Know When to Hold 'Em [Obama, Holder, the NAACP, Democrats and the Race Card]

Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler" is as good a start to this week's summary as I can think of:

In my view, Obama still doesn't know when to hold or fold his race cards. Neither does the NAACP. They've been bluffing the dummies so long they think they can get away with it forever. And they are wrong.

And when "the dealin's done, the Democrats and their friends in the press will find out that their decades-long race-baiting of their political and ideological opponents has lost its power to bluff. Let's start seeing and raising them every time they try it.

Obama ran and won in large part on a theme: this was going to be a post-racial presidency. We could end the Balkanization of American and begin working together. From the outset he danced a tightrope. To appease his base -- and perhaps because it fits his worldview -- he filled his administration with people who had a decidedly racialist/ spoils system view of government. The agenda was to increase the number of racial preferences while pretending it was not doing so.

One of his most important picks was Eric Holder as Attorney General. And one of Holder's first acts was to call the United States "a nation of cowards" on racial issues. "Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race," he said.

At the same time, his Department was dismissing a case it had won against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation and directing the staff of the Civil Rights Division to ignore similar cases in which the perpetrators of voter intimidation were black and the victims white (according to sworn and corroborated testimony). It was forcing jurisdictions still under the Voting Rights Act to adopt voting rules that would assure racial quotas were met in election outcomes. To date, the Department, instead of welcoming a debate on race and on its conduct has refused to cooperate with any official inquiries on its conduct.

In the same vein, when the Administration stripped car dealerships from Chrysler and GM owners race was a factor in deciding who would be allowed to remain in business and who would not.

On the Hill, with Congressional assistance, new racial preferences were slipped into ObamaCare and the misnamed Financial Reform Act. All of this had the likely effect of driving further a wedge between citizens; violating our firmly held belief in equality of opportunity and creating more tensions and ill-will.

Last summer the President made an unforced error, attacking the Cambridge police Department for what he characterized as behaving stupidly in arresting Harvard Professor Gates. When it turned out that it was Gates who was at fault and Obama who had acted unfairly before the facts -- the "context" if you will -- were known, he tried to patch it over with a Rose garden Beer Summit.

This week, the President again acted precipitously in forcing the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, a USDA employee for her remarks made in March to an NAACP group. When it appeared that her remarks -- while they were intemperate and would surely have been deemed racist if they'd been made by a white speaker, were somewhat ameliorated (but no less racist) by her claimed epiphany that the issue was class, not race -- he was forced once again to backtrack. Obama apologized and apparently another position was offered to her.

Shirley Sherrod was the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed her to this position on July 25 of last year, days after a group she'd formed with her husband and others won a thirteen million dollar settlement of a suit they'd file against Vilsack claiming the department had discriminated against them, a case whose claims have mushroomed and for which taxpayers have already paid out over a billion dollars plus some millions in defense costs, in some cases to plaintiffs with dubious claims.

Speaking at an NAACP dinner in Georgia, she talked about how some years before while working at a non-government organization -- she'd not done all she should have to help a struggling white farmer. Her words are clearly racist. The audience signaled agreement with them.

When the NAACP falsely charged Obama's opponents in the tea party with being racist, Breitbart who has repeatedly shown the claim against the tea party to be without foundation unloaded the tape, using it to show the hypocrisy of the NAACP:

Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another group's racial tolerance.

In fact, Breitbart's aim was directed as much toward the media as the NAACP and Sherrod's class warfare language. He said, when presenting the video tapes:

The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.

It's unfortunate that the NAACP's recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That's not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet's nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.

Yet again, the juxtaposition of the real video evidence shown here versus the mainstream media's straight faced reportage of the NAACP's baseless accusations demonstrates that, once again, the American main stream media has asserted itself as the number one enemy of the truth, when the facts don't fit the left-wing narrative. Like the NAACP, it has become no better than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in its willingness to exploit race for political ends and their unflinching support of the Obama's left-wing agenda.

Not on the version of the tape he had, but on the longer version in the NAACP's possession, Ms Sherrod later said she'd had an epiphany: Poor whites weren't the enemy. It was the rich folks who were harming the poor of all races.

Perhaps Breitbart should have made even clearer that he was not attacking her, but the NAACP. He later clarified that her admission of racist behavior concerned conduct which occurred before she was on the government payroll. It was clear nonetheless that what he'd given (two different snippets from the speech, the latter advising blacks to seek employment at the USDA here they wouldn't be fired) was not the entire tape. Fox news, signaled to its producers not to use the tape and with the exception of Bill O ‘ Reilly, they held off showing the video until she resigned though other media did run with it before the entire tape was found.

The NAACP leapt in and demanded she be fired, and the White House pressured her to resign.

When the full tape -- or at least more of it (there is an unexplained break in the tape) -- was made public, the NAACP backtracked, the White House apologized and there was a suggestion that she was going to be offered another job in "civil rights."

What Breitbart had done was a bit of judo, using the NAACP's hair trigger response to racism and its habit of using selective and not credibly evidenced reports against opponents like the tea party to embarrass the organization itself to demonstrate how careless it is in its accusations of racism. They stepped in it with both feet, embarrassing Ms. Sherrod, the White House and their own organization in the process. To my knowledge this is the first serious pushback against such NAACP techniques. There is a certain symmetry in all this.

As my friend JMH noted," They demanded that tea party leaders publicly excommunicate putative racists in their midst -- and then suddenly found themselves stumbling over their own petard."

Those who use this to attack Breitbart are wrong. He baited the hook and all the usual suspects leapt at it.

People are already hard at work trying to rewrite the history of this. In the new version Ms. Sherrod is another Dreyfus according to the laughably hyperbolic Keith Olbermann, but in her speech while on the government payroll she said,

"Now we just endured eight years of the Bushes, but we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President."

After the forced resignation the NAACP had some "context" which in its mind softened the racism in the initial video, the NAACP blamed Fox and Breitbart for their own overreaction to the video.

She, too, blamed Fox. She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

"I think they should but they won't. They intended exactly what they did. "They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

In sum, in the new telling of the events Breitbart's own words are ignored and he was blamed for what were the White House and the NAACP's intemperate actions. Sherrod and the NAACP both blamed Fox, the network that held back on the basis they wanted to see the whole tape and would not run the story until it could see the whole thing and get some context for her remarks.

For Sherrod and the NAACP the enemy is Fox and Republicans. Not themselves or the White House. For Obama the fault is Vilsack's.

The story gained even more traction than it might have -- at least online. (Who knows what minimal information those who rely on old media have of any of this?)

The reason for that is the Daily Caller obtained the archives of the 400 member listserv JournoList emails which reveal the connivances of this band of journalists and academics.

There's a lot of unsavory meat being exposed. Not the least of it is the plan to tar any opposition to Obama and his policies during the presidential campaign as racist even though the claims were far fetched and baseless, and to prevent news of Obama's racist and Marxist Reverend Wright from being published.

According to records obtained by The ,i>Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists."

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: "Listen folks-in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."

"Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.' He's dead on," Tomasky continued. "We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease."

Don Surber reviewed some of the campaign coverage and noted how often the reportage contained false accusations of racism.

One of the columnists in his hometown, Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times, frequently cried wolf, er, racist.

Consider this from an October 9, 2008, column: "Despite Palin's steady stream of hateful speech, Obama's poll numbers have gone up, while McCain's supporters are growing antsy."

She opposed Obama's policies, not his skin color. And when Palin said of Obama he "launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist," Palin was absolutely right. Only two groups have ever bombed the Pentagon: Al-Qaeda and Bill Ayers' Weather Underground.

Mary Mitchell's column also included a reference to a phantom shout of a racial epithet at a Palin rally. This set a pattern of unsubstantiated of racism at rallies against Obama any time things get tough, members of the Congressional Black Caucus trolled for racial taunts at a Tea Party. Hearing none, the rumor of an N-word against Congressman John Lewis was whispered.

Let me tell you, if it happened, Congressman Lewis would still be shouting against it. There would be videos of it.

This makes it seem as if Obama was chosen by the Democratic Party solely because his race could shield their socialistic agenda from attack. To be sure, he received the highest percentage of white votes any Democratic presidential candidate has received since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Some of that may be white guilt. Most of it was a vote against President Bush.

While liberals point to a few incidents here by fringe groups, conservatives point to Obama belonging to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. "Black liberation theology" turns out to be race-baiting. No patriot would return to a church after the pastor swore "God Damn America." Barack Obama wrote a book titled by that preacher.

The denouement comes too late to remedy the outrages perpetrated by the race baiters over the years. How much "context", for example, did civil rights activists give the decent Judge Pickering with a lifetime of working for better racial relations and square dealing? None, of course.

But this tactic has been so good to them, the examples of the bluffs' working are numerous. Thus Senator Byrd was given a hero's farewell in the Capitol, his role in blocking civil rights legislation for years was all but forgotten by the Democrats and most of the press when his party laid him to rest after a long career redolent of racism . But Byrd's an easy example of how public memories have been distorted by time and media disinformation. Here's a better test. Ask your family and friends if then Senator John F Kennedy, voted for or against President Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act.

When you realize how few know the correct answer, maybe you'll agree that the time to push back against this race card bluffing and media distortion of the truth is long overdue.

To appease his base -- and perhaps because it fits his worldview -- he filled his administration with people who had a decidedly racialist/ spoils system view of government. The agenda was to increase the number of racial preferences while pretending it was not doing so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Does ANYBODY in journalism get it? Why beat around the bush? This is not "appeasing his base"....., this is not"because of his world view."

Its a power struggle of vast proportion, and his fascists cannot be allowed victory.

People need to get it.

Then his defeat will be immanent.

*******************

YOU NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT, OUR SURVIVAL AS A NATION DEPENDS ON IT!

Obama is a NATIONALIST ( black power /ethnic minority nation dedicated to seizing power on behalf of the racial and ethnic minorities of America based on the idea that America's greatness is fatally flawed because it owes its success to the colonial exploitation of black /ethnic minorities , and historic justice is required as a remedy, pretty much the same as Adolf Hitler's ideology for the German people prior to WWII which dictated historic justice for Germany. This has been candied up and sold to the American people, who have bought it, lock, stock and barrel, and the MSM hides it's dirty underside..)

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST:

The economic aspect of racial historic justice requires a redistribution of wealth through subverting the present government system from within and using taxation, double dealings with Unions and industry, black mailing of traditional allies like Britain and Israel, and the abuse of other executive powers to redistribute wealth to racial and ethnic minorities rather than provide government services to ALL of the people). Obama plans to do this internationally, and he therefore abjures diplomacy with Britain ( colonial power) and others who were so called exploiters of the "black man."

Obama is a Nationalist Socialist, THATS RIGHT, A FASCIST.

His method of fascism is born of the Chicago thug school. HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST.This is important to know, for Obama cannot be defeated if we think he is a mere communist. His idea of black elitists who are racially and biologically superior to the white man in every way, a hatred of America ,goes much deeper than that of a mere communist.This is revealed by his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obamas conduct in office on racial and ethnic issues such as the New Black Panther party prosecution, and his refusal to secure our Southern Border, and his conflict with Arizonas illegal alien enforcement.GET IT RIGHT, OBAMA IS MUCH WORSE THAN A COMMUNIST!

I find it disconcerting that people do not examine what Obama's politics are,because that means we cannot defeat him because we cannot define him. THINK ON IT!. Obama is a fascist, a thug, a man who has no love for America and seeks to willfully destroy her if she does not do his bidding to become his twisted Utopia. He is not a Communist.Get it right. Our survival as a nation depends on it.

As for Obamas experience with genocide, take a look at what he advized Odinga to do in Novemeber of 2007,sending the fascist Orange Party into the streets of Nairobi and the Kenyan hinterland. At one point a whole church with 75 men women and children were burned alive.A much loved Olympic marathon runner was summarily executed. Thousands died under the torch and panga in inter tribal genocidal slaughter, yet the MSM DID NOT cover it, while Britsh and Australian news did. Its was all about how the encumbants cheated on the election count. Obviously Chad found its way to Kenya. Sound familiar anyone? Obama has genocidal blood on his hands , and it didn't even make him flinch during his presidential campaign.Do you think it will be much different for America should it come to that?Its what Obama wants. Its hopenchange ...OR ELSE! Kenya was a test bed for what Obama intends for America.

******************************************

May 12, 2009 Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.” - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199

When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.

What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.

While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.

This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”

But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”

Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:

“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”

In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.

There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.

Obama, the Closer

As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.

Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.

These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims. Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.

But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.

When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.

Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.

Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.

Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way

Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:

“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic. Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will. Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”

Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.

“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.

A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war

. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.” Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133

Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.

“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.

The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.

(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176) Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.

Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.

What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.

As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.

But Goldberg bursts that bubble:

The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)

Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.

Unity, the Diabolical Lure

What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?

The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.

But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”

The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”

Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.

Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)

Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.

Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach

I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.

And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).

[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]

Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.

In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.

As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.

When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.

We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.

As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.

Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.

****************************************

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

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.

WAKE UP AMERICA!