Posts Tagged ‘ socialism ’

Real Astroturf, Real Dangerous

I could write a long essay on the “One Nation” rally in DC this past weekend.  Rather I decided to let the images speak for themselves.  Below you’ll find a nice collection of videos from the right and the left covering the “One Nation” rally.  If you want to see what it was like from the perspective of the wandering observer or agenda-motivated interviewer you’ll find it below.  I searched YouTube and collected the best and most descriptive videos.   Continue reading

An Impeachable President

Upon taking office, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If a president works against the Constitution of the United States (COTUS), specifically, if he instructs the DOJ to sue states which have passed local law to pursue and fulfill its obligation to defend its borders as mandated by Article IV, Section 4 of the COTUS …

Swamming the borders like an invading armyThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

… it raises questions about the president being seen as an enemy of the Constitution.

If that argument were not convincing, on June 24, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen had this to say about the nation’s mounting debt:

I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warned in June of 2010 that in order to find $100 billion in savings, Pentagon leaders, working with the military services, will have to identify “lower-priority programs” that are not going to be part of future budgets.

Already this year, we have seen this president slash NASA’s Constellation program to a mere pittance of its initial mission design resulting in an estimated 20,000 jobs lost in the space exploration sector. In addition, we have seen Obama’s critical thinking lead to banning off-shore oil drilling leading to thousands of more jobs being lost in the industry.

Pulling all of this together and reflecting upon the impact his decisions have on industry, the country’s diminishing lead in space exploration and now demonstrating an overt willingness to work against the Constitution by suing states who have passed laws in pursuit of their Constitutional obligation to defend their borders, we can safely surmise that the president’s policies are placing the country’s overall security into jeopardy and should be viewed as an enemy of the state.

Obama Refuses to Commemorate Fall of the Berlin Wall

[picapp src=”2/3/a/8/East_Berliners_Climb_a912.jpg?adImageId=7208006&imageId=2330539″ width=”500″ height=”329″ /]

Newt Gingrich has voiced his criticism of President Obama’s decision not to attend next week’s 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Gingrich calls the decision, “a tragedy.”  I call it a travesty.  The difference is significant.  Defining synonyms are “calamity” and “misfortune.” Tragedy implies a random event that has wrought destruction.  No, this is an outrage, a travesty.  The Cambridge online dictionary defines a travesty as “something which fails to represent the values and qualities that it is intended to represent, in a way that is shocking or offensive.”  The President’s refusal to attend the commemoration is both shocking and offensive.  Furthermore, Obama is fails to represent the values and qualities that are the United States of America.

President Obama Speaks In The Rose Garden

Why should this surprise anyone?  Obama lives in an upside down world, where good is bad and bad is good.  Where democracy and freedom are disrespected and the high calling is government control of the individual.  Capitalism is scorned and despised.  Communism and dictatorships appear to be admired.  Simply recall the Obama response to the Honduran coup, its relationship with Venezuela, Cuba…  Now contrast that to the way they snubbed Britain’s Brown, the Queen (an ipod filled with Obama speeches for an old woman), and his condemnation of Israel.  Now Germany gets snubbed.  Naturally, they have been a loyal ally for decades.

So is it any wonder he refuses to attend a commemoration of the seminal moment for freedom in the 20th century?  No, for Mr. Obama the fall of the wall represents a tragic moment for socialism and communism.  It represents the failure of government totalitarian control over industry and the socialist business model overall.  So, rather than attend a celebration a quarter of the way around the world, it is understandable that the President would prefer to mourn quietly back in Washington.  After all, he is rebuilding the former glory that once was the Soviet bloc right here.  Why would he want to spoil that euphoria by remembering the last time it ended in spectacular failure.

I’m sorry.  I wanted to like Obama.  Seriously.  Not because of any latent liberalism but because I was hoping he’d rule from the center.  I would still have found plenty to disagree with, but what we have now may spell disaster.  We have our first Socialist President.  We have our first Post-American President.  Post-Freedom, Post-Capitalism.  Post-Pro-Democracy.  With each passing decision, the President moves farther and farther to the left. If you believe the lame excuse provided through the equally lame Press Secretary you are one of the ignorant soon-to-be peasant masses. Too busy to attend an event commemorating the singular most pivotal event of the second half of the 20th century.

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
— Thomas Sowell

If you are an Obama supporter you really should do some soul-searching. Examine what motivates you to cheer Obama and his arrogant Congress.  Is it simply Capitalism you hate?  Do you really believe the government can run industry better than the free market?  Or are you simply ignorant?  Do you seriously believe only the wealthiest Americans will pay for all the socialist programs being pushed on us today?  If we completely plundered the entire income of the top 2% we could not cover the expenses this government wants to undertake. If these are not your motives or your delusions you need to wake up and smell the garbage being delivered to your front door.  Or maybe you’re like this person:

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.  The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.  The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.— Thomas Sowell (In this example, we’re talking about Janie.)

Government Control of Private Wealth Could Reach 58%

Major Portions of GDP Coming Under Federal Control


The Fed Wants Control of America's Economic Engine

In July of 2009, a University of Arizona economist, Professor William Boyes, stated that the federal government owns or controls 30 percent of private wealth in America.

Boyes said his calculations were rather simple in nature not even worthy of a Nobel Prize.

I simply added up how much of GDP [gross domestic product] was govt run or govt controlled. I gave an approximation that is pretty conservative. I suspect the actual number is more like 40%; if health care goes through then it will rise to over 50%.


Corrupted from the inside

The following quote from Nikita Kruschev:

We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.  We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.
(From an address to Western Ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956.)

KGB Agent, Yuri Bezmenov explains how Soviets “brain-washed” Americans into socialists.  Are we now living the success of that program?

Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian born, KGB trained subverter explains how the Soviet Union influenced Western media to bring about real change in the West.  He describes the stages of the communist takeover and how it would be accomplished. The interview was conducted by G. Edward Griffin in 1984.

In it Bezmenov says:

” The main emphasis of the KGB has not been in the area of intelligence gathering. Only 15% of time, money and man-power is spent on espionage. The other 85% is spent on “ideological subversion” or “active measures”. It is a great brain-washing process. It takes a long time.

The process consists of 4 stages, one of which is called “Demoralization”. This stage takes between 15 and 20 years. This is because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students. The process exposes the students to the ideology of the enemy i.e. the Marxism-Leninism ideology and is pumped into the soft heads of young students for at least 3 generations without being challenged or contra-balanced by the ideology of the basic values of American patriotism.

Most of the people who graduated in the ’60s, the drop-outs, the half-baked intellectuals now occupy the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media and education system. America is now stuck with them.

The process of demoralization is then complete and irreversible. It will take another 15 to 20 years to wash away the intellectual contamination and corruption of values. A person who is demoralized is unable to process truth.”

Saul Alinsky was only a small yet effective element of that effort.

America needs to wake up. But I fear too many have been subverted and unable to process truth.


Nationalize This


Yesterday my commentary dealt with the White House attack on Fox News.  The point being that this was not simply an attack on one news organization but rather the beginning of a much more widespread attack on the free press and ultimately free speech.  Slippery slope argument. I heard that.  Seriously though, is it?

When the Democrats ramped up the money confetti drop on AIG, GM, and the like, there were already stories going around about the financial shape of major newspapers, such as The Washington Post. Well, welcome to the slope and my is it slippery today.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Vice-President at Large, Leonard Downie Jr., is favoring government subsidies for the press.  Whenever anyone is financially obligated they become obligated in other areas.

Don’t agree.  Then you either lack a social conscience or you’ve never borrowed money from your Dad.  But let us stick to the government.  Farmers are subsidized by the government.  They have been since the Great Depression.  This is one of the worst situations ever created.  The government through it’s subsidies controls how much farmers can produce, that allows them to effectively control prices.  (A far better solution would have been for the government to buy crops, pay for processing, and distribute food to needy Americans as opposed to the current system of food stamps.  But again that’s another topic.)

To further make my point at the very moment that the President, Congress, and other loud Democrats are redefining “news” we see the first move toward eventual government ownership in major news media.  After the government bailed out AIG, GM, and countless banks, the government wasted little time before meddling in the inner workings of those organizations.  To me that is to be expected.  I certainly would not want to own a company run by people I did not trust, or allow decisions I felt were not in the best interest of the company.  Nor would I allow a company I owned to criticize me too loudly or too damagingly. And therein lies the rub.

Barack Obama is squealing like a wounded pig about Fox news attacks, coming from commentary largely confined to Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly.  He is whining that Fox is unfair, they lie, their stories make me look bad, it’s a conspiracy.  People are buying it.  After all, Fox reported that nasty ACORN series of stories and we all know Obama and ACORN are practically inseparable.  The President remarked yesterday that he wasn’t spending too much time thinking about Fox.  Perhaps.  He has just allocated top resources away from important things like Iran to combat Fox being in the press pool.

Republican Presidents have dealt with media bias for decades.  Welcome to the Presidency, Mr. Obama.  If G.W. Bush had complained about every unfair and misquoted thing the mainstream media had said about him he would have never had time for anything else.   And another thing, if Rahm, David, and Barack can redefine Fox’s news status based on their prime political commentators should not MSNBC lose it’s title as well?  I recall one of their NEWS anchors admitting Obama excited him.  And what of CBS’ Charlie Gibson.  Geez, I better stop.

Before I do, though let me say this.  If Emanuel and Axelrod are successful in convincing the other news agencies to shun Fox, they will introduce a very dangerous new dynamic into politics.  After Republicans hounded Clinton, Democrats repaid them by subverting Bush and opposing him on everything no matter how insignificant.  Should Obama and the mainstream media shut Fox out, it would be reasonable and highly probable for the tables to be turned upon the election of the next Republican President.  In the most extreme case, the other news outlets could find themselves locked out with Fox holding exclusive access to the White House.  As I said in an earlier post, payback’s a bitch.

But it looks like the liberal media want a government tit more than they want their independence.  Their hard leftist leanings have alienated many of their readers and let’s face it free internet news access has killed print.  Rather than lean to survive they want a handout.  And hey Soviet media worked so well.

I’m sure the government is salivating at the thought of having a financial stake in the mainstream media.  They can place operatives in key hiring positions and soon all media will look and sound like NPR.  Doubt it?  Look at how the government is making moves to tighten it’s control on the internet.

lenin_reading_pravdaThere is a grand plan.  At first I did not see it but the evidence is overwhelming.  Listen to some quotes from Democrats now in control of this nation.  They tell us in plain language exactly what they’re deep desires are for this nation.  Maxine Waters put it best last year when addressing auto execs.  In a fit of rage she plainly announces that liberals want to socialize this nation and run all U.S. companies.  (If I had not heard it myself I would never have believed it.)

McChesney is arguing that the media companies don’t know what you want but government does.  He is advocating in very smooth language that the government should control the media and decide what should be broadcast.

Ron Bloom asserting that the administration does not believe in the free market and espouses Maoist views.

Van Jones (now working for ) explains just how socialist/communists plan a coup from the inside.

I’ll end on this.  Alan Keyes is not a “smooth” politician.  He says what’s on his mind and sometimes accepts theories as facts.  In spite of that I like him.  Like me he is an emotional man who loves this country and values freedom.  Unlike those on the left value who prize safety and pleasure over freedom and security.

From February 2009:

From the War on Terror To The War on Free Speech

taliban_face_of_terrorGeorge Bush took on terrorists like no other administration before.  He called it the Global War on Terror.  A new administration with new priorities replaced GW and now the bulk of that war is over.  Afghanistan is the last surviving effort to defeat terrorism and the new administration lacks the intestinal fortitude and the will to pursue it to a successful conclusion.

Protecting Americans and American interests seems not just a disinterest to the Obama administration, but rather counter to their core values.  Riddled with ties to anti-American and anti-Capitalist organizations and individuals, the Obama administration seems more obsessed with waging war against domestic ideological enemies.  (Before I proceed let me establish that this is not another commentary on Glenn Beck.  I only mention him for context.) Glenn Beck the unrelenting scourge of communists and socialists began nibbling around Obama’s feet when he attacked and proved a clear communist connection with “Green Jobs” Czar, Van Jones.  Jones exited quietly – literally in the night, one holiday weekend.

Administration declares war on Fox

Beck loves his chalkboard

I wonder if the administration thought they were clear following Jones’ exit?  After all, any additional attacks could not be proven, right?  Besides,  Beck could be marginalized through a continuation boycott of his TV outlet, Fox News.  I’m sure the word was spread throughout the White House to “keep your socialist leanings to yourselves.”  But they weren’t counting on the fact that people with strong ideology don’t generally keep it to themselves, especially when surrounded by friendlies.  It is easy to forget that anything said in public – even among friends can and will be discovered.  As a result, Anita Dunn’s “favorite political philosopher” remark took a mere four months to make it’s way to Beck’s ear.  Beck being Beck made headlines by playing Dunn’s own words.  Unlike Jones, Dunn was not some minor Czar that could be quietly asked to exit under cover of darkness and a mainstream media blackout.  No, Dunn is the Communications Director for the White House, if she were disgraced it would reflect poorly on the President.

Senior Obama Advisor, David Axelrod

And thus David Axelrod and mastermind Rahm Emanuel resorted to Chicago tradition and launched a smear campaign.  The big problem here is that Axelrod/Emanuel chose not to attack Beck directly, because like sanctions against Iran, boycotting, insulting, belittling, and hating Beck does not work.  Beck has a loyal base and conservatives know despite being a bull in a China shop, Beck can support and defend his facts.  The administration cannot.

In targeting Fox News, Emanuel, Axelrod and Obama seem to miss the distinction between news and news commentary.  What we bloggers do, is news commentary – editorialize, talk radio is news commentary, and shows such as Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly are news commentary.  Even CNN, the fair and liberal news channel, has news commentary shows, Rick Sanchez and Lou Dobbs to name a couple.

If Dobbs were to get fed up with the socialist agenda of the Obama administration and began to expose the communists embedded within the administration would CNN lose it’s news channel status?  Do newspapers that run political commentary critical of Obama lose their newspaper status?

In essence the entire war that Obama and company began against Fox is a boldface attack on the free press and free speech.  The last administration to launch such an attack was the Nixon administration, before that we have to stretch all the way back to President John Adams.  Adams was so angered by the relentless attacks of the press he pressed for and got a friendly Congress to pass the now infamous, The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. While never before the Supreme Court most people at the time and even today believe the laws unconstitutional.

Yet today we see liberals pressing to shutdown conservative voices.  Take the so-called fairness doctrine.  There are liberal voices in the halls of Congress trying to, at the worst, muzzle conservative voices, or at best, force liberal voices upon an unwilling audience.  The fairness doctrine if enacted into law could force media outlets to balance opinion programming.  Prima facie this sounds “fair,” right?  Naturally we want people to hear both sides of a story.  But here’s the catch, if the audience doesn’t want to hear someone they tune out, advertisers don’t buy airtime, the media provider (station) cannot dump the unpopular voice because of the fairness doctrine, the station is losing money every minute mr-unpopular-opinion is on the air. Eventually the station is forced to change formats, shutdown, or request government bailout money.  In that case the station forgets all about the fairness doctrine and moves to an all-liberal Air America format.

The fact of the matter is that liberals generally don’t want to hear anyone else’s opinion.  Conservatives are generally interested in hearing other conservative opinions since the mainstream media already provides the left-wing point-of-view.  If anyone wanted to listen to liberals rant Air America would be making money, they aren’t.  No, liberals would rather listen to music or crass morning comedy that fills huge gaps between music.  Conservatives want to listen to other conservatives.  Are there exceptions?  Absolutely.  But the rating on talk radio prove no one is interested in what liberals have to say.  So please shut up.  😉


We have a paranoid administration that has set out to “fundamentally change America.”  A mission that seeks to move America away from it’s historically successful capitalist traditions toward a command economy that has historically failed.  And done so spectacularly in places like Eastern Europe and India.  A brief analogy:  Have you ever had computer problems at work?  You call IT and the tech tries a solution you already tried that did not work.  As he (or she) begins you inform him you already tried it and it didn’t work.  Does the technician stop and say, “Oh, in that case I’ll try something else,” or does he ignore your time-saving information and proceed to repeat the worthless solution?  Most of the time the tech is thinking, you didn’t do it right. Doing it correctly the tech fails, just as you did.  It always amuses me when the technician sighs heavily or says, “Huh, that should have worked.”

It didn’t work because it was the wrong solution.  Socialism never works.  In theory it sounds so fair and it if only it were done right, it should work.  It doesn’t work because when financial rewards are removed people seek to find rewards elsewhere.  In the case of socialism that reward is political power over others.  Thus we see the resulting totalitarian governments of the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and more.

If there are powerful voices shouting that the nation is heading toward socialism, it is a message the Obama administration does not want heard.  Naturally, they would not want it heard if it were untrue, but neither would they want that message heard if it were true.  If people wake up and understand that the country has indeed made a hard leftist turn they would object.  If enough people object, the objective is lost.  Thus the opposition must be silenced.  Stalin understood this, Mao understood this, and certainly Hitler understood this.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.*

If you enjoy the freedom to hold your own opinion, liberal or conservative, then you need to be concerned when anyone in the government tells people to close their minds and refuse to listen to opposing opinions.  If you love the freedom to think for yourself it should greatly concern you when someone in the government attacks a news organization.  This attack on Fox is about far more than Obama’s thin skin.  It is about pressing an agenda, it is about “fundamentally transforming America,” it is about suppressing all opposition until it is too late.  Soon it may be too late. Paranoid leaders are the most dangerous enemies of freedom.  Who fondly recalls Richard Nixon’s hatred toward the press, or for that matter, his paranoid spying on the DNC.

More Mao Pals

In closing, listen to the words of yet another communist embedded within the Obama administration.  Before Ron Bloom was Obama’s Manufacturing Czar he spoke to the Union League Club in New York.  Speaking before a friendly crowd of distressed investors, Ron reveals his communist ideology and makes a eerie threat by way of quoting Mao.  This quote is far more blatant than either Van Jones or Anita Dunn.  Unlike Dunn there is no wiggle room to argue the words did not mean what they are saying.  The message is clear and plainly spoken. Understanding what is going on requires thinking “big-picture.”  Is there a theme being played out in the Obama White House and it’s orbiting Czars?  In their rhetoric? Their policies?

* Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984).

%d bloggers like this: