Posted on 03/12/2009 9:16:00 AM PDT by AJMCQ
On Nov. 5, 2008, Americans woke up to a very real Marxist coup — although most didn't realize it. I sat down and cried while a huge crowd gathered and were cheering. I intuitively knew something was very wrong. After watching Barack Hussein Obama aggressively pursue his agenda as president, I now understand why.
Most Marxist coups rely on deception — and that was certainly true of this one. Just about everything Obama said during the campaign was a calculated lie. His handlers and key supporters were equally willing to lie and deceive to gain advantage.
Once Marxists seize power through deception, manipulation, exploitation, and corrupt interference with the political process, they never give it up. It is entirely possible that we will never see the end of the current regime of Marxists in America. In 20 years, the President of the United States might still be a man named Barack Obama. At the very least, we can expect Obama and his fellow conspirators to do everything in their power to ensure that outcome.
Failure equals success
Initially, the objectives of Marxism center in undermining the status quo — for only after the existing order is sufficiently weakened can it be dismantled and a thoroughgoing socialist system installed in its place.
We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, that Obama has no intention of strengthening or improving our country. His deeply-held Marxist beliefs will drive him to create chaos, disruption, economic collapse, and moral corruption — accompanied by the silencing of his critics — so that from the ashes of American civilization, a socialist nation will arise to lead out in collectivizing the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.us ...
It’s a done deal, only a golpe can remove them now. The 2010 elections will be meaningless. Americans are too caught up in the “it can’t happen here” mentality and therefore will allow these epople to wreck the country and by the time they wake up it will be too late. The United States has died, now we need to figure out how to live under socialism.
I'm not afraid of anything. I am concerned that certain Freepers seem to lack the ability to distinguish between what is truly breaking news and what amounts to someone's personal opinion or analysis or news that lacks a significant interest or impact beyond the the poster's neighborhood.
I agree that Obama is a Marxist, and I agree that Obama's political philosophy can arguably be characterized as news (at least to some people). But "breaking news" it is not -- at least not to anyone who has followed Obama's campaign from day one. In fact, if you do a Free Republic title search using the word "Marxist," then you will literally find dozens, if not hundreds of articles that have been posted over the last year that specifically concern Obama and his desire to turn our Country into a Marxist state. While this may have breaking news a year ago, it should no longer be breaking news to any self-respecting Freeper.
That is their whole point.
The only way that we may be able to combat this is to infiltrate the organizations themselves.
Become democrats, join ACORN etc. Then get the dirt on them and expose then for what they are.
When we can attest to criminal activity give evidence and prosecute them while we still can.
That is about all I can think of, can anyone else come up with some advice on how to defeat this before it takes over?
Simply DEMAND that anyone who currently is serving in a position that they swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution do it. Section 3 of the Twentieth amendment CLEARLY states that the President elect MUST provide qualification evidence BEFORE being allowed to become President. It is HIS responsibility to do this. We need someone who has taken the oath to support the Constitution to demand that Obama provide this in court. The "standing" issue is taken care of by the fact that anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution must do so or they or breaking the law. You can't FORCE someone to break the law in their attempt to uphold the law.
>>One third (including FReepers) will vehemently complain, discuss what to do about it, and continue to engage in circular firing squads.<<
I don;t know. I think that quite a few people here do more than just talk. They actively write their representatives, attend meetings and make themselves heard.
I also think that because of many of the links posted that there are a lot of signatures = political pressure coming out of the FR.
What i would like to see to be honest is us getting behind some more conservative officials or would be officials and trying to get them elected.
certainly FR sheds light on RINO’s don’t you think?
>>That is their whole point.
The only way that we may be able to combat this is to infiltrate the organizations themselves.
Become democrats, join ACORN etc. Then get the dirt on them and expose then for what they are.
When we can attest to criminal activity give evidence and prosecute them while we still can.<<
I agree 100%!
It is worth repeating and posting all over then doing it.
At minimum keep your local officials honest and keep pressure on them to do the right things. Work from the base up to coin a phrase “YES WE CAN”
Truman favored even higher taxes and even more government. At least, the top tax brackets were far higher in Truman's day and he didn't want them lowered or stop his demagogic attacks on the rich.
Truman favored a universal, single-payer national health care system. During a train strike, Truman seized the railroads and wanted to draft the strikers into the military. That's a lot more than Obama's proposed so far.
But you'd have to be a real moron to call Truman a Communist or a Marxist, given his role in the Cold War with Stalin and the Soviets. Try looking up some of the rhetoric and imagery of those days. And "socialist" doesn't describe Truman, who had Harriman and Morgan partners in his cabinet, either. So what does that make Obama, who's a good deal more centrist than Truman was on economic questions?
There is a grain of truth to the argument, though. It's said that Norman Thomas, who ran against Truman on the Socialist ticket, later advocated winding up the Socialist Party because the major parties had adopted so many of the planks of its platform. Eventually the party broke up and left behind groups like the DSA which supported Obama early on in his career.
But so much of this "Obama is a socialist. Obama is a communist" talk comes from people who don't have much experience of real socialists or communists and don't bother with strict definitions of socialism. It's more just name-calling rather than anything truly descriptive. Or it's "socialist" as an adjective meaning "further to the left than I am," rather than a noun with meaning "advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Is Obama a Communist because of his tactics? That's a shaky argument. If Obama practices the machine political tactics of Daley's Chicago. Does that mean that the Daleys are Communists? If conservatives organize against Obama along Alinskian lines, would that make us Communists? Politics is a rough game. People in politics do some pretty questionable things. But I doubt when we look at US politics we're talking about Lenin and Stalin, and it's silly or stupid to suggest otherwise.
Obama's doing some foolish things and he'll do more before his term is over. Concentrate on what he does, rather than the scare labels and you'll be more effective and have more self-respect.
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.