At what point can we simply use the “M” word without being blamed for polemics and just call it an established fact …
… more @ Celestial Junk on finding your inner Marxist.
At what point can we simply use the “M” word without being blamed for polemics and just call it an established fact …
… more @ Celestial Junk on finding your inner Marxist.
Bill Whittle has an article about this on NRO
http://tinyurl.com/6kcaja
I previously thought that Obama was just another liberal like our Liberals – campaign from the left, govern from the right but it seems he is more of a radical NDPer. Even Canada has the sense not to allow this type to run the federal government.
A black trudeau with far reaching consequences for Canada and our way of life. Another black hole from which there may be no return.
Has anyone asked Oprah, if she is willing to share her wealth?
GaryinWpg that’s really the key point here. Obama’s wealth redistribution will be selective.
Think Russia where the leaders ate caviar while redistributing the wealth. Obama, Oprah, Soros, Google boys, etc., all Democrats, and all will be in the caviar class, while the rest of us who work our asses off will be ask to contribute to the “redistribution”.
This is also about race. In Obama’s redistribution plans it is the black community that he primarily has in mind as the benefactors, make no mistake about it.
Obama is a liberal elite. He will rule from on high, live the good life while he does it, and will view most of America as his servants whose purpose is to help him further his own political ideas.
Sounds an awful lot like Trudeau, only worse.
Just finished reading some of Marx’s early works for a Philosophy class.
Marx is very interested in the difference between negative and positive freedoms, the same distinction Obama makes in this radio interview.
Obama clearly has Marxist roots. Why aren’t we allowed to debate those issues…? Because WE are the racists
TJ,
Sometime ago when Obama got his nomination, I basically remarked in a thread on this blog(or was it another blog?), that if he wins the election, it could be the beginning of the downfall of the USA (if it hasn’t started/in the process already). I still believe that race will be a factor in this election.
The majority of black voters will vote for Obama, not because he is “one of them”, but because it is an opportunity for “payback” from the slave era to whatever injustices real or perceived that has happened since then, to get back what they believe they are owed.
Those who are not black, let’s just say the enlightened white folk for sake of arguement, will vote for him to show their PC enlightened cut one’s nose to spite one’s face to demonstrate to the rest of the world their “enlightenment”.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama studied Trudeau. I’m surprised he hasn’t used coined the phrase “Just Society”.
If Obama wins, I really do not know what to expect. I have the feeling for one to hold on to their hats and batten down their financial hatches.
The only saving grace out of this whole scenario, is that we have a Conservative government that may be a buffer to the madness from down south. Heaven help us if we had a Liberal government….
Their election will be ugly, if McCain pulls off an upset……
To any American reading this, be wary, the Devil can appear as an angel of light.
There is no question in my mind that the US is now 40 years behind Canada.
Obama is today’s Trudeau.
Can’t remember how long ago I wrote that particular statement on this blog (three weeks?).
I’m glad it’s gaining traction.
That TV gal in Orlando hit it bang on last Thursday in the Biden interview.
Marxist sentiment is what drives Obama’s language and the US populace has one week to wake up before they wake up and find themselves in political shackles, where they are slaves of the state.
The radio interview lays it out as clear as other totalitalitarian manifestos of the past have clearly laid out intentions.
Could any sane person imagine Dion/Layton in Canada and Obama in the US for four years.
So, is there an accepted racial corollary to Godwin’s Law yet? (You know, the one that says the first one to say “You’re a Nazi” in an internet forum is deemed to have lost the debate.) Well, since you can’t say ANYTHING bad about The Anointed One without hordes of his supporters sneering that “Well, you must be a racist”, I think that phenomena deserves its own law; I’m opening the floor to nominations, but a few that spring to mind are the “Jackson Axiom” (in honor of Jesse Jackson), or the “Sharpton Hustle” (courtesy of Big Al Sharpton).
If Obama wins, and does turn out to be the full on Marxist that he looks to be, then I say, bring it on. Not only that, but the Republicans should make sure he serves two full terms; let him run unopposed next election.
The only cure for Marxism is to get all of it that you thought you wanted, and then some. Let Obama remain President until the US is reduced to third world status, and the last socialist on the continent gives up on the idea. Then, and only then can the true healing begin. I figure, it would take 50% unemployment for most people to pull their heads out; the really hard core Marxists will never change, they will have to run off the continent.
Obambam is a little worst than a marxist, he’s a disciple of Alinsky, an extreme socialist. People like this are a little more subtle than marxists, thusly one hell of a lot more dangerous because the dimwitted dems will take a lot longer to catch on.
Good old Joe Bidet said quite clearly in Seattle a week ago or so, that things may go badly at first, and Obambam will need their (electorate’s) help and patience. So maybe quick change will be the plan, before everyone (Pelosi and Reid) catch on. The “rich” demos will also be hit, cuz they ain’t quite black enough, and that may be our only saving grace IF Obambam gets in!!
I wonder if Joe Biden has seen this little film clip. Once he does see this clip will he still think that Barbara West’s questions were off the mark? Probably – sheeeesh!!
Obama is a Democrat, with a greater bent towards black justice ideals. I don’t see how he can significantly redistribute wealth through the courts, legislation or administrative functions.
The fact is he is pandering to a black vote that is already firmly entrenched in his camp; he doesn’t have to keep any redistribution promise to keep their vote, so he likely won’t.
Yes, he will try some incremental approach (oh, right, “reforms”) as POTUS, but he can forget about anything more radical. Yes, Democrats will control executive and legislative branches, but he must fact the prospect of facing public wrath, in Congressional elections two years from now.
Yes, Obama needs to take a time out from his rhetoric of racism (besides, blacks are doing just fine in US, notwithstanding their shrill radical elements). He doesn’t need to do it for votes and its divism is wholly unnecessary.
Besides, in the likely event he wins election to the White Office, he will be facing some temendous challenges (Iraq, economy, oil exploration to name a few), so true justice for blacks will just have to wait; IOW, situation normal for Democrat party.
Wealth Redistribution: From whom – to whom?
Didn’t we have that in Canada under the LIEberals?
East Germany also had the glories of the workers paradise, though it didn’t function too well.
Why bother going through the motions of taxation, when you can simply steal it instead? But then Canada was once a stolen nation under the LIEberals.
What ever happened to those time honored notions of rape, pillage and plunder? Robert Mugabe the socialist is experimenting with these concepts. I mean wealth redistribution sounds so, well, pedestrian.
Oh yes, I forgot the old play book is to sugar coat ‘socialism’ with some softer sounding words, until it is too late for ‘hope and change’.
The DEMs want their uber-majority, so the Uber-Messiah can save the people from themselves.
Join the Obama collective and all the world will be well. This is all so much demonstrable nonsense, who would seriously consider an anachronistic economic analysis as the way forward.
Marxian economics took about 70 years, and millions of lives, to fully explode and Obama wants to reexamine ‘wealth redistibution’.
The probability of success with that concept is in the neighborhood of vanishingly small.
Like the old Commie bosses used to laugh, when gassed up on a little vodka, in Czechslovakia back in the ’80s:
“Nobody actually believes that clap trap, that is just for the people.”
In short, wealth redistribution amounts to replacing one oligarchy (the Tsar) with another oligarchy (the Communist Party). Then the communists were overthrown and all the Communist Party bosses simply exchanged their party memberships for bona fides 1920s style capitalists cards.
What have we learned; people in power always look after themselves first.
Na zdorovia!
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
How could anyone debate the 0’s intentions when they are articulated so clearly? Canadians were kept in the dark re Turdo by the Canadian press gang but Americans would have to be blind, deaf and illiterate not to know the agenda of the 0 and his pals. Turdo was exposed by a WWII fighter pilot (Eric Nielson), the 0 has been exposed by a Viet Nam fighter pilot (John McCain) and the courageous governor of Alaska.
Please wake up America – your Bolshevik is hell bent for vengeance on the American people- our Bolshevik was hating Americans but he did not have access to their pocket books or their Constitution. Canada was just a launching pad for Turdo.
TJ:
I think you meant “beneficiaries”.
“…it is the black community that he primarily has in mind as the benefactors…”
The world ecomomy stage is set up perfectly for Obama. Could it be said Trudeau wasn’t that ‘lucky’?How convenient that the Dems were able to use the FM-FM mess, even manipulate it.
It takes a little fear mongering, the banks ready to slide in and …here comes the man with the ‘answer’.
gary @ 12:21…right on!
And WRT to Oprah sharing the wealth…she has a reputation for being generous…but that is HER money, not taxpayers.Did the Big O find her or did she find him?
I will repeat it right here for posterity, on SDA today –
If Barak Obama is elected POTUS, the United States will have elected a de facto “communist” as president.
So say I, Joseph (Joe) Molnar
Thanks felis corpulentis, you are indeed correct.
What an idiot I am.
That’s what I get for trying to work and comment on this blog at the same time….
Ever notice how Obama re-distributes the wealth among his own family? I hear his half brother is rolling in dough.
It’s a proven fact that all of the great Democrats who are willing to share tax dollars are among the cheapest givers to real charity? Unless of course they cheat on their taxes and don’t tell the IRS about all their charitable donations. Yeah, right.
Don’t worry we are awake and it’s 3:00 AM. We The People down heya in the South know full well what Obama has in store for us, just look at the DOW. If the Messiah gets elected thru the efforts of ACORN then you will see the DOW take a headfall and buddy-boy, oh buddy-boy, you want to hear the Democrats call racism then.
But, either way, for Conservatives it has come down to not who you are voting for, but what we are voting against.
Not to mention; I couldn’t possibly vote for Liberal Socialism no matter what color it comes in.
TJ:
No mea culpa required. I knew what you meant. It’s just that my inner pedant couldn’t resist…
With regard to the substance of this post and thread, it looks like the US is about to leapfrog in one election cycle over 40 years of Canadian head start in marxism. In a weird way that’s typical of our American friends: once they decide to do something, they do it faster and better than anyone else.
“Ever notice how Obama re-distributes the wealth among his own family? I hear his half brother is rolling in dough.”
Great point. Imagine what play this would get if it was a republican doing this? It’s always struck me as bizarre this could happen, that zerobama wouldn’t at least help the guy with an education or some way of making a better living. Jeez, a door for the shack would be an improvement.
Lenin called his supporters ‘useful idiots’ – they were shot for requesting election promises AFTER the ‘election’. After the first ‘election’ there were no more elections, in the ‘new’ Russia (Soviet Union).
I hereby enter my name with yours, Joe Molnar. God help America before it is too late. WAKE UP.
Thanks for that jema54 –
Laura Ingraham and Bill O’Reilly have been given the heads up as well!
He’s a Marxist. He can call it what he will but its communism. We all know how that ends.
Look at all the people who’ve just discovered that “redistribution” somehow means “Marxist”.
Republicans since forever — yes, even before Reagan! — have accepted progressive taxation schemes, which can only be described as redistributive of wealth. So, sure, you can have this much: If Reagan was a Marxist, then Obama is a Marxist. Beyond that, this spasm in the wingnut-o-sphere is just the panicky thrashing of the truly loony right, as they see a centrist candidate of a suspiciously different colour poised to win the presidency.
The question is whether Obama is red, pink, or a hypocrite.
Let me re-phrase that. Is he a communist? Is he a com-symp? Or is he a garden-variety Democrat?
The old communist movement in the US collapsed when Kruschev admitted the Stalinist purges to the world. The old commies were a bunch of idealist, fantasy-driven squirrels with an inadequate grasp on reality. When they learned from the lips of Kruschev himself about the mass murders, it deflated their ideas.
So in the 1960s Obama’s ideological and philosophical gurus emerged as the “new left”.
The Weather Underground, the Chicago Seven, Jerry Rubin, Abbe Hoffman and the whole crew.
Marx had instructed them that the worker’s paradise would automatically come to fruition eventually (Marx was another squirrel), but that if you didn’t want to wait it could be pushed through by violent revolution. The new left chose the latter path.
This is why undercover agents with the FBI during that period reported sitting around with some of Obama’s intellectual progenitors, listening to radical leaders discussing why it would be necessary to eliminate 25 million Americans.
They figured that the red Chinese would take a bite out of the US, and the Soviets would want a good piece, and probably a few other countries. Then the FBI reported that they wanted to ship a bunch of others off to re-education camps.
Nothing to do with the rest of us, except have us all murdered for the greater good.
Out of this new left environment, a whole generation of thinkers began to lay down the intellectual parameters once violent revolution did not work.
If Obama is a hypocrite, then we’ll wind up getting a left-center Clinton with fewer sexual affairs. If he is a com-symp, he will try to nudge things to the left with the help of his colleagues in the politburo. If he is a communist, he may create a reactionary backlash, the likes of which I’m sure he does not anticipate.
Only the central committe knows for sure.
“as they see a centrist candidate of a suspiciously different colour poised to win the presidency.”
Yeah, writing checks to people who don’t pay taxes is the same as progressive taxation and if we don’t believe it, we are racists, we get it.
Ah, the wonders of selectively editing audio tape!
The excerpted discussion between Mr. Obama and Professors Bandes and Hutchinson was on the subject of the US courts and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The underlying focus of the discussion was whether you could redress the effects of mid-20th century segregation in America – something which I believe all reasonable conservatives would characterize as a grave social injustice, just like apartheid and slavery – through the courts.
Mr. Obama’s point was that while judicial action was successful in vesting formal rights for African Americans (i.e., the right of African Americans to vote, sit at the lunch counter etc.), the courts were not a constitutionally appropriate or effective mechanism for achieving broader issues of economic justice (the dreaded “redistributive change”) for African Americans who had been marginalized by segregation. Mr. Obama then argues that the appropriate purview for such change is the legislature.
Keep in mind, this isn’t a discussion of general economic theory. This is a more focussed discussion of how a society redresses the wrongs of segregation – and Mr. Obama happens to think that such redress requires some modicum of economic justice as well as mere formal rights. His position is certainly subject to debate, but hardly a radical position.
Later on in the broadcast, conveniently edited out of the excerpt, Mr. Obama and Professor Bandes give some examples of the sort of “redistributive changes” they had in mind. These included . . . heaven forefend . . . Medicaid, Medicare and bussing. Sigh. Hardly the workers seizing the means of production, eh?
Now let’s look at Mr. Obama’s current legislative platform. McCain’s urgent rallying cry for this week seems to be that the knife’s edge between capitalism and Marxism is the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35% and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6%. Once again, this isn’t exactly giving the keys for the factory to the workers.
Surely, one can have a civilised debate over the appropriate top marginal tax rate in a democracy, without resorting to inflammatory over-the-top accusations of “Marxism”. Indeed, if a 39.6% top marginal income tax rate is Marxism, then George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower all stand guilty of Marxism too.
If a ridiculously inappropriate allegation of “Marxism” is the last, best argument Mr. McCain can muster as to why he should be President, it speaks volumes to the current paucity of the GOP’s economic platform.
lack of “redistributive change” is a “tragedy” and a “blind spot” of our founding fathers and of America.
So Obama is not for siezing the means of production, no, he wants the people running the means of production to keep right on doing so, just hand over the profits thank you. Obama proposes writing govt checks to people who don’t pay taxes in order to “spread the wealth around.”
Only in an Obmama fantasyland can you write checks to your voters who don’t pay taxes, “thank you for your support”. only raise taxes on a tiny percent of the people a tiny amount, and support trillions in new spending and have it all add up to some kind of centrist fiscal responsibility.
If siezing the medical esablishment is not Marxism, I don’t know what is.
We will even get to have our own Soviet style jokes.
“Is this medical office where I can’t get MRI?”
“No, medical office where you can’t get MRR is accross street, this is the medical office where you can’t get cardiac bypass.”
Compare the following:
“….but it does not say what the Federal Government or the State Government must do on your behalf.”
with:
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
Seems to me that the Democrats are about to take a hard left if Obama wins the election.
“positive rights” is a Marxist term of art. It has a specific meaning in Marxism, and that meaning is “redistibution.” But calling Obama a Marxist for spouting textbook Marxism is “nuts”.
“Yeah, writing checks to people who don’t pay taxes is the same as progressive taxation”
No. Writing checks to people who don’t pay taxes is social assistance (and occasionally “corporate incentives”) — which Republicans have *also* long accepted — certain Reagan did. But both social assistance and progressive taxation are forms of redistributing wealth, which you might recall was the OMG!! BIG ISSUE!! here.
“and if we don’t believe it, we are racists, we get it.”
Not necessarily. It’s just one plausible explanation for the absurd hysteria, given the utter lack of rational argument in support of it.
“”positive rights” is a Marxist term of art.”
So not only is Reagan now a Marxist; so too are all the libertarians who use the term “positive rights”. Apparently everyone, no matter how right-wing, is a Marxist… just so long as we can pin the label on Obama. Let the hysterical panic about the Red Menace commence!
I don’t think that either Reagan or libertarians use the term in the context of wealth redistribution by the government the way Marx and Obama do.
Do you honestly believe that a three percent rise in the top rate on 5% of taxpayers is going to pay for Obama’s promises?
I think that it is pretty clear that Obama’s philosophy is going to be, as the trouble piles up, to raise taxes even further as the default position, until we get to Carteresque rates of 70%, stagflation, 18% mortage interest rates, the whole seventies thing all over again.
His plan, as it stands, will lead to trillion plus in additional deficit spending over the next decade, not counting any inflationary effects of the spending that show up in higher interest rates. So Obama’s philosophy is fair game, even if you take him at his word right now, October before he takes office, as to what he is going to do.
He has already said that he would raise captical gains taxes in the interest of “fairness” even though it has been shown to bring in less revenue.
Still boggles my mind how the wealthy can continue to go chapter 11 and remain multi-millionaires. The golden rule, those with the gold make the rules. 1125 people, a town the size of Delisle or smaller have over 4.6 trillion dollars or much more based on the latest movement of cash. You don’t lose money, you move money from A to B. That lucky B.
“If siezing the medical esablishment is not Marxism, I don’t know what is.
We will even get to have our own Soviet style jokes.
“Is this medical office where I can’t get MRI?”
“No, medical office where you can’t get MRR is accross street, this is the medical office where you can’t get cardiac bypass.””
Hey that sounds like Canada!!!!
JCL