Skip to comments.Obama's Agenda Revealed
Posted on 08/27/2012 12:50:34 PM PDT by MosesKnows
I know Obamas agenda is for a more socialist America. I know this because of Obamas words and deeds. What I dont know is why Obama has that agenda.
I am not alone in pondering how Obama evolved the notion that a socialist America improves America. I modified my opinion after reading reviews of Dinesh D'Souzas movie, 2016: Obamas America.
Now, my opinion is that Obamas agenda to re-distribute Americans wealth includes re-distributing Americas wealth. For the first time, Obamas upbringing, political tactics, words and deeds are reconciled.
Thomas Sowells review of the movie and this comment in particular caught my attention.
What is that ideological view?
The Third World, or anti-colonial, view is that the rich nations have gotten rich by taking wealth from the poor nations. It is part of a much larger vision, in which the rich in general have gotten rich by taking from the poor, whether in their own country or elsewhere.
This raised my awareness of Obamas possible reason for his socialist agenda for America.
Another review of 2016: Obamas America from the Tea Party Tribune contained this paragraph.
It is D'Souza's contention that to fulfill his father's anti-colonial dreams, Obama believes he must bring about America's economic decline by increasing our indebtedness to foreign lenders, increasing the nation's dependence on foreign energy suppliers, increasing the tax burden on the nation's citizens by adding a new dictatorial health-care entitlement program, and dramatically decreasing or eliminating our nation's nuclear deterrent.
Baraq is a huge success!
Food stamp usage up 64%
Program cost up 114%
I think 0bama’s hatred for America stems from his mother Ann and her lover (and possibly his REAL father Frank Davis), not his alleged father Barack Sr. whom he only visited with once.. This is where I think D’souza is wrong. It’s his communist mother Ann and her card-carrying communist lover Frank who groomed him to be anti-American.
Evil, evil Barack Barry Soetoro Obama regime!
Four more years of sinking deeper into slime?
Honest Americans should puke their guts out!
You would think that America would wake up to the crap sandwiches and the damage they are doing to the guts....
I have been a student of history for about 40 years (since I was in 5th grade). 0bama is very much an historical anomaly. With two exceptions, narcissistic egomaniac leaders attempt to increase the power of the nation they lead. To them, the nation is the extension of themselves. The more powerful their nation becomes, the more powerful they make themselves. Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon all fit this template. It’s really hard to find someone who meets 0bama’s personality traits who deliberately set about destroying the nation they led. The two exceptions are Lenin, who thought he was fanning the flames of world revolution, and Barack Hussein 0bama.
There were other, lesser, leaders who deliberately set about dimantling their nation’s power, but they didn’t have the narcissist’s love of power that you see in dictatorial figures like 0bama. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind as an example, although history doesn’t offer many men like that.
It is this conundrum that has been at the core of my indecision whether 0bama is deliberately destroying America as part of his brilliant yet sinister plan, or whether he is simply the ignorant tool of sinister people who control him.
I’ve pretty much decided that while there are elements of both, the biggest factor is that he isn’t that smart or intelligent. I’ve decided that he sincerely believes the Marxist-Leninist philosophy Frank Marshall Davis gave to him as his mother’s milk. But he is an empty suit; he is the ultimate “useful idiot.” I don’t think he calls the shots. He believes whatever his teleprompter tells him to say. It’s revealed by the absolutely imbecilic statements he makes when he goes off-script. He is stupid enough to believe that he can accomplish supreme personal power by destroying the nation that provides the basis of that power. How else do you explain a power-mad leader who fawns and grovels before other world leaders? And I think that’s been fed to him by Ayers, Axelrod & Jarrett, who are “true believers.” And they may or may not be stupid, but they are certainly deranged.
Thank you for this thoughtful thread.
If Romney and Ryan can compare Obama’s words to Obama’s deeds in each of the speeches that they make, Romney will win by 10 % over Obama.
Otherwise it will be, as predicted by the experts, a very close election.
I know some libs, and they simple BRISTLE when you mention the huge increase in government dependence during 0bama’s administration, up to the point of outright denying it as “absurd”.
I’ve come to understand that the more the truth reveals the true intentions of the leftist agenda, the madder they get when you bring it up.
He was brought up by communist grandparents that allowed their daughter to become the object of a pedophile and then allowed that same person to shape him through adolescence to become the sneering, race baiting, entitled, narcissist, communist, freedom hating monster that he is. He was raised as a tool. He is the Manchurian Candidate. Many of us have known this for years and have been screaming it from the rooftops. It has been an open secret for a long time. The lamestream communist press has successfully squashed anyone against obastard as a kook.
In the last several years I keep thinking of the old woman in “Marathon Man” pleading with everyone on the street to stop Szell. In case you read this and don’t know the scene or don’t remember it here it is with apologies for the starting commercial.
This regime is just as evil and cunning as Szell and with only a slightly different agenda. Make no mistake, they are in it for the money as well as the power and the hatred and the destruction of the United States. Someday, when / if some takes the time to look, they will find billions of dollars channeled to only a few elites. Let us hope it ends better for us than the old woman and the jeweler.
Maybe our nightmare of a marathon will be over soon. I pray it will be and that we will all be OK.
Which is Marx's exploitation theory which states that capitalism is a system of virtual slavery, serving the narrow interests of a comparative handful of exploiters - the businessmen and capitalists - who, driven by insatiable greed and power-lust, exist as parasites upon the labor of the masses.
I am very much in concert with your views but that conundrum is no longer a concern for me. I am not saying it doesn't exist but rather that it is no longer relevant to me.
I was a boy during WW2 and I have vivid recollections of people I met later who participated in WW2. One such recollection occurred with a fellow worker who was a Waist Gunner on a B17. He was quite proud of two confirmed kills and one probable.
I asked him what he would do if attacked by an American P51 Mustang. Without a moments hesitation and astonished that I had to ask he said he would try to shoot it down. In that instant, I understood. There was a plane trying to kill him and at that moment, whose nation the plane belonged to was no longer relevant.
Yes, Obama possesses a severely corrupt character, and inexhaustible ego, but he is still a talker, some would say motivational speaker, more interested in grievance politics than genuine leadership. Most likely there are conflicting impulses within the man himself. The only thing stopping the Obama administration from becoming a full-on dictatorship is a head of the ship that is too temperamentally (and perhaps intellectually) lazy, cautious and indecisive to fake that aspect of his personality.
If American voters only had a clue....
The best Obama exposure site on the net:
(By our own FReeper, Beckwith)
The Obama File
The United States Library of Congress has selected
TheObamaFile.com for inclusion in its historic collection
of Internet materials
Just a few of the pages:
The reason they get madder is that Obama has merged a kakistocracy with ineptocracy.
Let me clarify that a bit.
Kakistocracy is government by the most unprincipled citizens.
Ineptocracy is government by the least capable to lead elected by the least capable of producing.
In other words, ineptocracy is where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Obama's latest campaign slogan is "I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share".
First, that book describes feelings Obama claims to have felt as a child or an adolescent. At that age, it's not unheard of for children to idealize an absent parent. But what the book relates doesn't convey whatever Obama's adult feelings may be, any more than an account of your childhood or mine would explain our current emotions and views.
Secondly, we know that the book played up the racial theme and the "Mother from Kansas, Father from Kenya" theme. Without the mixed race background and the foreign (absent) father, there wouldn't have been any story or any book or any fat book contract, so it was in the interest of whoever put the book together to give greater emphasis to a father who really didn't play much of a role in his son's life and to family myths that may not have been very important either.
I really doubt Obama had much emotionally invested in the family myths of Kenyan or Indonesian anti-colonialism that his father's and step-father's families circulated. Look to Chicago -- to Alinsky and to law school theorists and to practical Chicago Democratic politics -- if you want to know where Obama is coming from, whatever ideas or feelings may be circulating in the background.
But the anti-colonial theme is very important to Dinesh D'Souza. He even attributes Obama's lack of interest in his half-brother George's difficulties to conflicts over imperialism and colonialism (when it's pretty obvious that family feelings are neither very warm or very deep in the Obama clan). But there's a reason for that. "Anti-colonial" Indians seized Dinesh's home city of Goa in the year he (and Obama) was born. So this stuff is very important to him.
For the rest of us -- not so much. Figuring out the rights and wrongs of colonialism and imperialism and anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism isn't easy. The answer isn't going to be a simple for or against. Pitting Thomas Jefferson and George Washington against "anti-colonialism" also looks way too oversimplified.
Obama’s anti-neocolonialism also seems to explain his anti-nationalism which is generally uncharacteristic for socialist and Marxist leaders. Just go down the line with hard core socialist and Marxist regimes and you will typically find an emphasis on a strong military and tough rhetoric against their nation’s traditional enemies. For the typical authoritarian leader, a foreign demon had to be resurrected from time to divert the public from domestic policy failures and to rally behind the leader.
Obama is demonizing a relatively large sector of the US population, that is the productive sector, instead of a small and easily identifiable racial group, or a foreign enemy. I guess if we are looking for parallels, you could say that Obama is a 3rd world Lenin.
The producers very astutely realized that a general movie going audience would be more likely to buy into a clear cut narrative of our increasing national fragility literally being played from a script framed around Obama’s own words, documented with interviews etc even if D’Souza had to make his anti-colonialism thesis work by watering down the more contentious student Marxism angle. Setting a complicated biographical history straight is a good thing, but at this point not voting for the man is even more so.
Kakistocracy = Chicago politics in a nutshell
I agree with you regarding the comparison between Lenin and Obama and I have posted similar comments before. Obama’s anti-nationalism is virtually unprecedented among authoritarian leaders who typically seek military glory and economic prowess for their country. Lenin is the only leader of import I can of that weakened his country’s military position, by ceding a third of European Russia to Germany at Brest-Livotsk, to further his politic aims. And unlike Obama, Lenin used the unstable military situation to gain power. Obama already has the leadership position and has only succeeded in alienating his military leaders.