Posted on 10/24/2008 12:52:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
On Senator Obama’s official website:
Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx’s writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed “Marxist States.” They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!
Given that John McCain doesn’t have “Communists/Marxists/Socialists for McCain” anywhere on his official website (let alone any unofficial ones out there) while Barack Obama does, do you think it might be any wonder why Obama is saddled with the “socialist” label? Or that he attracts so many unsavory sorts, in the form of past associations as well as endorsements by America’s enemies and dictators and regimes who do not have America’s best interest at heart?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
.....
***********************************************************************
| Login | Register | Search Blogs |
Oftentimes, liberals will offer you big government as the solution to a problem. On the other hand, conservatives will assert that less—much less—government is the sure fix. Ronald Reagan would have had you believe that government is inherently evil, that government is itself the problem. But neither of these approaches have solved much: witness LBJ's Great Society and Reagan's social welfare cuts. America didn't destroy poverty in the '60s, nor did less government in the '80s cause us all to develop better morals. So what is government's role in solving the socioeconomic problems, and even crises, facing America? And yes, we do have crises. What is happening in the majority-black, crack-ridden inner city? There's a war going on, and most of America doesn't care. The Katrina victims haven't been properly recompensed, haven't had their homes, their communities, their cities rebuilt. And the working middle class is being ravaged. Jobs are leaving, homes are foreclosing, and a way of life is being torn asunder in a silent, faceless genocide.
Well let me tell you what's what: it is not the government's job to funnel billions into a new program, staffed by more out-of-touch, hapless bureaucrats. But neither can the government—and the country it serves—preside idly over humanitarian and economic crises. We do not have the option to do nothing—for we would become monsters, desensitized to any suffering. Nevertheless, I can understand someone who is hesitant about the government going out and trying to “fix the ghetto.” Those that are hesitant about such things are not hesitant because they believe those who live in the inner city deserve an opportunity-less, fearful existence. They’re hesitant because although we’ve tried, we haven’t succeeded, and we’ve run out of ideas besides pumping more money in, money without any organization or resolve behind it. We must regain the people’s trust in spending their money, and we must do this by spending it wisely and effectively. We don’t need a federally-administered “War on Poverty,” nor do we need money taken away from such vital institutions like insane asylums, Social Security, or Medicare. Government is not the solution—people are. But the destruction of communities because of disappearing jobs and foreclosed homes cannot be solved by good intentions alone. The cycles of poverty, addiction, recession, and bankruptcy are indeed vicious, and they are also often strong and seemingly endless. These things cannot be fought just by nice thoughts if we intend to succeed on a broad scale. There must be force behind effort, not just willpower on the part of a few, but conviction and action by the many. This is a sentiment Sen. Barack Obama has been emphasizing during his campaign. This action will not succeed if not taken up collectively.
What I’m saying in short, is that the most effective ways to deal with poverty, declining economic opportunity, and community rebuilding originate from within the community. And the most efficient way of administering these solutions is by and through the community. But one of the unfortunate parts of this approach is that community programs often lack breadth, their ability to reach many, because they lack that one important resource that frequently determines whether a program will last or perish—money. And that is where we need great politico-economic innovation: combining the fantastic depth and effectiveness of community programs with the more-encompassing breadth and monetary resources of a federal or even state program.
Governments must cease to be a bureaucratic parasite that takes large percentages of our income and then swallows it up to be wasted, misappropriated, and disappear into ineffective committees and useless federal oversight programs. Instead, government must be a tool that like-minded individuals can use to confront—and defeat—a problem bigger than themselves.
A national Consumption tax is something we need very, very, badly.
This bill was created to try and rectify the problems that have emerged from the Federal Income Tax and the IRS's existence. It would repeal the 16th amendment and put in its place a national sales tax for the United States Government to collect revenue.
The problem with our current system is that a) The Income Tax is a great violation of personal liberty, with the government forcibly taking our hard earned money and b) The IRS has become a highly sophisticated organization, and nearly incomprehendable to ordinary citizens.
The FairTax would fix both these problems and then some. It would allow us to take home all of our paycheck, instead of having it cut to pieces by taxes, and it would end the Income Tax's destruction of our rights. It would make taxation a choice, meaning it is your choice to go out and purchase luxury commodities and the like. It would also render the IRS and its highly intricate Tax Code unneccesary and wasteful.
Economists at Boston University concluded that the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power.
This issue destroys class and party lines. It simply logic to endorse something like this, and a National Candidate like Obama would be the best to endorse it.
There are two things that Hillary Clinton has done that deserve immediate scrutiny:
1) She has disregarded the will of the DNC, the only uniting organization between Democrats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7036562.stm
2) She has given President Bush the authority to attack Iran. This is a portion of a statement that the Gravel Campaign is circulating. Though Obama does recognize that it is too early to rule out a strike against Iran, he did not vote on this measure, like the traitor Hillalry did.
It started with Democratic Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel criticizing Senator Hillary Clinton on live TV. Now, two other candidates are catching on. John Edwards and Barack Obama have both followed Gravel's lead, making statements that criticize Clinton's controversial vote on a measure which gives President George W. Bush the cover to attack Iran.
At the September 26 Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., Gravel first raised the issue, calling the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (S. Amdt. 3017) "a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran." The Senator went on to say, "I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this." You can watch an excerpt of that debate here.
Since then, Edwards and Obama have made similar statements.
While Obama told AP he sees "nothing wrong with identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization," he admits that the vote "could potentially lead to military action in Iran." You can read more about that in today's Union Leader.
Obama was absent the day the vote was cast in the Senate. As a result, he could not vote on it.
Edwards, who calls his vote authorizing the Iraq War a "mistake," followed Gravel in congratulating Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for voting against the resolution
Barack Obama has been endorsed by both Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA and I don't see anybody in the media giving a hoot.
In all fairness though, Barack Obama was only 38 years old when he was a member of a socialist party.
There was a courageous Senator from Wisconsin back in the 50’s who predicted all this; his name was Joe McCarthy and the leftists crucified him. Back in the 50’s there was a common term “Better dead then red”. The seeds for a revolution are growing.
That is what I thought....wonder how much longer it will be there?
Not long I think, I have others from there that disappeared fast. That’s why I took a screen shot of it and put the site URL and the date on it. Good to save. Should have put a border around it when I posted.
somewhat related thread:
Internet powerhouse Andy Martin set to slam "mainstream media" in New York news conference today
Time for a Reincarnation of Joe McCarthey.
He claimed communist infiltration of the U. S. government but was never really able to prove anything. Guess things never change, lol.
I do remember the Hollywood “blacklist”.
Exposed but not challenged by the L/MSM. They want this guy in. Then again. I am a bit surprised as how CNN of lately has actually brought up his dealings with ACORN.
Thanks Ernest.
COMMIE BOOMP
Please note they spell the latter "communsim"--not to be confused with communism.
Let's make it perfectly clear: Orwellians for Obama.
There.
Places now for the Two-Minute Hate against Sarah Palin's dress.
OBAMA - CHAINS YOU CAN BLEED IN
Lol, you picked the last typo in the article! I didn’t notice it but then I am used to people manipulating words....
oBama wants to be ‘Big B’!
Putin murders journalists.
Iran drags women by the hair.
Cuba sinks the rafts of those leaving.
China beats and jails little old Falun Gong ladies.
Obama will have critics mugged--either by street thugs or the IRS.
He said, "They will throw the first punch, but we will throw the last."
He's transcendent and transformational like Hitler on a table in the Beer Hall in 1923.
Hitler probably thought he would throw the last punch too.
Strange site about Obama;
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.: The Real Story
By; Don Nicoloff
It was Jack Paar who said, “They can’t get you between the sheets,” and walked off his show.
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.