Skip to comments.How Obama Thinks (Best, most thorough article on Obama's pysche I have seen yet)
Posted on 09/09/2010 7:41:16 AM PDT by milwguy
Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"
As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I've been saying for two full years now that The Won wants to turn this country into a third-world socialist dung-heap, but D'Souza does an excellent job of filling in the details of "why" he wants to do it and "how" he intends to.
That's because he didn't want to be President.
He was perfectly happy being a Senator.
He fought much harder against J.D. Hayworth than he fought against The Won.
Good highlight. Those paragraphs hit me the same way..central. Have you ever read Dinesh’s book ‘What’s So Great About America?’ It was a great book that went to the heart of the matter of ‘colonialism’/ ‘imperialism’. It completely destroyed the liberal lexicon on so called American ‘imperialism’. I am sure it gave folks like Obama,Ayers and Chomsky heartburn....lol!
“We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.”
But the “how” for me is different. You prevent this by having freedom, not the govt doing the same thing as what you are trying to avoid. One of the great things of our society is the freedom to move up and down...............
Is it true that rich countries of West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries? Or is this a convenient excuse for natives to upend their so called oppressors and take over the control of the country? It seems to me that more often than not the resulting dictatorship really demonstrates what invading, occupying a looting is all about as we see in Haiti, Zimbabwe, Kenya where the poor really get poorer.
The West never gets credit for bringing economic and social order to a nation, and then allowing its natives to govern only to see the resulting "civilization" to revert and collapse time and again. The UN is composed of countries run by dictatorships blaming someone else for their misery.
bump for HHH
“Progressives” are sentimental idealists
Except for those that are actually “Oppressives”,
and seek to dominate and control their fellow humans.
The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing.
Odd is an understatement.
Just another boy whose father abandoned him,
fantasizing about what it would be like to please his absentee father.
I haven’t send out a big ping in awhile, but I thought this merited your interest.
It’s the kind of article you could copy and e-mail to everybody in your address-book, including lifelong-Democratic-voter Aunt Sophie, and gain a big harvest of comprehension.
Excellent point. The entire democrat party has ‘father issues’. That’s why they are always trying to replace the father with government. Government becomes the father archetype. Isn’t it interesting too that while the leftist dems decry colonialism/imperialism elsewhere, their policies are actually the very definition of colonialism/imperialism at home. They want the government to be all powerful and ruling over the ‘peasants’ of America.
Concentration of wealth and power
WITH THOSE WHO HOLD THE MONOPOLY ON THE LEGAL USE OF DEADLY FORCE TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL
Much less so with those who lack this power.
There's also the memorable, "Corpse-man" gaffe (and others).
But Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, donchaknow?
Read that this morning and found it pretty logical.
what a concept.
How Obama Thinks (Best, most thorough article on Obama's pysche I have seen yet)
forbes ^ | 9/7/2010 | Dinesh D'Souza
Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:41:16 AM
***The West never gets credit for bringing economic and social order to a nation, and then allowing its natives to govern only to see the resulting “civilization” to revert and collapse time and again.***
We should remember, however, that the European monarchies explored, invaded and ruled many areas of the world to acquire & monopolize natural resources. Side benefits to those areas were the institutions the victors *imposed* on the vanquished; i.e. courts of law, roads, libraries, hospitals, schools, churches etc., Post colonialization the native populations have often resorted to plunder and/or neglect. The ruling elite almost always kept the *plumage of royalty* and the perks for themselves.
America began as a British colony. After 1776 colonization continued under the Republic.