs and policies in those four socialist countries does Barack Obama disagree with?

Answer: None. He supports them all.

If a person embraces the key programs and policies of socialist countries, why doesn’t that make him a socialist?

A question naturally arises: If liberal Barack Obama is a socialist, what does that make conservative George W. Bush?

Isn't the answer obvious?

[vector7]

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Is Obama unhinged?
Quip about landing Air Force 1 in Chavez backyard stuns press

Posted: November 21, 2010
6:53 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama said during his last visit he has seen positive signs from both Cuba and Venezuela

WASHINGTON – On the flight home from the European Summit today, Barack Obama stopped in the press cabin of Air Force 1 and joked that he was stopping the plane in South America to see Hugo Chavez.

That according to CNN's Ed Henry, who Tweeted the message to anyone who might be paying attention, editorializing that the president appeared to be "a little punchy."

Chavez is known as a leading anti-American socialist leader in Venezuela.

Within minutes the blogosphere was aflame with concerns not only about the propriety of the remark but about Obama's state of mind.

The flippant remark wasn't the only trigger for such concerns:

• Shortly after his meeting with European Union leaders, Obama offhandedly remarked: "This summit was not as exciting as other summits."
• Some observe he seems distant from the nation's economic challenges, the rising tide of anger sweeping the country over enhanced airport security checks and the secrecy over what top military officials characterize as an unexplained missile launch over Southern California Nov. 8.
• Pundits and talk-show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and top-rated Sean Hannity, have cited White House sources as saying the president is "unhinged," "detached," "bored," "losing it" and obsessed with critics.

"There are some Democrats that cue me into things," said Hannity on his show Thursday. "The feeling among some people in the White House is that this president is unhinged, that he's detached, that he's losing it, he's obsessed with critics, very specifically obsessed with Fox News, he can't stand [Vice President Joe] Biden, he hates the Clintons, the Clintons hate him. Infighting, apparently, and finger pointing is at an all-time high; if the president is brought bad news on the economy, he has a meltdown every time he hears it. And this is what people – and I'm telling you, my sources are reliable – are telling me."

Hannity's comments can be heard below:


Before Air Force 1 landed, American bloggers were weighing in through cyberspace with their opinions of the latest remark from Obama:

• "Is he finally losing it? I think that people who joke and laugh about inappropriate things, or at inappropriate times are having trouble dealing with something."
• "The guy is certifiable."
• "He must be bored again."
• "If CNN is noticing Obama is mentally ill, that's a big deal. CNN has to be careful or get their press card pulled. They are being as open as they can be."
• "He's cracking. By spring he'll be a complete mess."
• "'Punchy' is an interesting choice of words. It usually means drunk to the point of being stupid. That seems to fit the context."