Barack Hussein Obama's Socialistic-Communistic Tendancies

Barack Hussein Obama is following in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.

Barack Hussein Obama is following in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.

Barack Hussein Obama has been a Socialist his entire life.

Barack Hussein Obama has been a Socialist his entire life.

Obama Hails Socialist Krugman    
by Tom McGregor 
October 20, 2012

New York Times’ columnist, Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, can call President Barack Obama is his number one fan. This would explain why the White House couldn’t fix the economy in the last four years.

Paul Krugman praises tax-and-spend government policies and pushes for ‘bridges to nowhere’ stimulus schemes. He believes that lower taxes are the greatest menace to society and the solution for the EU debt crises is for American taxpayers to bailout bankrupt EU countries.

Apparently, Obama agrees with him too. He even talks about his support for Krugmanism on the campaign trail.

According to Politico, “President Obama cited liberal New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman as evidence that Mitt Romney’s jobs plan didn’t add up.”

Obama told a cheering crowd at George Mason University that, “an economist at the New York Times put it this morning, there’s no jobs plan, there’s just a snow job on the American people.”

If Obama is trying to win over moderate independent American voters, then the last thing he should be doing is endorsing Paul Krugman’s failed economic policies.



Overlook the socialist smirks of Obama and Biden in their TV debates, Biden’s loutish 82 interruptions (one a minute) and the harridan who “moderated” the veep face-off and let her fellow socialist get away with it. The value of these debates is that they are happening at all: for a curious defect in Western politics is that real debate has become rare.

The head-to-head debates have been unexpectedly revealing. They showed up Obama as helpless without a script and ignorant of his facts. They exposed Ryan as too nice: He even fumbled the patsy question on baby-butchering by not bluntly telling the hideous Biden that in indulging abortion he was at odds with his own church. No Catholic can in conscience vote “Democrat.”

Above all, the debates revealed the failure of all four candidates to confront the coming crisis of communism. In a now-celebrated TV voxpop, a voter who had yelled “Obama is a communist!” was asked why she thought him a communist. She replied: “If you don’t know the answer to that, you don’t know nothing.”

Let us give a more detailed answer. As the unmissable movie “2016″ has revealed, Obama’s father was communist. His long-standing mentor was communist. His tutor at Harvard was communist. His closest friends are communist. His principal creditors are communist. If it walks like a communist and talks like a communist, maybe it is a communist.

Communists believe the State should be as big, rich and powerful as possible and the citizen as small, poor and helpless as possible. Obama believes that. He has expanded the State by borrowing close to two-thirds as much again as all his predecessors had borrowed in more than 230 years. He has blown it on State-expanding, communism-advancing “stimulus” packages. He has demeaned the citizen by imprisoning tens of millions in hapless welfare dependency.

Communists believe big businesses should be owned by the State. Obama believes that. One of the biggest businesses of the lot is health care. He has nationalized it.

Communists believe any businesses that escape outright State ownership should – in a mendacious proxy for ownership – be regulated down to the tiniest light bulb. Obama believes that. Look how he has encouraged the grim, eminently abolishable Environmental “Protection” Agency to arrogate to itself powers of pettifogging regulation and crippling interference that Article I of the U.S. Constitution denies to anyone but Congress. Look how feeble Congress has been in the face of this and other communist challenges to its constitutional monopoly on legislative power.

Like Muslims, communists believe women should be the common property of men. The only man to whom Barack Hussein (two Muslim names) bows is the king of fanatically Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, where women are treated as mere chattels.

Unlike Muslims, communists believe human life is so unimportant that little children in the womb can be tortured, torn limb from limb and killed, without even an anesthetic. Barack Herod Obama believes that. He has voted for every baby-butchering bill he could, including a bill to allow partial-birth abortion.

Communists hate democracy. Obama is with them on that. What has he done to eradicate the widespread voting fraud – nearly all of it perpetrated by “Democrats” – that is now endemic? Let us hope that when the splendid sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., has finished investigating the Mickey Mouse “birth certificate” on the crime scene that is the White House website he will turn his gallant, unpaid cold-case posse on the voter fraud some say gave Obama the White House.

Communists believe Western democracies should have ever-weaker defenses. Obama has drastically cut the size and reach of America’s once-proud armed forces. Soon your navy will be smaller than it was before the First World War, while Obama’s communist friends and creditors in Red China are quietly building the most monstrous fleet the world has known.

The presidential debates have revealed just how inadequately the Republicans (many of whom are not communists) are equipped to deal with the communist menace in the White House.

My deadline does not permit me to comment on the second Obama/Romney TV debate. But, since it has a town meeting open to both domestic and foreign-policy issues, most questioners will ask how many sweeties each party would give to some rent-seeking, self-serving vested-interest group or another.

The coming crisis of communism is this: “Socialism is all very well until other people’s money runs out” (M. Thatcher). In America, as in Britain and other vassal states of the anti-democratic European tyranny-by-clerk, other people’s money has run out. The vicarious sweetie-auction using other people’s money that is the usual substitute for genuine political debate is dangerously unaffordable.

America is going down. The central failure of the Republicans – some of whom understand the size of the debt problem – is that they have not found the courage to confront it and squarely to admit that those who pay taxes will have to pay more and those who get sweeties will have to get less, that the budget must be balanced immediately, all debt to China and other alien regimes repaid, your nation’s sovereignty restored, and national bankruptcy and collapse pre-empted.

As Cicero once wrote, “The arrogance of the State must be tempered, its spending curtailed, and its revenues increased, lest it become bankrupt.” But then, Cicero was no communist.

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, high priest of climate skepticism, advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote leaders for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard.

Obama is a mysterious socialist

Posted:   09/25/2012
By Don Cage

Let's be blunt, Obama is a Socialist with a well suppressed, virtually unknowable background. We've reached the point where an incumbent Socialist president with no history may rule with impunity, and almost half of America is OK with that.

If re-elected, I believe he will change our current state of partial freedom and liberty, to a state of certain serfdom. When the Government owns our property and controls our income, we become serfs. Once freedom is lost, it is lost forever.

So let's examine life under Obamic Socialism. At first, he will certainly increase taxes on “the rich”, increase taxes and regulations on industries, and cut our military capabilities to 2nd class status, endangering us and the world. Our children will continue becoming indebted wards of the state, evermore dependent on government for meals, daily activities, and indoctrination from womb-to-tomb, like “Julia” on Obama's website. Then, some emergency (riots against entitlement cut-backs, terrorist attacks, whatever) will cause him to “temporarily” suspend the Constitution. At that point we're doomed. We will then be assigned jobs “according to our abilities”. We will all be given food, housing, and health care “according to our needs”. Read “They Thought They Were Free” by Milton Mayer for firsthand accounts how Hitler accomplished this after his election to power.

Why does Socialism have such allure? Many Americans believe that having government bureaucrats controlling our personal resources will somehow be more just and fair than controlling them ourselves. That bureaucrats will execute this responsibility with altruism and benevolence. That pooling all resources together will allow fair and just re-distribution of wealth to all “according to their needs”. This is classical Socialism, and assumes we'll all be happy working for the common good. But because of human nature, it just doesn't work. People work for their own benefit first, and for others secondarily. In 1884 William Lecky said it best. “The desire of each man to improve his circumstances, to reap the full reward of superior talent, or energy, or thrift, is the very mainspring of the production of the world. Take these motives away, cut off all the hopes that stimulate, among ordinary men, ambition, enterprise, invention, and self-sacrifice, and the whole level of production will rapidly and inevitably sink.”

Unfortunately the imposition of Socialism requires force. This force will at first be threats and fines, but failing this, will evolve into real force – imprisonment, beatings, torture, and killings. It will all be legal since the Constitution will be gone.

“Oh you're exaggerating, that can't happen in America, we're educated and enlightened” you say. Think again. Our public school system has been turning out undereducated unenlightened Socialists for decades, and they're now in positions of authority.

As Socialism was imposed on Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and others, the inevitable results were that the economy collapses, and they ended up with bread lines, grey cinder-block cities, and universal corruption and destitution. And what did they do with their dissidents, homosexuals, intellectuals, mentally ill, and other misfits? They killed them, or interned them for “re-education”. Read “The Gulag Archipelago” for firsthand accounts of how this worked in Russia – the enlightened, highly educated, first into space, Russia.

So what's different about voting ourselves into Socialism under Obama? Only that it's peacefully self-inflicted instead of by violent overthrow. The end result is the same, universal serfdom, and worse, there will be no America left to rescue us. We are the only ones that can rescue anyone, but we must first keep ourselves free. Please vote to keep America free in November. It may be our last chance to do so.

Obama increases dependency

Food-stamp president guts welfare reform for votes
By Rep. Tom Graves
Friday, August 10, 2012

It’s called “mountain pride.” For generations, it has pulsed through the bloodstream of just about every resident in the Appalachian hills of North Georgia, the place where I grew up and still call home. Mountain pride is defined by self-reliance. It means that when times get tough, families persevere, turning quietly only to a church or a neighbor for help. This independent spirit does not involve a handout from the federal government. Mountain pride means taking care of yourself and looking out for your neighbors.

The Obama administration doesn’t appear to like mountain pride very much. What’s worse, the White House doesn’t seem to understand it. In Ashe County, N.C., a rural, Appalachian community wedged next to the Virginia and Tennessee state lines, the Department of Agriculture actually praised the county's social services department for working to defeat mountain pride by getting more of the good folks from Ashe County to accept food stamps.

This type of maneuver from the Obama White House isn’t just appalling, it’s enlightening. It shows us President Obama’s true intention: Expand dependency on the federal government. Earlier this month, Mr. Obama told a crowd in Sandusky, Ohio, “America wasn’t built on handouts, it was built on responsibility.” I fully agree, but the president’s campaign rhetoric rarely matches his public policy.

Federal spending for food stamps has more than doubled since Mr. Obama took office. In 2008, about 28 million Americans received food stamps. Today, that number is more than 46 million, nearly 1 in 6 Americans. In this era of trillion-dollar deficits, the Obama administration saw fit to spend up to $3 million of taxpayers’ money in radio ads to get more Hispanics and working poor on food stamps. No wonder Newt Gingrich tagged Mr. Obama “the food-stamp president.”

The president’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare to most of us, dramatically expands Medicaid. Spending on Medicaid, the nation’s health program for the poor, is projected to increase by an additional $434 billion per decade. So far, five states have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, resulting in 500,000 new enrollees to the program. Imagine how many millions more will be enrolled once the Obamacare law is fully implemented.

Most recently, the Obama administration quietly announced it would waive the work requirements written into the 1996 welfare reform law. The bipartisan legislation, which was signed into law by President Clinton, mandates that able-bodied people must work or be preparing for work as a condition for receiving welfare. The law has been a success, dramatically lowering poverty and cutting the number of welfare cases in half. While the impact of the administration’s decision on the number of people receiving welfare is not yet known, the outcome is easy to predict: less self-reliance, more government handouts.

Overall spending on welfare programs is up by more than 40 percent under Mr. Obama, and it’s clear from his actions that the president’s vision for America is one of debt and dependency, not opportunity and prosperity. There is no “shining city upon a hill” in Mr. Obama’s America. His America is a welfare state, where a clawing government hand cleans out the pockets of one citizen in order to feed the other. The problem with the president’s vision is a death spiral: Taxes have to keep going up to pay for the ever-increasing costs of the welfare state. There will come a point where nothing is left in the taxpayers’ pocket to take. Perhaps, now more than ever, America could use more mountain pride.

Rep. Tom Graves is a Republican from Georgia.

Young Obama’s Dreams of a Communist Revolution in America
Posted by Jamie Glazov on Aug 8th, 2012
Front Page Magazine

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. John C. Drew, a political scientist who tried, without success, to alert the media and the John McCain campaign back in 2008 that young Occidental sophomore Obama had been a Marxist socialist looking forward to an inevitable Communist revolution. Since then, Drew’s take on young Obama’s ideological extremism has been featured in books including Michael Savage’s Trickle Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief, Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama and most recently in Paul Kengor’s newest book, The Communist – Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Dr. Drew has contributed at least four articles regarding young Obama’s ideological extremism to American Thinker and has posted articles at and PJMedia. Key elements of Dr. Drew’s story have been verified by liberal authors including David Remnick in The Bridge and most recently David Maraniss in Barack Obama: The Story.

FP: Dr. John C. Drew, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Let’s begin with you sharing how you met the young Barack Obama.

Drew: Thanks Jamie.
I met him through my girlfriend, Caroline Boss. She had taken two political science classes with young Obama at Occidental College – one in the spring of 1980 and one in the fall of 1980. She was the co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental College and wanted to introduce young Obama to me over Christmas break 1980 as “one of us.” By that time, I was in my second year of graduate school at Cornell University where I was working on my Ph.D. in political science.

FP: What was the young Obama like ideologically?

Drew: The young Obama was a garden variety Marxist-Leninist. He and Boss and his sophomore year roommate, Hasan Chandoo, believed that social forces where creating an inevitable Communist revolution in the U.S. and that it was important to have a highly trained elite of educated leaders guide this revolutionary process and oversee it once the revolution took place. Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War in 1980. Ronald Reagan had just been elected president and the USSR was still our mortal enemy. In a lot of ways, the young Obama was more radical than me because by that Christmas break I had stopped believing in the possibility of a Communist revolution and no longer believed a pure Communist economic and social system – one without private property or profits – was possible anymore.

FP: What did Obama say that made you think he was a Marxist?

Drew: I only remember bits and fragments of the actual conversation. I remember that Obama reacted negatively to my suggestion that it was wrong to ever expect a Communist revolution in the U.S. given the experience of Western Europe. I definitely remember him talking about the need to prepare ourselves and the people for the coming Communist revolution. I remember that he was particularly good at arguing the perspective of Frantz Fanon’s anti-colonial revolutionary thought. I had read Fanon, but his writing was not authoritative to me the way it seemed to be for Boss and Obama.

FP: Tell us why this is significant today.

Drew: I think it is significant, in part, because it helps demonstrate the impact that Frank Marshall Davis had on young Obama. It was very unusual for such a young student at Occidental College to be such an intense believer in Marxist ideology. It turns out Obama last met with Davis only about four months prior to Obama first meeting with me.

The really crucial issue, however, is that Obama does not seem to have a conversion story which explains how he quit being a Marxist. In the experience of me and others, being a Marxist is sort of like being in a religious cult. It ends up controlling what you do with your life, the friends you choose, the mentors you pick and the careers that make sense to you. I have a fairly detailed conversion story. I remember the exact moment when I first realized I was no longer a Marxist. Obama, however, does not seem to have a conversion story in his autobiography.

FP: What do you expect to accomplish by sharing this story?

Drew: I think that if I had gotten my story out earlier in 2008 that it might have been enough to keep Obama from becoming president. The McCain campaign and the mainstream media, however, did nothing to pick up my story. I want to leverage the communication channels available to me now to make sure that the Romney campaign understands the strength of the case regarding young Obama’s ideological extremism. There are a lot of Ph.D.s now – Savage, Kurtz, Cashill, Kengor and me – who are making a very convincing argument that Obama has been lying to the American people about the strength and intensity of his Marxist ideology. If the folks running the Romney campaign have not been reading these books, they really need to.

FP: Have you received any hate mail or violent threats?

Drew: My father was worried about that when I first went public with my story in February 2010. He even offered to hide my wife and me at a special safe house. It doesn’t look like I’m that attractive as a target. Besides, harming me would only call more attention to my story.

FP: If you had a question for Obama, what would it be?

Drew: I’d really like to hear whether or not he has a conversion story.  David Horowitz has a conversion story. Whittaker Chambers had a conversion story. I have a conversion story. I’d really like Obama to share the moment when he turned to Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or Alice Palmer and said, “Hey – you guys are wrong.” I want to know what it was like when Obama shared with these folks that he no longer believed in their revolutionary ideology.

FP: Do you have any tips for the Romney presidential campaign?

Drew: Yes. Rush Limbaugh just mentioned my take on young Obama last month. It was obvious to me that Rush – even with all his resources – wasn’t up to speed on the Obama literature. My take was a complete surprise to him. I suspect that there are a lot of folks in the Romney campaign who haven’t been reading what Kurtz, Kengor, Cashill or me have been writing about the young Obama and his ties to extremist ideology.

I think if they read this literature they will see that it is completely solid and they should feel comfortable confronting Obama’s ideological extremism. The voters suspect Obama has secrets up his sleeve regarding what he wants to do to us if he wins reelection. The Romney campaign can leverage all the intellectual work done by these fine scholars to remind swing voters that Obama does have a history of keeping secrets. In the long-run, I think a lot of Obama voters are going to feel that he fooled them in 2008.

FP: Dr. John C. Drew, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics

It seems inevitable in an election year that people on both ends of the ideological spectrum resort to simplistic labels. On the political right, many call President Obama a socialist, because that is a simple, familiar term with the desired negative connotations. However, I agree with the actual socialists from the International Socialist Organization, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, and the Socialist Party USA who uniformly and correctly observe that Obama is not a dictionary-definition socialist, because he has not called for the national government to nationalize the means of production.

The problem here is that the dictionary definition of “socialist” sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader. Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard. Actually, Lenin tried to implement pure socialism when he first came to power, but when his policies caused the Russian economy to collapse all around him, in 1921 he abandoned literal socialism and replaced it with a pragmatic, expedient reform program called the “New Economic Policy.” Under NEP, Lenin permitted various privatizations while seeking state domination of the “commanding heights” of the economy.

President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.

Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics.

Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform. Here are some examples, with Marx’s wording being revised for simplicity’s sake:

1. State control of real property. Team Obama repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage.

2. Progressive income taxes. Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1 percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax.

3. Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors re-institution of estate taxes.

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America (causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all American investments);

5. Centralization of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state. Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction.

6. State control of means of communication and transportation. Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation and has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine” and imposing heavier licensing fees on station owners. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation.”

7. Increase state control over means of production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on which most other industries depend—energy.

8 Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of Americorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.

9. Control over where people live. Team Obama doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book, “Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.)

10. Free education. Obama has sought a federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his 2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs.

Clearly Barack Obama’s policies have a distinctly Marxian flavor to them. Does that mean we are destined for socialism? Certainly not yet. But Marx knew that his 10 strategies would move a society toward socialism. The great free-market economist Ludwig von Mises agreed with Marx that government interventions breed further interventions and tend inexorably toward socialism. (See his class essay, “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism.”)

There is another vital point to understand about Marxist-Leninist economics: The greatest damage is done to the middle class. With his customary bloodthirsty malevolence, Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

You may suppose that Obama isn’t implementing that aspect of Marxist-Leninist economics, but you would be mistaken. It’s true that income tax rates haven’t risen under Obama and inflation has only surfaced in a few areas (e.g., food and energy) but what you need to understand is that government borrowing is a tax hike on future taxpayers. Obama’s unprecedented deficit spending has been subsidized by the Federal Reserve, whose balance sheet has swelled as they have bought more and more federal debt (more than 60 percent of the total last year). Whenever the Fed’s zero interest rate policy ends, some combination of massive tax hikes and/or raging inflation will ensue, devastating the middle class.

Already, Obama’s economic policies have hurt the middle class. They have enervated the job market, raised food and energy bills, and been accompanied by falling incomes and net worth. If these are the results of Obama’s partial steps in a Marxist-Leninist direction, imagine the damage that would be wrought by a fuller implementation of such an agenda.

In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Obama vs. God on Work and Welfare

July 22, 2012
By Jan LaRue
American Thinker

President Obama produced political tremors last week when he said in Roanoke that individual success comes from government so we need to give back by paying higher taxes. Combined with his executive order allowing states to opt out of requiring work for welfare, it's a 10 on the Richter scale.

Contrary to Obama's spinners, he wasn't taken out of context. If it was a gaffe, he got stuck on stupid by repeating, "look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own." His only "gaffe" was revealing his inner socialist.

The day before Obama's "you didn't build it" speech, he instructed Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to allow the states to exempt welfare recipients from work requirements under the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform act, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" (TANF), signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. The exemption is clearly a violation of TANF and other federal statutes.  Obama's order is one more of his several infringements of congressional authority.

Obama hasn't explained why, since government "built" the welfare system, he's exempting recipients from giving back by working. It makes sense if his goal is fundamentally transforming the United States into a welfare state. It would explain why Obama's Department of Agriculture is pushing more people to sign up for food stamps, which are now handed out to more than 46 million people, a 50 percent increase since 2008.

Here's a better idea: In addition to enforcing work requirements on those who are able, condition welfare and unemployment benefits on "paying it forward." As soon as recipients are gainfully employed, require them to begin repaying benefits based on their income level. This won't work, of course, unless the benefits end at some point.

Obama tries to justify his progressive agenda with Scripture, such as when he misapplied "my brother's keeper" to support wealth redistribution. (2 Peter 3:16) He doesn't have a prayer aligning his welfare-without-work order with the Apostle Paul's admonition: "If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Paul, unlike Obama, is consistent with Moses, who required the needy to work for their welfare: "When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap all the way to the edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the foreign resident; I am Yahweh your God" (Leviticus 23:22).

Anyone surprised by Obama's speech and welfare order wasn't paying attention when he said in 2008 that by electing him, "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
He told "Joe the Plumber" that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama sees the Supreme Court's as another tool to redistribute wealth:
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
Obama's "somebody" is always government -- our boss, benefactor and enabler. "We the Government" is a fitting preamble to Obama's "living constitution."

The true "somebody" Obama refuses to credit for providing education, building roads, bridges, the Internet, and every other societal benefit is the biggest demographic in the private sector -- taxpayers -- We the People -- Obama's fed-up and tapped-out boss.

Americans adhere to our founding Declaration. Our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from God, who enables and blesses hard work with success.

"[The virtuous woman] evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings. She draws on her strength and reveals that her arms are strong. She sees that her profits are good, and her lamp never goes out at night" (Proverbs 31:16-18).

"Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God" (Ecclesiastes 5:19).

That's from the God of the flat tax who is satisfied with 10 percent.

Jan LaRue is senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

America is heading in a frightening direction
Saturday, July 21, 2012
By Tim Malley

Just recently I watched breaking news (which was reported by Scott Pelley of CBS) that Barack Obama had just announced his new health-care program. Basically, according to Pelley, everyone in the United States will have to buy health insurance and if they don’t they will receive a penalty to force them to start buying health insurance even when they don’t want it.

It sure sounds like socialism to me. He always stated that he wanted the United States to go in the direction of a universal health-care system. (He seems enamored by the socialist systems of Canada and some Scandinavian countries, specifically Norway and Sweden, because all of these countries practice universal health care.)

But there’s a problem with this viewpoint, because does that essentially mean then that eventually taxpayers will have to pick up the tab and pay for poor women to have abortions? And does it also mean that planned euthanasia will be used on the weaker members of our society, such as the homeless for example, at the expense of the taxpayers?

It sounds silly but let’s go back a few years to when an obscure Austrian ex-corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933. He immediately (under government approval, of course) started to do away with the weaker members of society. Even though Hitler was a fascist many of the early German fascists such as Hitler and Joseph Goebbels borrowed their ideas from communists. Even the name socialist itself is deceptive because the early German fascist party was called the National Socialist party (also known as NSDAP).

Now, the word “socialist” suggests a liberal view and it seems an oxymoron to use it when referring to fascism. But in fact many of the early fascist leaders (Hitler included) such as Benito Mussolini also were very influenced by communist ideas. In fact, Mussolini started out as a communist leader (but eventually switched and became the leader of Italian fascists otherwise known as the Black Shirts). So in reality there is no difference between fascism and communism. The names may be different but the ideology is basically the same.

Because in the 1920s Germany was on the verge of an all-out civil war with the communists (or Bolsheviks) threatening to take full control. (The communist movement in Germany was called the Spartacists movement.) The reason why the communists didn’t succeed in Germany was because Germany had strong right-wing paramilitary groups such as the Freikorps (or the Free Corps) who made sure there was no communist takeover.

Is America on the verge of another climactic situation like what Germany experienced in the 1920s? Time will tell, but it sure looks that way. But the main reason why Germany was able to resist a complete communist takeover was that it had strong right-wing leadership that quashed any hope of a communist (or Bolshevik) takeover. The same can’t be said for America which at the present time has no real strong right-wing politician to defeat Barack Obama come November. All we can hope for is that America doesn’t totally transform itself into a complete socialist state if it hasn’t already. Besides, with his radical socialist ideas, every day Barack Obama is sounding more and more like Leon Trotsky, who had radical ideas of his own, as he was one of the early leaders of the Communist Party.

I only hope that the United States doesn’t transform itself from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America. That would be a horrifying thought, indeed.

Obama's government breeds dependency

Orlando Sentinel
July 20, 2012

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
-- Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13 

And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It "created the Internet." It represents the embodiment of "we're in this together" social solidarity that, in Obama's view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

To say all individuals are the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective. Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.

Obama's infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What's variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.

The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.

More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It's about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It's about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia's world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It's a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all-giving government of bottomless pockets and "Queen for a Day" magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she's on her own is at her grave.

Julia's world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She's married to the provider state.

Or to put it slightly differently, the "Life of Julia" represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.

Obama and ‘The New Party’

By Frank Mazzaglia/Local columnist
MetroWest Daily News
Posted Jul 08, 2012

For all of its political success and continuing growth, the conservative Tea Party is still paying a heavy price with the media. Some polls show that 43 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of the Tea Party. A Sunday New York Times book review just last November by historian Kevin Boyle compared Tea Party activists, particularly religious ones, to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. Somehow, that got past the editors without comment.

Less acknowledged is The New Party, founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor and Joel Rogers which proudly proclaimed its mission to push the Democratic Party further to the left by electing leftist or socialist candidates. From the beginning, the Chicago Chapter of The New Party was composed of assorted Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Trotskyites. Operating under the quaintly named “Committees of Correspondence,” the Chicago Chapter of The New Party supported candidate Barack Obama, one of its own members, in the race for a vacant seat in the Illinois state senate. Obama’s victory was bolstered by left leaning Chicago Democrats as well as ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

When conservatives became aware of Obama’s membership in The New Party, the mainstream media largely ignored the story. In October, 2008, when National Review Online insisted that Barack Obama had indeed been a member of The New Party, the Obama campaign called the charges a “crack-pot smear.” Obama’s Fight the Smears website claimed that he had never been a member of The New Party and had never solicited its endorsement. However, documentary evidence from ACORN files established beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama did solicit endorsement and signed a contract promising to support The New Party policies. A Stanley Kurtz article in June’s National Review even included Minutes from the January 11, 1996 public meeting of Chicago’s New Party which stated, “Barack Obama, candidate for the State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from The New Party. He also joined The New Party.”

The New Party News even ran a picture of state senatorial candidate Barack Obama with the excerpt, “About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July… The political entourage included …Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat.”

Well, you might ask yourself, “So, what?” However, when MetroWest Democrats, arguably among the smartest in the state, do their research, they may find The New Party’s Statement of Principles disturbing. The New Party’s Principles dismiss the current political system as a “sewer of privilege and exclusion” and condemns the Democratic Party as “dominated by business, business backed candidates, or upper middle class liberal elites searching for a candidate acceptable to business.” The Statement of Principles demands a guaranteed minimum income for all adults, and a universal social wage, defined as a cradle to grave state provision for health care, child care, and education which is far left of the American Democratic Party’s platform. It’s the socialistic model that got Europe into trouble and makes no attempt at finding a way to pay for these programs.

OK, sure, but it’s 2012, not 2008. Things change. People change. Ideas change. It’s also true that the things we worry most about will probably never happen. Yet, conservatives continue to express legitimate worry about increasing governmental control over the private sector and the collateral costs associated with radical social engineering. Still, loyal Democrats can be expected to be loyal. That’s why the real focus is on Independent voters.

Rumors of Obama’s socialism continue to emerge. The rumors, of course, are firmly and even laughingly denied. But, you know, given Obama’s history and subsequent denial of involvement with The New Party, even the staunchest of liberal Democrats should acknowledge that there is plenty of room for an honest doubt.


'The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today'

July 2, 2012

Earlier this year, a former senior Pentagon official who has battled Marxism around the globe released a video warning that Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and others who have led communist revolutions in their nations.

Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a decorated former Delta Force commander, U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and Purple Heart recipient, explained in the video a six-step plan used by revolutionaries to bring about Marxism elsewhere and drew parallels to Obama’s actions in the U.S.

Boykin’s warning resounds eerily today in particular, as the nation is reeling from the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a massive federal overhaul of health care and on the anniversary of Obama’s pledge to establish a “national civilian security force” – two events Boykin warned were markers of a “Marxist insurgency” in other nations.

“We hear a lot about Marxism and socialism, and there are those, particularly in the media, who would say that we should ‘tone down our rhetoric’ about socialism because ‘we’re not moving to socialism,’” Boykin states in the video. “Well, The reality is … I’ve studied Marxist insurgency. It was part of my training. And the things I know that have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.”

Boykin laid out a step-by-step plan he says is the model of how Fidel Castro instituted Marxism in Cuba, Mao Zedong in China, Stalin in Russia and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:

1.    Nationalize major sectors of the economy
2.    Redistribute wealth
3.    Discredit opposition
4.    Censors opposing viewpoints
5.    Control gun ownership
6.    Develop a constabulary force to control civilian population

Boykin then illustrates how each of these steps have begun to materialize in the U.S.: From a form of “nationalization” through government bailouts, to “hate crime” legislation aimed at silencing the pulpits, to the federal government labeling tea partiers and veterans returning from overseas as potential domestic terrorists, to efforts underway to get the U.S. on board with a United Nations small arms treaty, which would regulate private gun ownership.

Boykin takes particular aim at Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which he says federal administrators have already admitted is a wealth-redistribution plan (step No. 2) and he says includes within its 1,000 pages plans for national security forces at the president’s disposal, akin to national police forces socialist tyrants like Adolf Hitler used to complete their revolutions.

Specifically, Boykin alluded to a speech Obama made four years ago today, in Colorado Springs, Colo., on July 2, 2008, in which he pledged to establish a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the U.S. military].”

“You need to understand this is happening in America, and it fits the model that has been used when societies have moved to Marxism,” Boykin claims.

“It should be a matter of great concern,” he says. “Get out and do something to help stop this. Use the constitutional tools that our Founding Fathers gave us. Let you congressman know how you feel about this. Be a pain in their neck by constantly emailing and calling them. Find candidates that represent your values as a Constitution-believing American, and get out and get active in some of these movements that are trying to reverse what’s happing in America.

Barack Obama Too Much Like The Socialist Francois Hollande

Posted 06/27/2012
Investor’s Business Daily

Did the French just elect a self-described socialist who wants to raise taxes on the rich? Yes, they did.

Is President Obama asking for four more years with an economic philosophy similar to that of the new French president? Yes, he is.

In France, those earning over a million euros would face a tax rate of 75%. And one of Francois Hollande's first acts as new president of France was to reverse his predecessor's course and lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 — this in a country whose projected unfunded pension liabilities for its living citizens are about $8.37 trillion, or 300% of its $2.774 trillion gross domestic product.

The United States' unfunded Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug benefits liability for its living citizens is about $50 trillion, or 333% of our current $15 trillion GDP.

France is a country whose debt is 90% of its GDP (U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100%). It had zero GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 and has an unemployment rate of 10.2%. Taxes, as a percent of GDP, are 56%. (U.S. state, local and federal tax take is 33% of GDP, excluding the dollar value of government-issued mandates on the private sector.)

France is a mess. Hollande, like Obama, pays no attention to the many examples of government-controlled economies versus those where government takes less from people and relies on the private sector to create jobs.

Let's look at just one such example. Hong Kong became a British colony following the first Opium War in the mid-1800s. As mainland China fell to communist control a century later, many Chinese migrants and corporations fled to the island. In 1961, Britain named Sir John Cowperthwaite, a proponent of the Austrian school of free-market economics, as financial secretary of Hong Kong.

Residents of Hong Kong faced a maximum 15% in personal taxes, no tariffs, no subsidies, no government borrowing and minimal red tape. Cowperthwaite called it "positive non-intervention."

Hong Kong, under his guidance, saw a 50% rise in wages and a two-thirds fall in the number of households in acute poverty. Exports rose by 14% a year, as Hong Kong evolved from a trading post to a major regional hub and manufacturing base. Hong Kong is a water-surrounded rock with no natural resources — other than the industry of its people.

In his first budget speech, Cowperthwaite said: "In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

Obama’s socialist designs

President’s policies are bent on shattering rule of law

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times
Thursday, June 21, 2012

President Obama is gradually transforming America into a socialist authoritarian state. This is the real meaning of his recent decision to grant backdoor amnesty to young illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama is behaving like a Latin American strongman, who asserts arbitrary power and ignores the rule of law. He is assaulting the very pillars of our constitutional republic.

Last week, the administration announced that it will stop deporting young illegal aliens. The policy shift affects as many as 800,000 illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama’s order lifts the fear of deportation. It also grants them work permits. Mr. Obama has waved his magic wand and converted the immigration status of countless aliens, flipping them from illegal to legal residents.

The order applies to those who entered America before the age of 16 and are younger than 30, who have been living here for at least five years, have no violent criminal background, possess a U.S. high school diploma or have served in the military. The policy change is a blatant attempt to bribe the Hispanic vote prior to the November election - a key constituency Mr. Obama must win.

Yet, the order is more than crass partisan politics. It is an ominous usurpation of centralized power - a naked attempt to entrench an imperial presidency. Mr. Obama lacks the legal authority to grant amnesty. He is not a monarch or tyrant with unlimited discretionary authority. Rather, he is confined by our constitutional system of the separation of powers and checks and balances. The Constitution is crystal-clear: Congress has the sole power to craft immigration policy. Mr. Obama’s actions are flagrantly anti-democratic.

His goal is simple: to destroy the American nation. For decades, our supposed betters have encouraged open borders and unlimited Third World immigration. Corporatist Republicans seek to import cheap labor; liberal Democrats want to import millions of potential voters. The middle- and working-class, however, have been decimated. Their wages have eroded, crime has skyrocketed, border states in the South are overwhelmed, and hospitals, schools and welfare services have been strained to the breaking point. Illegal immigration is slowly bankrupting America.

Now Mr. Obama has established a magnet for millions more to come. Aliens know they can wait out Uncle Sam - eventually, amnesty will be granted. U.S. national sovereignty, the rule of law and our constitutional republic are being sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism and the creation of a Democrat-ruled one-party state. The administration has whetted the insatiable appetite of leftist Hispanic activists. The logic is inexorable: If a path to legalization can be paved for young illegal immigrants, then why not all 12 million to 20 million aliens in America? Mr. Obama clearly hopes to galvanize the Hispanic community and to build a permanent liberal ruling coalition by massively expanding the Democratic base. Today, it is piecemeal amnesty. Tomorrow, it will be wholesale legalization. The American electorate will be transformed, thereby entrenching Obamaism for decades to come. In short, Mr. Obama is slowly erecting a leftist state.

This is what nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savage has been warning for years. The combative conservative’s show, “The Savage Nation,” reaches 10 million listeners every week (full disclosure: I have been a guest host on his program). Almost alone among major conservative commentators, Mr. Savage has been sounding the alarm about Mr. Obama’s creeping dictatorship. His latest blockbuster, “Trickle Down Tyranny,” (Harper Collins, 2012) is a must-read. Well-written and concise, the book provides a detailed, comprehensive account of the administration’s rampant corruption and numerous abuses of power.

It has one overarching, central theme: Mr. Obama is a radical leftist carrying out a Venezuela-style revolution. Mr. Savage calls the president a “fiscal Marxist” and a “new Hugo Chavez” determined to dismantle American capitalism and constitutional democracy. Mr. Savage discusses almost every one of Mr. Obama’s power grabs - Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform, the de facto nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler, the drive to create a “green economy” through administrative fiat, the numerous policy “czars” who have Cabinet-level powers but no accountability or congressional oversight, the National Defense Authorization Act, which enables the president to detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely under suspicion of being a “terrorist,” the push to censor the Internet, the illegal war in Libya, the massive expansion of government through out-of-control spending and record deficits, and the administration’s criminal involvement in gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.

According to Mr. Savage, Mr. Obama’s aim in the U.S. is similar to Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin in Russia: to create the Union of Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A. The president is a Leninist bent on forging a new world order based on economic collectivism, world government and an internationalist ruling class. The key to achieving his dream is to eradicate the American nation. This is why for years Mr. Savage has been pounding the importance of “language, borders and culture.” The ultra-left’s mission is not only an economic revolution, but a cultural one: transforming America into a bilingual, multicultural socialist empire. Mr. Savage understands that the battering ram is massive, unlimited immigration, thereby smashing our historic and demographic core.

Such profound social engineering requires state coercion and centralized rule. We must be compelled to abandon self-government in favor of soft tyranny. This is why Mr. Savage darkly warns that our freedoms may vanish in a second Obama term: “We will very likely not survive as a free nation after four more years under Obama’s rule,” he writes.

Mr. Savage is right. Mr. Obama is a dangerous demagogue, who believes he is above the law. Like many leftists, he is obsessed with amassing power. His amnesty order marks a major step toward an arbitrary statist regime that willfully tramples on the Constitution. The U.S.S.A. is being born.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Just say no to socialism

By Madeline Crabb
June 19, 2012

In March of 2010, Al Sharpton said, Americans overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Obviously, if Sharpton says something, it must be the truth, right?

First of all, Mr. Obama only received 53% of the vote, which is not an "overwhelming" victory. Second, while Americans voted for socialism, many didn't realize what they were doing. Like a package wrapped in beautiful paper and adorned with a huge bow, Obama's "hope and change" message was irresistible to na´ve citizens. Additionally, the lily-livered GOP tiptoed around the subjects of race, religion, ideology, and even birthplace because they didn't want to appear mean, bigoted, or prejudiced.

But there is another reason Obama won. According to Freedom Center's David Horowitz, "Democrats have bought 40 percent of the population. They could run a monkey and get the vote." (And no, neither Horowitz nor I are calling Mr. Obama a monkey.) Can anyone say welfare rolls? Anyone receiving government handouts owes the Democratic Party — plain and simple. Government handouts involve a redistribution of wealth — and that is socialism.

The socialism we have been headed toward for decades is like the European model. Gee, look at how well that is working for them. Even Europeans are realizing there is a limit to how many freebies the government can provide citizens before the system is financially bankrupt. Hello! Let's see, America's national debt is nearly $16 trillion. Doesn't it sound like we can't afford socialism either?

In 1875, Karl Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In 2012, our president embraces this philosophy because he thinks it is the job of government to equal things out. In an interview with Obama, Bill O'Reilly was questioning what appears to be an attack on the wealthy. He asked why Obama proposed a 28 percent capital gains tax, and a 39 percent tax rate on the rich. Obama's reply, "Why, it's an issue of fairness...we have to take it away and give it to others." When O'Reilly suggested this is actually redistribution, Obama instead called it "neighborliness." Now it is neighborly to have your hard-earned money taken from you and given to someone else.

As Neal Boortz explains, the government says, "Now that you have more than you need, give us the excess — we're gonna give it to the people who didn't play the game as well as you did." The government becomes God, picking and choosing who should have wealth. It's just like the government getting involved in private sector ownership, because some companies are "too big to fail." When the government is picking the winners and losers in life, as a nation, we are no longer free. We already know America is sliding into socialism, and four more years of the Obama administration will probably deal the death blow, as we've previously discussed. What many people want to know before this election is whether Obama is a socialist. Some say yes; others say no. My thoughts are that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck — not a turkey.

Remember, Al Sharpton thinks President Obama is a socialist. Hey, thanks to the diligent investigative reporting of Stanley Kurtz, America now knows Obama is actually a card-carrying member of the New Party, a socialist organization. Perhaps we were hoodwinked the first time around. However, Americans must be better-informed for the next election.

During my research for this article I found a tape from World Net Daily in which Joseph Farah gives 20 reasons why Obama is a socialist. They are:

1.) He was raised as one. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis was a communist and member of the Communist Party of the USA. (CPUSA was under control of the Soviet Union.)

2.) His mother, Ann Dunham, dabbled in socialist politics throughout her life.

3.) Obama admits he attended socialist conferences and read Marxist literature.

4.) He believes in "spreading the wealth around" both domestically and internationally.

5.) Obama became a "community organizer" working with ACORN, the Democratic Socialist Party, the New Party, and other avowedly socialist groups.

6.) Obama befriended hard-core radical communists Bill Ayres and Carl Davidson, both former members of the Students for Democratic Society. Ayres went on to lead the revolutionary communist Weather Underground faction.

7.) While in Chicago, Obama and his family attended Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades. Wright is anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist, and a socialist practicing Black Liberation theology.

8.) Which group boasts the most White House visits since Obama moved in? The Service Union International Union (SEIU) — the new name for ACORN. According to former official Steve Lerner, the group seeks to destabilize American financial institution and banks through Occupy-style attacks.

9.) Obama taught a law school class on socialist/activist Saul Alinsky, not the U.S. Constitution.

10.) Obama endorsed Bernie Sanders, the only avowed socialist in Congress.

11.) The Communist Party endorsed Obama in his 2008 primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

12.) Obama believes, "Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation."

13.) As president Obama appointed an unprecedented 45 czars, including many socialists.

14.) He is the Manchurian President.

15.) Obama believes every person has a "right" to health care. (The Communist and socialist parties agree — in fact, it is part of their platforms.)

16.) Obama believes labor unions should be allowed to organize workers without approval being subject to secret ballots. (The communist and socialist Parties agree — in fact, it is part of their platforms.)

17.) Obama believes there is an inherent "right" to housing. (The Communist and socialist parties agree — it is part of their platforms.)

18.) Obama has promoted an open borders agenda. (The communist and socialist parties agree — and yes, it is a part of their platforms.)

19.) Obama has radically reduced the size and power of the U.S. military. (The communist and socialist parties agree — it is in their platforms.)

20.) Obama has steadfastly promoted a "steeply graduated" income tax. (Yes, the communist and socialist parties agree — and it, too, is in their platforms.)

Mr. Obama is entitled to his views, as is every other elected official. Our views are based on our belief system, which in turn, affects our actions. A radical socialist ideology is detrimental to America. Furthermore, isn't it said that people are known by the company they keep? While he can choose with whom he associates, our president has surrounded himself with friends and advisors holding highly radical views. The following link is a chart of Obama's appointees, and those with whom he associates away from the White House.

To describe these folks as radical is an understatement. Is this really what we voted for in 2008? Do we want to live in the land of the free and home of the brave? Or shall we allow Al Sharpton's socialist president to transform us into the United Socialist States of America? The latter is Obama's goal. We voted once for this socialist, not fully understanding the ramifications. Now however, there is no excuse for doing it again unless we are fully relinquishing our god-given rights and freedoms. Let's say it all together: Just say no to socialism! To anyone willing to hear....

Socialism, Obama, and America's Future
By W.A. Beatty
June 16, 2012

Stanley Kurtz documented something we have all known: President Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist!  Contrary to claims made in 2008 by Obama, his staff, and supporters, he was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago.

Kurtz wrote:

In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party [The New Party].  The issue remains as fresh as today's headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party's goal.

Is Obama a socialist?  Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented by Germany's Social Democrats, the French Socialists, or Spain's socialist-workers party.  By this criterion, yes!  Obama is a socialist.  He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.

France has just elected Franšois Hollande president.  Hollande is a proud socialist.  How are Obama's and Hollande's policies similar?

•    Reject austerity and embrace "growth." Hollande said that he will end the current austerity efforts. Obama has accused House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his House-passed budget of "social Darwinism," apparently meaning to say that the plan is so austere that it would leave millions of helpless Americans to fend for themselves, or what we used to call taking "personal responsibility."
•    Raise taxes on the "rich." Hollande proposes a two-tiered tax structure. He wants to impose a 45-percent tax on incomes over €150,000, up from 41 percent, as well as a 75-percent tax on incomes above €1 million. Obama has proposed lots of new taxes for families making more than $250,000 a year.
•    Raise the dividends tax. Hollande has also proposed increasing the dividends tax. Obama proposed raising the dividend tax rate from 15 percent to the highest personal income tax rate, 39.6 percent, next year.
•    Crack down on the financial industry. Hollande wants to separate retail and investment banking, and he wants a financial transactions tax. Obama has already pushed through the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and made a lot of headlines attacking the "fat cats" on Wall Street.
•    Promote renewable energy projects. Hollande prefers clean energy ideas that don't work. He wants to reduce nuclear from 75 percent to 50 percent of France's energy and replace it with other green energy sources. Citizens Against Government Waste says that in America, there are about 20 green companies with federal grants or loan guarantees that could be in financial trouble. But Obama is campaigning on funding even more green jobs.
•    Increase public subsidies to small businesses. Hollande wants to create a public investment bank to help small companies and home grown industries, funneling money to those companies that are least able to survive on their own. Obama has already tried to buy small business votes by providing a tax credit to offset the cost of health insurance.

Obama's economic policies are almost identical to those of the French socialist Franšois Hollande.

Socialism has failed wherever and whenever it has been tried.  Much of the world realizes this.  With socialists, it is always the people rather than the system that is the cause of failure.  But socialists refuse to acknowledge that the laws of economics are not revocable and cannot be legislated, regardless of how hard they try to behave otherwise.  As England's Lady Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money."

Socialists got a chance to implement their vision, and in the 20th century alone, they left a pile of corpses some 260 million bodies deep.  The tragedies of socialism are even more horrible when you realize that some people understood, predicted, and warned that brutality is essential in a world where the means of production are owned by the state as socialism wants.  In 1893, German libertarian Eugene Richter, in his book Pictures of the Socialistic Future, predicted with stunning accuracy how socialism, which promised prosperity and peace, would instead deliver poverty and warfare.

The two most visible socialist countries in the world are Cuba and North Korea.  Both countries produce misery, poverty, and brutality, and they are two of the poorest countries in the world, held together only by totalitarian rule and external economic support.

Socialism advocates, recognizing that socialism has never worked, changed to a system that is part capitalism and part socialism.  They believed that capitalism could be used for resource reallocation, while the caring nature of socialism could ensure equitable (to them) wealth redistribution.  Their new efforts focus on income taxes.

With socialist Europe imploding, Scandinavia, the definition of socialism, is doing quite well.  Denmark, Norway, and Sweden do not seem to have the debt problems that the U.S. has.  Why?  The answer can be found in the progressive, socialistic U.S. income tax code and its absence in Scandinavian countries.

In 2009, almost half of U.S. households paid no federal income taxes, while the top 10 percent of income earners paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes.  The top 25 percent of U.S. income earners paid 86 percent of income tax collected.  The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes collected.

Let's compare income tax percentages with Denmark, a Scandinavian country.  In 2011, in Denmark, the richest 30 percent of income-earners paid 48.7 percent of all income taxes, while in the U.S., the richest 30 percent of income earners paid 65.3 percent of all income taxes.  The poorest 30 percent of Denmark's income earners paid 14.1 percent of all income taxes, while in the U.S., the poorest 30 percent paid only 6.1 percent of income taxes.

In fact, the U.S.'s poorest 30 percent of income-earners paid only 43 percent of the portion of all income taxes paid by the poorest 30 percent of income-earners in Denmark.  The richest 30 percent of income-earners in the U.S. paid 34 percent more of the total income tax burden than do the richest 30 percent in Denmark.

Income tax structures in Norway and Sweden are similar to Denmark's.  Most Americans assume that Scandinavia is much more socialist than we are.

The U.S. has one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world.  No Scandinavian country is as bad as the U.S. at making richer citizens pay higher income taxes.  No Scandinavian country provides its poorer citizens the ability to avoid paying for government programs on which they have an equal vote, as is the case in the U.S.  The U.S. is living the socialist dream: that those with the greatest income will carry those with less income.  We are living by the socialist mantra that each shall pay (income taxes) according to his means.  The government then uses the tax money to subsidize those who support them politically with votes.

And Obama is calling for the "rich" to pay more income taxes, to pay their fair share.

But now we are finding that many of the more able or willing to produce are having second thoughts about socialist principles.  Most businesses are now in a "holding pattern," waiting for socialist fools such as Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to be removed from their respective positions in the 2012 elections.

The U.S. economy is very listless as a result of this holding pattern.  Gross domestic product increased at a very slow 1.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2012.  We will not see any strong economic growth until after an Obama and socialism loss in the November 2012 elections.

And what of our future  even if (when) Obama is defeated in November?  Socialism never goes away, despite its poor track record.  People willingly abandon both logic and history to flock to its false premises and promises.  Art Carden, at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, said, "Socialists have generally tried to do two things: dethrone and kill God so that The People or The State might be exalted, and repeal the laws of economics."

It was Karl Marx who in 1843 said, "Religion is the opium of the people" in an attempt to dethrone God.  Socialists also said that economic laws were peculiar and historically unique artifacts of the particular conditions of production under capitalism.  Here are 26 Natural Laws of Economics that cannot be repealed, regardless of how many statutes socialists enact.

The U.S., once best hope of freedom and prosperity, has now fallen for socialism's message, and has started down its path to ruin.  Freedom and prosperity have already been seriously compromised, with much worse to come if America's course is not soon reversed.

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at

Democrats, Media In Denial Over Obama's Socialist Beliefs

Posted 06/07/2012
Investor’s Business Daily

Ideology: A lengthy feature by the Associated Press earlier this week asked the rather strange question, "Is Obama A Socialist?" A better question might be: Why doesn't the public know it?

It should come as no surprise that President Obama stands farther left on the political spectrum than any president in history.

After all, his $831 billion stimulus, TARP, auto industry takeover, crackdown on Wall Street and the banks, housing market manipulation, ObamaCare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of American business and profits are only a few examples of Obama's abiding belief in leftist principles.

What's strange is the mainstream media's continued efforts to debunk the idea that Obama is a socialist — recently going so far as to liken him to President Reagan, an absurd idea if ever there was one.

Fact is, Obama's socialist background runs deep — as IBD showed in a 21-part series that ran in 2008.

Ironically, the AP piece questioning Obama's socialism ran about a week after President Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, to "civil rights" activist Dolores Huerta. She also happens to be honorary chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the U.S.' main socialist party and an affiliate of Socialist International.

Obama's ties to the DSA go way back. As Accuracy in Media writer Cliff Kincaid noted this week, in 1996 Obama won the endorsement of the Chicago DSA in his run for an Illinois state senate seat.

Around that time Obama eulogized Saul Mendelson, "a longtime socialist activist," as a DSA newsletter put it, and appeared on at least one DSA panel.

As has been documented, virtually all of Obama's early influences were communist or socialist. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member. Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a hard-core Marxist. Ditto his mother, Stanley Anne Dunham.

In Chicago, where Obama came of political age after attending law school, he likewise gravitated toward leftists, like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, and the extreme left-wing and America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And, of course, the future president was an acolyte of firebrand socialist/community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Not a socialist? Author Stanley Kurtz cites new evidence from Illinois Acorn records that, in his words, "definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party" in the 1990s. For the record, the New Party was a social democratic party — that is, socialist.

Of course, this is an election year, and politicians in trouble often deny the basic facts of their existence.

Yet, as recently as February 2009, Newsweek gloated on its cover, "We're All Socialists Now," a not-so-subtle recognition the just-elected president was one.
As far as we know, there were no angry denials to Newsweek by the triumphant Obama White House.

Today, fearing Obama will lose the upcoming election because of his poor stewardship of the economy, Democrats and their media allies again pooh-pooh the idea that Obama's a socialist — as they did in 2008.

Sorry, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Obama wins endorsement from Raul Castro's daughter
By the CNN Wire Staff
June 4, 2012

(CNN) -- The daughter of Cuba's president supports the re-election bid of U.S. President Barack Obama, but believes he could do more were it not for the pressures he is facing, she said in an interview broadcast Monday on "CNNi's Amanpour."

"As a citizen of the world, I would like him to win," said Mariela Castro Espin, daughter of Raul Castro, in the exclusive interview, which was conducted Friday in New York. "Given the choices, I prefer Obama."

The 49-year-old gay rights advocate said that Obama has been constrained in his ability to effect change. "He wants to do much more than what he's been able to do," she said. "That's the way I interpret it personally. I don't know if I'm being objective."

Still, she said, "I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart."

Asked if Obama would lift the half-century-old trade embargo on Cuba if he could, Castro said, "I believe that Obama is a fair man. And I believe Obama needs greater support to be able to make these decisions. If Obama had all the political support of the American people, then we could normalize our relationships, as good or better than we had under President Carter."

During his single term as president, from 1977 to 1981, Jimmy Carter eased restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba.

Castro added that she supports the release of Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen arrested in Cuba in 2009 and sentenced to 15 years on charges of subversion. But, she added, she also wants to see the release of the "Cuban Five," who are being held in the United States for crimes of espionage.

Castro was unswayed by Gross' recent request that he be allowed to visit his 90-year-old mother before she dies if he promises to return afterward to prison in Cuba.

"Alan Gross has been granted everything that he's asked for: He has been able to see his wife, he has been able to have matrimonial, conjugal visits, and he has been treated with respect and dignity the way we always treat prisoners in Cuba," Castro said. "We haven't received the same treatment on the other hand for our five prisoners who have very long sentences that are not right. I think that the six must be released -- both the five Cubans and Alan Gross."

"Is that what you're saying, that Alan Gross should be released and the Cuban Five?" host Christiane Amanpour asked.

"Of course," Castro responded. "I'm referring to the five Cubans and Alan Gross. I believe that this would be the happiest solution for all involved."
The gay rights activist said that sexual orientation and gender identification are among the rights that Communist Cuba still needs to address. A bill legalizing civil unions, not same-sex marriage, has been proposed, "however, this hasn't happened as yet," she said. "And people who are in same-sex couples do not have any protection in that sense."

She predicted the legislature would address the matter, which her father has not opposed, this year.

Castro said the nation had learned to acknowledge and correct past mistakes after its aggressive quarantine policy for HIV-positive men and women during the early years of the AIDS epidemic was abandoned in 1993.

"I never agreed with these quarantines," she said. "There were several international health organizations that evaluated these quarantines as a positive thing at a time when not much was known about how the epidemic spreads."

Amanpour pointed to a Human Rights Watch description of Cuba as "the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent."

But Castro said the rights group "does not represent the opinion of the Cuban people. And their informants are mercenaries. They're people who have been paid by a foreign government for media shows that do not represent Cuban positions directly."

She defended her nation as one that allows dissent. "People who dissent don't go to jail," she said. "Everybody in Cuba expresses their view and there's a political participation so that we can express ourselves and question everything."

Holding an opinion contrary to that of the government "enriches the debate," she said. "No one goes to prison for an opinion, rather for serving foreign interests who pay them. That's called being a mercenary and that's penalized in laws everywhere in the world, including the laws of this country."

She said the island's single-party system would disappear if other nations would stop trying to impose their will on Cuba.

"If Cuba's sovereignty weren't threatened, if the internal affairs of Cuba weren't manipulated in media campaigns, if Cuba weren't the subject of an economic and trade embargo, which has caused so many problems for us, then in Cuba, it wouldn't make sense to have a sole party, just one party," she said.

Though some critics have said the nation relies on the embargo to crack down on internal dissent, and that the nation's socialist system would collapse if the United States were to lift the embargo, Castro disagreed about what would happen to her country.

"I think it would become stronger," she said. "This is why they don't lift the embargo."

Castro offered no sympathy for Yoani Sanchez, the dissident blogger inside Cuba who has won multiple awards for her work, which is critical of the Castro government.

"She gives service to foreign powers who are interested in eliminating the Cuban experience," Castro said. "She's an official voice of the global dominant powers."

Castro disputed Sanchez's assertion that she was not allowed to work. "She is allowed to work in Cuba," Castro said. "But she makes much more money with the prizes, which are being sent to her from abroad, than for any work that she might do with the very low wages that we have in Cuba."

Castro predicted that Sanchez's audience will "get bored of hearing lies," and her influence will wane. "She doesn't really fight for authentic rights; she's not committed to the rights movement in Cuba, because she doesn't even participate in any of the debates that are trying to achieve rights."

Castro blamed the trade embargo for the fact that many Cubans are not able to use the Internet. "We pay Internet over satellite, which is very expensive," she said. "We don't have the access to the fiber optic lines that pass by Cuba. We're negotiating with Venezuela to help us so we can maximize access to Internet."

But she said Cubans still have access to "very big social networks."
"There is more access to the Internet in Cuba, legal and illegal, than you can imagine, because the Cuban people are a curious people. And you can't deny us the access to information."

Asked about Sen. Robert Menendez's description of her as "a vocal advocate of the regime, an opponent of democracy, who has defended the brutal repression of democracy activists," Castro called the Democrat from New Jersey "a person who really doesn't have his feet down on the ground."

Asked why the United States had issued Castro a visa, a State Department spokesman noted that she had visited the United States twice during the George W. Bush administration. "However, one should not mistake the fact that a visa was granted to this person with our general policy towards Cuba," Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Michael A. Hammer told reporters in Washington. "In fact, we want, and we allow freedom of expression in our country, something, which in fact, does not occur in Cuba."

Socialist Approach to Telecommunications

This article originally appeared in the June 4, 20012 issue of Forbes magazine.

Modern socialists learned years ago that you can effectively control large swaths of the economy through overwhelming regulation rather than outright nationalization. The President has become a master at this; health care, banking and energy are well on their way to becoming impotent vassals of the U.S. government. Another industry in which this phenomenon is unfolding is telecommuni–cations. With elections looming, the White House will make sure nothing happens in this area without clearance from Washington’s far-left liberals.

AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile. The deal was a good one for consumers—better service, more effective competition for cablers. Yet the merger was given the kibosh, ostensibly because it was anticompetitive.

Then Washington regulators made an about-face with Phil Falcone’s company, LightSquared, which would have provided very effective competition with Verizon and AT&T. A little over a year ago the FCC gave LightSquared the green light to operate a communications network that would use frequencies adjacent to those granted for GPS uses. Users here, led by Deere & Co., objected because of potential interference, even though GPS had never been granted use of adjacent frequencies. In effect, they were squatters. Regardless, the FCC reversed course this year. Falcone, after sinking more than $4 billion of his own and investors’ funds, filed for bankruptcy, even though there were ways to fix the alleged problem, and LightSquared made it clear it would compromise. LightSquared will be taken over by vulture capitalists who bought its bonds on the cheap and who may learn better than Falcone did to play the Washington power game in the Obama era.

Ponder this for a moment: One deal is quashed because it is anticompetitive and another blocked precisely because it would be all too competitive.

Now a Verizon deal to buy needed and currently fallow spectrum from several cable companies is in jeopardy because of Washington regulators.

Telecommunications companies are still seemingly independent, but Washington’s socialist tentacles make that problematical long term. The Obama Administration has no intention of letting spectrum be used in a free-market fashion. Why give up such a tool that is so useful for ultimate control?

Obama Awards Highest Honor to Democratic Socialists Chair

May 30, 2012

Yesterday President Obama awarded radical open border advocate Dolores Huerta with the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can receive. There's just one problem: Huerta is an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America and likes to pal around with Hugo Chavez.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

In this web site you can find out about DSA, its politics, structure and program. DSA's political perspective is called Where We Stand. It says, in part: We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

America down a dangerous path

Hernando Today
Published: May 11, 2012

What would people say if they found out that America's current president was a devout Marxist Communist? One would ask; how in the world did the American people end up electing a Marxist Communist to be president of the United States of America?

The answer is simple: either many who voted for Obama are socialist/communist themselves, and/or many were deceived by his personification and deceptive agenda of helping the poor and middle class. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the poor and the middle class if they are unable to help themselves. But entitlements are not the answer; effective education and training and private job opportunities are.

Obama is taking this nation down a dangerous path by dividing the nation on social issues, and compromising our national defense because of no national energy policy. Will chaos and violence on the streets of America become more prevalent?

Obama's socialism goes further than just transforming America; he seems to be committed to destroying the U.S. economy in order to bring "imperialist" America down to the same level as other socialist nations. That is what "cap and trade" is meant to do, and that is why the U.S. has no energy policy to make America self-sustaining on their energy needs.

Obama's political success has been attributed to his political consultant David Axelrod from Chicago. There are some fascinating facts about the background of David Axelrod, showing President Obama's top political strategist to have close ties with the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and other leftist individuals and organizations.

Chicago has been a mecca for far left Marxist organizations and at one time the headquarters for the Communist Party USA was in Chicago. They still maintain an active chapter there.

As president, this makes it more important that we the people know all we can as to Obama's past and present political friends, associates, handlers, affiliations, and organizations. Serving the public trust demands more scrutiny than what is required from the average citizen, for having power over the people requires full and open disclosure. How can one trust a person when one doesn't know their past and their political ideology?

It seems Obama was once associated with the "New Party," a Marxist political organization that supported him when he ran for Senator in Illinois. The New Party was active in the United States from 1992 to 1998, and was strongly affiliated with Marxist and socialist organizations including the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

The Party's Chicago chapter included a large number of Maoist and communist members, and a large number of members of the leftist organizing group ACORN. The New Party wanted to take over the Democratic Party and impose their socialist ideology. The avowed purpose of the New Party was to push the Democratic Party to the left and to usher in socialist governance in the United States under a Democratic label.

What we are seeing is the Democratic Party being run by the far left and a president with a quest for social justice and social governance in America. What Obama is doing is using the poor and middle class to achieve his ultimate goal of transforming America as a socialist state. Fidel Castro did the same thing, and in the end subjugating the people to be under government control. Should Obama succeed in transforming America, where do you think Obama will end up being-another dictator?

President Obama has done much in just four years to implement his socialist agenda with Obamacare being the "flagship" of his legacy. Immigration, gun control, and energy are the next challenges he wants to undertake in order to transform this nation into a socialist state.

It's conceivable that at the Democratic National Convention scheduled for the week of Sept. 3 that President Obama will spring a surprise to the American people. First, Vice President Joe Biden will announce that he is stepping down due to medical reasons. Obama will then choose Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his running mate.

Clinton is a devout follower of Saul Alinsky and she is more radical than Obama. With Hillary as Vice President, this will pave the way for Hillary to run for president in 2016. Hillary will complete what Obama started and that was to transform this nation from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist state.

Obama and Clinton have the power of the liberal media and financial support from the likes of George Sorro and others to transform America. The U.S. Constitution will be declared "null and void" and global governance by the United Nations will take over right here from New York City where David Rockefeller started it all. Who knows, Barack Obama, a globalist at heart and Nobel Peace Prize holder, may become Secretary General of the U.N. while Hillary is president of the U.S.A.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." – Patrick Henry Become informed, let your voice be heard, and vote Nov. 6 to take back our country from the progressives and the Marxists.

Obama Has Dictatorial Tendencies

Friday, 13 Apr 2012
By Lev Navrozov

I left “Soviet Russia” with my family at the first opportunity, for we felt that the creeping “half-dictatorship” under which we lived was a precursor of the full-blown, cruel dictatorship it used to be during Stalin’s times.

We lived through those horrific forebodings, and felt unbelievably lucky to have escaped from that hell into the paradise that was the United States.

But after living in this country for 40 years, we cannot escape the feeling that even in this unique democracy, President Obama’s dictatorial tendencies reveal themselves in a slow, step-by-step process of chipping away at people’s inalienable rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

For example, Obama is out to abolish the right of American citizens to own guns. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

In Russia, before Vladimir Putin came to power a month ago, mass pro-democracy forces came out to protest against the government’s fraud favoring Putin’s party victory.

The prevailing criticism of the Russian people in the West was that the Russian protesters were weak, indecisive, disunited, and could not fight for their freedom. Others were saying that they now have enough freedom — they can travel all over the world, open up businesses, and trade with foreign countries.

More than that — they enjoy freedom of speech, can criticize the government, and can form political parties.

There was only one thing not mentioned. The Russian people are unarmed.

They have no right to bear arms — to defend themselves and fight for their democratic rights. How can they fight against Putin’s heavily armed militia and the army? With kitchen knives?

Even that would be considered a crime! Not a single Western country came to support their fight as they did in other countries.

I am saying this in connection with Obama’s latest unconstitutional move to take away the right of American citizens to own guns. That probably will be the first thing on his agenda — to institute gun control — if he gets re-elected. To disarm the country.

If he succeeds, will his dictatorial appetite be satisfied?

I doubt it. Obama once said he wouldn’t mind being a one-term president. Now, in a recent television interview, he said he desperately needs to be elected to a second term.

During his trip to South Korea, Obama found foreign support from Dmitri Medvedev, his new Russian “friend,” who promised to help Obama get re-elected in exchange for the American technology Russia needs.

Unable to suppress his ambitions, President Obama issued stern language to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding his healthcare law, expressing confidence that “Obamacare” would not be overturned by the nation’s highest court.

On Monday, April 2 at a White House press conference, Obama said: “I am confident this [law] will be upheld because it should be upheld,” (a familiar threat found in the erstwhile Soviet press). Obama went on to say that overturning the law that he had signed would be an “unprecedented and extraordinary step,” comparing the court’s possible rejection of his law to “judicial activism.”

President Obama reminded everyone that the Supreme Court justices were “unelected,” while the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter, but the ruling is bound to have a significant impact on Obama’s chances for re-election — and ultimately his dictatorial tendencies.

Lev Navrozov is a journalist, author, and columnist who is a winner of the Albert Einstein Prize for outstanding intellectual achievements.

Karl Marx Preached "Fairness" Too


According to Nina Olsen, the National Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS who heads a staff of 2,000, the American tax system is “a huge convoluted mess.” Despite efforts to determine its length, it is variously estimated to be between 65,000 and 70,000 pages. “We looked at how many changes in the tax law (that) had occurred in the last year alone,” said Olsen, “it was something like 579 changes.” No one can keep up with that volume of changes, not even Ms. Olsen’s office.

As this is being written, President Obama is dominating the news cycle with his message of tax “fairness”, attacking men like Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate, for being wealthy and citing men like Warren Buffett and other millionaires and multi-millionaires who say they should pay more. It is a longtime populist, progressive message and it is a false message.

Chris Edwards who studies tax policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says, “What happens when you raise taxes for higher-income people; they reduce their productive activities—like working and investing and starting businesses—and they increase their unproductive activities—like tax avoidance and tax evasion. So governments really shoot themselves in the food if they raise rates too much.”

If it were not for “taxation without representation” Americans might still be “subjects” of the British Empire because, as any school child can tell you, the Revolution was fought over this issue and was kicked off in earnest by the Boston Tea Party when a tax on tea enraged the citizens of that time. There were, in fact, some ten other tea parties in the colonies.

The United States has the dubious honor of having the highest tax rate on corporations in the world. And some people still cannot understand why U.S. corporations are shipping jobs overseas and foreign corporations are reluctant to set up U.S. headquarters here.

In a recent opinion in The Wall Street Journal, Amity Shales, a former WSJ reporter and now the director of a George W. Bush Institute project on national economic growth, wrote that “The trouble is that lawmakers (especially at the federal level) insist on discussing tax reform in terms of fairness. Tax competition earns a mention from time to time, but only a mention.” She pointed out, as have others, that “states with no income tax grow faster than those with high income taxes.”

By framing the tax debate in terms of fairness and attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth, President Obama is pandering to his greatest constituency—the stupid among us. He was elected on the basis of a lot of gauzy, vague promises of hope and change, and with the adoring support of the mainstream media.

Obama’s problem is not about fairness or taxes. His problem is 13.9 million unemployed Americans, not counting those who are not looking for work or those working part-time jobs just to make ends meet. As a recent commentary on pointed out, “The number of unemployed Americans is larger than the entire population of Greece.”

The onerous, insane growth of the regulation industry at all levels of government is crushing the economy. “The U.S. national debt has increased by more than four trillion dollars since Barack Obama took office” and, with the aid of a Democrat-controlled Congress for the first two years of his term, he increased the national debt more than all the presidents combined from Washington to Clinton.

Believing that taxing rich people will close the gap is unbelievably stupid. As a Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out on April 10th, “The Obama Treasury’s own numbers confirm that the tax (on the wealthy) would raise at most $5 billion a year—or less than 0.5% of the $1.2 trillion fiscal 2012 budget deficit and over the next decade a mere 0.1% of the $45-43 trillion the federal government will spend.”

There is an alternative. It’s called the “Fair Tax” and you can learn more about it by visiting the website of the National Taxpayers Union.

By bleeding jobs through an insane tax system, a federal tax code filled with loopholes that even the IRS cannot keep up with, the highest corporate tax in the world, an idiotic immigration policy toward illegal aliens, and a burden on the fortunate few that still have jobs the United States is digging itself into financial collapse.

The federal government is broke. The states are broke. And with the advent of $4 and $5 gas pump prices—thanks to Obama’s anti-energy policies—the rest of us are getting more broke.

President Obama’s blather about “fairness” is straight out of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” and the Communist Manifesto with their emphasis the redistribution of wealth and the end of private property.


'60s leftist Angela Davis sees election as victory for those who believe
Published: 04/06/2012 at 10:05 PM

Longtime Communist Party USA member Angela Davis, the 1960s radical who twice was the party’s nominee for vice president, is calling Barack Obama a black radical, raising objections from her fellow travelers.

Davis, who also was associated with the Black Panther Party and was acquitted of murder charges in 1970, said the Obama election was a “victory, not of an individual, but of … people who refused to believe that it was impossible to elect a person, a black person, who identified with the black radical tradition.”

She said it was good to see people “dancing in the streets” over Obama.

The comments were reported by Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report, who declared: “Angela Davis Has Lost Her Mind Over Obama.”

“The ‘delusional effect’ that swept black America with the advent of the first black president has warped and weakened the mental powers of some of our most revered icons – and it has been painful to behold,” he wrote. “Earlier this month, Angela Davis diminished herself as a scholar and thinker in a gush of nonsense about the corporate executive in the White House.”

He explained Davis’ comments came at a conference on Empowering Women of Color at Berkeley, held in March.

“Angela Davis was saying that Barack Obama is a man who identifies with the black radical tradition. She said it casually, as if black radicalism and Obama were not antithetical terms; as if everything he has written, said and done in national politics has not been a repudiation of the black radical traditions; as if his rejection of his former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was not a thorough disavowal of the black radical tradition.”

Wright, the Chicago pastor under whom Obama was taught for 20 years, famously shouted, “God d— America!” to his congregation.

At All Voices, a commentary said Davis’ statements were “met with shock.”

“Angela Davis is an elder icon among many black radicals,” the commentary said. “She was for a long time a member of the Communist Party and was also in the Black Panthers. She was even once charged with murder though her only connection to the killing was the purchase of some guns involved. … However now it seems she is a well-behaved Obama supporter!

“As Ford points out Obama has not the slightest desire to belong to the black radical tradition. In fact, Obama in a national broadcast said ‘there is no black America … only the United States of America,” All Voices said.

“Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk show hosts should be able to have fun and get some mileage from Davis’s comments – Imagine even a former Black Panther and long time Communist says that Obama is a black radical.”

Ford said, “Angela Davis, who retired as a professor of the history of human consciousness, in 2008, seems not to be conscious of the fact that she is repudiating herself, her history, her comrades – all in a foolish attempt to artificially graft a totally unworthy Barack Obama onto the black radical tradition – a place he not only does not belong, but most profoundly does not want to be.”

Davis became part of the establishment in California by taking a job as acting assistant professor at UCLA in the 1960s. The regents tried to fire her for her participation in the Communist Party but were stopped by a lawsuit. Later they succeeded in removing her from the post because of statement such as that the regents “killed, brutalized (and) murdered” demonstrators.

She was tried because she bought some of the guns used when Jonathan Jackson, on Aug. 7, 1970, took control of a California courtroom. The judge, one of the jurors, the prosecutor and three black men were killed in the resulting gunfight.

Ultimately, she was acquitted of charges.

About the time the Soviet Union collapsed, Davis became a member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a reformist wing of the Communist Party USA. She recently has been speaking at Occupy Wall Street protests in Philadelphia and Washington Square in New York City.

U.S. Jamaican Embassy Honors Stalin Propagandist

Posted by David Paulin
Apr 2nd, 2012

In a ceremony befitting President Obama’s vision of a repentant postmodern America, a section of the U.S. Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica has been named after a propagandist for Stalinist Russia and darling of the international left – the controversial African-American stage actor and social activist Paul Robeson.

The Embassy’s Information Resource Center that boasts housing “the definitive collection of Americana” in Jamaica is now named the “Paul Robeson Information Resource Center.” During the renaming ceremony, U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica Pamela E. Bridgewater called Robeson a patriotic American.

Her remarks surely pleased Jamaica’s left-leaning government and its many anti-American elites. They regard Robeson as a kindred spirit — a famous ideologue of the old left who blazed a trail for them: stalwart members of today’s postmodern left. In recent years, they have pushed for slave reparations from Britain, promoted a chummy relationship with Cuba, and proven problematic partners in the war on Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Obama Risks Voter Backlash by Warning Court on Health Law

Greg Stohr and Seth Stern
Bloomberg News   
Thursday, April 5, 2012

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama has shown a willingness to campaign against the U.S. Supreme Court if the justices strike down his 2010 health-care law. It's a strategy that's as risky as it is rare.

With the court months away from a ruling, Obama ratcheted up the political stakes this week by saying a decision to reject the law and its requirement that Americans get insurance would be "judicial activism" by "an unelected group of people."

Taking on the court would mean fighting an institution that polls show is historically the most admired branch of government. That's one reason no major party nominee has made the court a central issue since 1968, when Richard Nixon tapped into voters' unease about rising crime by attacking the expansion of suspects' rights under Chief Justice Earl Warren.

"The risk any president faces is that criticism of the Supreme Court can backfire," said William G. Ross, a constitutional law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, who has written about the role of judicial issues in presidential campaigns. "People can perceive it as unduly disrespectful of an institution that commands tremendous amounts of public respect."

Declining Ratings

Still, the court's approval ratings have declined in recent years, and there are indications the public sees politics infusing the biggest rulings. In a Bloomberg National Poll conducted March 8-11, 75 percent of respondents said they expect politics will influence the health-care decision, while only 17 percent said they believe the case will be decided solely on its legal merits. Eight percent said they weren't sure.

Democrats are increasingly questioning the motives of the court and its majority of five Republican appointees. A decision striking down the law would almost certainly be along party- based lines, with the five Republican-appointed justices joining to invalidate the measure and the four Democratic appointees dissenting.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last week that if the court strikes down the law, "it will be a major, major issue in the elections, congressional and presidential, this fall."

Obama was training his sights on the court even before the health-care case landed there. The president used part of his 2010 State of the Union address to criticize a court decision letting corporations spend unlimited sums on political advertising, saying it would "open the floodgates" for special interests to "spend without limit in our elections."

Not Waiting

This time, he isn't waiting for the court to rule. Last week's three-day, 6 1/2-hour argument -- the longest in 44 years -- suggested the court might turn down at least the core of the health-care law, the insurance mandate. The session at times took on almost a political air as the justices debated whether Congress would be able to re-enact or repeal parts of the law.

This will mark the first time the court has ruled on a president's signature legislative accomplishment in the middle of his re-election campaign. The decision will probably come in late June, less than five months before the election.

Obama twice this week said he was confident the court will uphold the law, which would expand health insurance to at least 30 million people and reshape an industry that makes up one- sixth of the U.S. economy.

'Judicial Activism'

In almost the same breath, he went on the attack, saying a ruling against the law would be the very type of "judicial activism" Republicans have long denounced. The phrase has become a standard Republican line for criticizing Supreme Court decisions backing abortion access, expanding gay rights and limiting the death penalty.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the top Senate Republican, said an interview that Obama is "trying to intimidate them into making a decision on Obamacare that he favors." The Kentucky senator added, "And the threat is, if you don't decide the way I want you to, I will make you an issue in the campaign."

In remarks prepared for delivery to the Rotary Club of Lexington, Kentucky, today, McConnell said Obama "crossed a dangerous line this week" and needs to "back off."

Republicans have already begun to use the case for campaign purposes, posting an Internet advertisement last week that altered the audio from the argument to attack the law.

No Intimidation

Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, yesterday called the president's comments "the reverse of intimidation."

Obama was saying only that he expects the court to uphold the law on the basis of prior cases backing congressional power, Carney told reporters. "He's simply making an observation about precedent and the fact that he expects the court to adhere to that precedent," he said, adding that Obama spoke about the case only after being asked a question by a reporter.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama's re-election campaign, declined to comment on the prospect of the court becoming a campaign issue.
Outside observers questioned the wisdom of Obama's comments at a time when the justices might not have made up their minds. The president risks alienating Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the very ones he needs to support the law, said Grier Stephenson, a government professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

'Might Backfire'

"That he warned the court against doing it would almost be like a challenge to the court, and that might backfire," said Stephenson, author of "Campaigns and the Court." "You never know how individual justices might take being warned away from a particular decision."

Already, at least one Republican-appointed judge is bristling at the president's comments. A day after Obama spoke, a federal appeals court reviewing a separate part of the health- care measure ordered the Justice Department to submit at least a three-page letter stating whether it believes courts can strike down unconstitutional laws.

Obama's statement "has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Judge Jerry Smith told a Justice Department lawyer in court.

More broadly, Obama would run a political risk in attacking an institution that remains popular, though less so than in previous years. The court's approval rating stood at 46 percent, with 40 percent disapproving, according to a Gallup poll taken in September. As recently as 2009, the court's approval rating stood at 61 percent.

General Trend

"Even many Americans who disagree with individual decisions of the Supreme Court or even the general trend of Supreme Court decisions nevertheless retain immense respect for the court as an institution," Ross said.

Obama's approval rating was 42 percent during that same period. It has since risen to 48 percent, with 45 percent disapproving, according to the latest Gallup three-day tracking poll. A Gallup poll taken last month showed Congress's approval rating at 12 percent.

An attack on the court would mark a historic shift for Obama's party. The last Democratic presidential nominee to make the court a campaign issue was William Jennings Bryan, who lost the 1896 election after criticizing the court's rulings against labor unions and an income tax.

Roosevelt and Court

In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt refrained from attacking the court during his re-election bid even though it had overturned central aspects of his New Deal economic-recovery plan. Roosevelt waited until after his landslide victory to propose packing the court with as many as six additional justices who would be more sympathetic to his programs.

The idea went nowhere, in part because the public was uneasy about undermining the court's independence, said Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor and author of a book on public opinion and the Supreme Court.

"Probably Obama's best strategy would be to run quietly against the court rather than loudly, to allow the court to be an issue but not be seen as the primary attacker," Friedman said. "History suggests there's sometimes a danger in attacking the court too aggressively."

A criticism of the court would underscore the power the winner of the presidential election may have to reshape the nine-member bench. Four justices are 70 or older, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 79, Antonin Scalia at 76, Kennedy at 75; and Stephen Breyer at 73.

Ultimately, Obama's criticisms may have less to do with winning over swing voters than reminding his political base of the court's importance.

Focusing on the court tells his supporters that, "if he remains in office for the next four years, in all likelihood he will have the opportunity to appoint at least one or two justices to the court," Ross said. "And that could have a profound impact on the court."

ObamaCare Vs. LeninCare: U.S. Copies Soviets

Posted 03/23/2012
Investors Business Daily

The Obama Record: When Vladimir I. Lenin sought to remake Russian society into a "proletariats' paradise," he targeted three sectors for control: health care, banking and education. Sound familiar?

Of these three, however, Lenin viewed socialized medicine as the "keystone" to building his socialist utopia.

The Bolshevik leader told the Russian people everybody would be able to afford going to the doctor, not just the "greedy rich." He also claimed centralized control of the medical industry would "reduce costs" and end the "waste" from "unnecessary duplication and parallelism" in a competitive market.

In 1918, the USSR became the first nation to promise "free" universal health-care coverage. Fifteen years later, major flaws appeared in its grand social experiment, even to Western observers who for the most part romanticized it.

"Monetary motives have almost entirely ceased to operate in medical practice in Soviet Russia," observed a pair of sympathetic physicians from America and Britain who traveled to Russia in 1933.

As a result, "there still exists a great shortage of physicians and hospitals," they wrote in their report, "Red Medicine: Socialized Health in Soviet Russia." "Drugs are almost fabulously dear and scarce."

"Overworked doctors" couldn't handle the flood of new patients. A bloated new medical bureaucracy, led by the People's Commissar of Public Health, only worsened delays in treatment.

"The dissatisfied patients objected to the many formalities before they were allowed to see a doctor at the public clinic, and to the fact that the intervals before they saw him again were excessive," the 1933 report said.

"Other complaints have been of lack of hospital beds when needed."

It was not uncommon for patients to die while waiting in line to be admitted.

Rationing became necessary. Elderly patients were often turned away from care. Death panels appointed by the health commissar decided their fate.

"This committee decides as to patients needing treatment at a rest home or a sanatorium," the Western doctors wrote in their report.

As bad as Soviet medicine was, it was anything but "free."

"Most workers and their families receive free medical treatment as insured persons," the report said. "But the funds for this treatment do not come from insurance funds, but from general taxation."

This is how President Obama intends to pay for his own universal health-care plan, which will subsidize some 28 million uninsured and underinsured Americans through tax hikes on the rich.

In a little-noticed 2009 speech, Obama vowed to demolish "structural inequalities" in America and rebuild the economy on three new "pillars" — socialized medicine, banking and higher education.