Skip to comments.Why Is Observing Obama As A Marxist Verboten?
Posted on 03/22/2012 12:23:29 AM PDT by billflax
The recent release of a tape by Andrew Breitbart's outfit sparked renewed interest in President Obama's murky past. In anticipation, conservatives were elated that the president might finally be exposed. The tape showed Obama, then at Harvard Law, orchestrating a protest on behalf of Derrick Bell.
Without providing any background on just how radical is Professor Bell, the compliant liberal media derisively dismissed it all as conservative paranoia, even proclaiming presidential vindication. It still appears preposterous to purport that America elected a communist ideologue. The world's greatest beneficiary of capitalist bounty would never willingly empower a radical socialist to "fundamentally transform America."
Unfortunately, we did, even if Americans loathe admitting it. And this ought to have been obvious even before Mr. Breitbart's valiant efforts.
Obama exploits the citizenry's concerted blindness, cloaking his views under veneers of "social justice," "fairness," and "progress." Unadulterated Marxism attracts few votes. In rare candor, sans teleprompter, Obama lectured Joe the Plumber that his prescription for widespread prosperity is "spreading the wealth around."
Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice." Obama's justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.
Still, most Americans would deny Obama's Marxist outlook, mistaking the term's meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao. Marxist theory informed many of history's most murderous tyrants, but Obama's brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge. He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Absolutely. I can't believe such an idiotic article came from the usually excellent American Thinker. They need to get rid of the dangerously ignorant author who wrote it. Even the title is dopey.
I have always found that to be true...:)
Catastrophic for America, perhaps, but beneficial to his "New World Order" comrades in Moscow and elsewhere.
Michelle Obama,We must change Our traditions, we must Change the way we think
Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:
From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
Russia's Medvedev hails "comrade" Obama
Associated Foreign Press (AFP) ^ | April 2, 2009 | Anna Smolchenko
"Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks"
April 1, 2009:
"Obama, Medvedev pledge new era of relations":
President Obama and Venezuela dictator Hugo
Chavez at the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad.
Note the "soul bro" handshake. (my caption)
Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit:
From CBS-News, July 29, 2006:
Chavez Vows To 'Stand By Iran'
After Oil Talks In Tehran, Venezuelan Leader Called 'Brother' By Ahmedinejad
"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.
It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.
He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 linchpin of our missile defense might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
"The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a salute and logo most often used by left-wing activists, such as: Marxists, anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists, trade unionists, and black nationalists. The raised fist is usually regarded as an expression of solidarity, strength or defiance."
A common Anarcho-Syndicalist flag.
In the early 20th century, anarcho-syndicalism arose as a distinct school of thought within anarchism. With greater focus on the labour movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by the workers.
Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. This is compatible with other branches of anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to anarchist communist or collectivist anarchist economic systems. Its advocates propose labour organization as a means to create the foundations of a non-hierarchical anarchist society within the current system and bring about social revolution.
That gets right to the Alinskyite/Cloward-Piven core of Obama's heart: He wants to destroy our economy, and he wants to rewrite our Constitution. (Even the Soviet Union had a constitution.)
It is hard to believe he has made the "progress" towards his goals (the goals of those who underpin him) in such a short period of time. If he is reelected, we are done for.
His real "change" is going to come about as the result of an economic collapse directly related to liberal policies enacted beginning in the Roosevelt-Wilson-Roosevelt timeframe.
For those not familiar with this...
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
[Obama's strategy for destroying the economy]
| August 31, 2008 | Jim Simpson
Liberals self-righteously wrap themselves in the mantle of public spirit. They ardently promote policies promising to deliver the poor and oppressed from their latest misery policies which can only find solution in the halls of government. But no matter what issue one examines, over the last fifty plus years, the liberal prescription has almost always been a failure.
Why is this so? Why does virtually every liberal scheme result in ever-increasing public spending while conditions seem to get continually worse? There are a number of reasons:
In short, all develop a vested interest in the programs survival. But if the result is always more and more government, of government, by government, and for government, with no solution in sight, then why do liberals always see government as the solution rather than the problem?
Similarly, liberals use government to promote legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector to provide further benefits for selected groups. But the results are even more disastrous. For example, weighing the laws or stacking the courts to favor unions may provide short term security or higher pay for unionized labor, but has ultimately resulted in the collapse of entire domestic industries.
Another example is health care. The Dems are always trying to impose backdoor socialized medicine with incremental legislation. Why do you suppose American healthcare is in such crisis? Answer: the government has already become too deeply involved. For example, many hospitals are closing their doors because they are overwhelmed with the burden of caring for indigent patients, illegal immigrants and vagrants who must, by law, be admitted like everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot pay for services. Read about it here Destroying Our Health Care. The net result is reduced availability of care for everyone, exactly the opposite of what liberals claim to want.
To further complicate things, liberal jurists and lawyers have created new theories of liability that utilize the legal system as a means to further redistribute income. This too, has resulted in higher costs and prices in affected industries, higher insurance costs, or in some cases, complete elimination of products or services.
Liberals endless pursuit of rights for different groups also does little but create increasing divisions in our society. Liberal policy pits old against young, men against women, ethnic and racial groups against one another, even American citizens against illegal aliens, all in the name of equality. The only result is anger, tension and equal misery for all.
How does any of this improve our lot?
Finally, when companies relocate overseas to avoid the high cost of unionized labor and heavy domestic regulation, liberals sarcastically excoriate them for outsourcing America. Yet, when it comes to certain domestic industries, liberals in Congress suddenly become free marketers and choose to buy from overseas contractors rather than domestic suppliers. This happened most recently with a huge military contract being outrageously awarded to the heavily subsidized European consortium, AIRBUS, over Americas own Boeing. Since liberals claim to be so determined to save the American worker, what gives?
You have to take a step further back and ask some fundamental questions. Why is the liberal public policy record one of such unmitigated disaster? I mean, even the worst batter hits one occasionally. No one bats zero. No one that is, except liberals.
Prior to the Republican takeover in Congress in 1994, Democrats had over fifty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress with substantial majorities most of the time. With all the time and money in the world trillions spent they couldnt fix a single thing, not one. Todays liberal has the same complaints, and the same old tired solutions. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
When things go bad all the time, despite the best efforts of all involved, I suggest to you something else is at work something deeper, more malevolent.
I submit to you that it is not a mistake, the failure is deliberate!
There is a method to the madness, and the method even has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It was first elucidated in the 1960s by a pair of radical leftist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis . the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
[Part II of this article will explore those organizations created to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy and their ties to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.]
The Complete Cloward-Piven Series
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III print copy
Hate Crimes Legislation Back Door Censorship
Also see (from David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetworks.org) ...
THE CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY (CPS):
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
By Glenn Beck
Meet Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven,
authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy
"I'm going to give you a hard concept to get your arms around: It's the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system."-Glenn Beck
Obama and Bell, Harvard
May this foul Canadian import Piven join her husband in the next world at the earliest opportunity...
I can say its possible that for the next decade all those that lied and bribed to get Obama elected will be searching for homes in Argentina.
Immediately after Obama is de-throned it will be as if all the dams holding the truth back will open their floodgates.
Obama will have no more leverage to use his power the threaten the truth seekers, he will not spend any more money to keep his past a secret for the next couple of decades.
I believe Obama will revert to Kenya in some posh position, returning to roots sort of thing because he cannot live in America any longer, he cannot be like a Clinton that just keeps on hanging around.
Obama will run away.
Because it pulls the wool off the eyes of Americans as to the Communist evolution of the US Government. NEXT please!
If Obama gave a tv speech waving the flag of the Soviet Union while the Internationale screeched and a bust of Lenin (a foreign donation he would not have returned) in the background, the media wouldn’t call him a Marxist.
Yet Romney refuses to describe Obama even as a socialist.
How ‘bout this one:
All politics everywhere not racial, is tribal.
Oh, really? I'd like to challenge the author's thesis there.
Obama may have a limited lodgement as the chief magistrate of a constitutionally-constrained democratic republic, rather similar to Hitler's office as chancellor of the Weimar Republic; but what Obama wants is clearly so much more powerful, so much less constrained, and therefore so very much more dangerous. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what Obama "might" do if he had the kind of power the October Revolution brought to the Bolsheviks. Before their revolution, Lenin's Communists were every bit the sort of theoretically-minded cafe leftists that civilized Westerners had come to regard with benign contempt as boulevardiers and idlers. In power, they became ruthless killers very damn fast.
Outstanding post..well worth the time to read....
Thank you all so much for taking the time to read and reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.