12-Aug-2011, Part 2: Hysterical leftist rhetoric? Thank Marx ~ By Erik Rush

Finally, if Americans remain unaware of how fragile civilized society actually can be, they will be caught unawares when civil unrest rears its ugly head in their neighborhoods – which is exactly where the left want us. So, between the press and this administration, which uses every means of diversion to draw our eyes away from their dark designs, there are really no bombshells here.

It's evil, and it's scary – but it shouldn't be surprising.

Leftist power players did not expect Americans to fight for their liberty; it is no wonder at all that the voice of desperation is shrill and deceitful. Like the movie villain, finally cornered and unarmed, he begs for mercy, yet his shifty eyes dart about, seeking a way that he might still sucker the hero, turn the tables and undo him without mercy.

So let's not be suckered. This ain't the movies.

I should probably mention that much of my inspiration for this part of this series today came from watching a great movie earlier this morning. I just happened to see, "The Book of Eli," with Denzel Washington. You should watch it, if you haven't already; it will probably help you understand what I'm trying to say today.

I honestly believe this is what happens to societies that try to bribe the disenchanted with "entitlements" and welfare. It doesn't lead to a more peaceful society. It leads to a more expectant and demanding underclass.

 ~ Joseph Farah, on 9-AUG-11: You want to see face of 'terrorism'?

Speaking of movies, Erik Rush reminded me that I've watched enough films in the last few days that I think I now understand what leads to societal decay: 1) Greed (i.e., covetousness: wanting to have what other people have, even if it means ripping off their stuff from them); And, 2) The lust for power, so as to have the ability to take other people's stuff (in a way to make it seem right... Social justice, anyone?).

That's Marxism, folks! Plain and simple. Erik Rush's column provides another huge piece of the puzzle that I'm trying to put together today. Well, okay, I already get it, but I'm just trying to make sure that you do, too... Especially if you are prone to vote Democrat. (Some of my best friends do that, but I still love them.)

And on a side bar, allow me to say: No, I wouldn't ever suggest to friends that that they should go blindly pulling a lever for all Republicans on the ballot in November of 2012! That is NOT a good idea! Actually, what I would suggest is that we do our best to nominate the best of the tea party candidates in the GOP primaries and caucuses.

A good friend of mine, who happens to be a despondent non-voter, made a statement to me last night that caught my attention. Paraphrased: "All politicians are crooks, it doesn't matter what party they are in." I hope that I will someday have the opportunity to explain to my friend why that generality is not completely accurate. I will first need to understand how my friend defines, "crooks." 

Sure, if he is saying that politicians that want to stay in office do everything that they must do to "try to bribe the disenchanted with 'entitlements' and welfare," that would be correct because that is criminal. And then I'll tell my friend, "That's Marxism!!" I'm just sayin'...

RELATED COLUMNS:

• 12-Aug-2011, Part 1: Just who, exactly, is delusional? ~ By Robert Ringer

• 12-Aug-2011, Part 3: The mob is coming ~ By Phil Elmore

*     *     *     *

Hysterical leftist rhetoric? Thank Marx

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

August 10, 2011 ~ 2:06 pm Eastern

© 2011

Let us not be surprised that the rhetoric of Democratic politicians, the establishment press, union bosses, career civil-rights activists, actors, rappers and assorted liberal miscreants has taken a foray into the realm of the truly bizarre. Yes, it is stupefying that some of these individuals have the temerity to say what they've been saying in public lately, let alone with a straight face. Let us neither be surprised that a segment of our population is either so intellectually indolent or thoroughly indoctrinated that they receive these words without laughing themselves into a hernia.


In recent weeks, liberals have charged that Republicans and conservatives want to destroy America, burn and blow things up, starve old people and children, and lay waste to our economy. The tea-party movement has been blamed for the downgrade in America's credit rating by Democratic leaders at the highest levels, a most absurd calumny since the machinations behind said downgrade were in progress long before the tea party came to be.


While liberal charges against conservatives have always been on the inane side, lately they've been right off of a preschool playground. Calling American patriots Hitlerites, comparing them to history's worst tyrants and mass murderers (I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Kerry's "Jenjis Khan" made an appearance sometime soon) – it's the shock value that's calculated to drive people into a frenzy of irrational fear. Just examine how socialist factions have historically demonized the opposition in order to harden citizens to the final solutions these regimes eventually come up with; you will easily see the parallel to what is occurring in America.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

As absolutely correct as Robert Ringer is, have you ever wondered what would happen if all the government entitlement programs were suddenly cut off? Civil unrest would be an understatement, I'm afraid.

As the size of the government grows, complete with the many cradle-to-grave entitlement programs, so does the number of people who depend on the government. This Spring, we learned that 47% of Americans don't even have to pay taxes any more. The number of people that "share their wealth" through taxes continuously dwindles. The percentage of people that pays a large majority of taxes has decreased over the years. The progressives are doing all that they can to give more and more people more and more entitlements. Obamacare is the latest example.

Which brings us to the other side of the coin, and a further difficulty in being able to end entitlement programs. Are we even going to be able to get people elected that believe the way to compassion and charity is in ending the system of "compassion and aggression" as Robert calls it? Are we going to be able to find enough voters that understand what Robert Ringer and others have been saying about the evils of forced redistribution of wealth? With Barack Obama as President, doing his best (intentionally, I believe) to destroy our economy, how many more people will he be able to add to the unemployment roles, not to mention, needing other entitlements?

In my humble opinion, and I am as right as I can be, there really is only one way to solve this dilemma: We MUST get the economy growing again. The first thing that needs to be done is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Businesses will then be less afraid to start investing again. And of course, the cap-and-tax program must be defeated, or if it gets pushed through in the lame duck session, it will have to be repealed. Cut taxes, and then start cutting bureaucratic red tape that keeps new businesses from starting up. Only if the economy is legitimately growing again, through the free market system of capitalism, can we begin to whittle away at the entitlement programs, reducing the number of people depending on them, and proceeding on the principles that Mr. Ringer explains in this column. Just sayin'...

Only the most demented Marxist mind would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity – without government involvement.

Seems pretty simple to me. Nothing whatsoever to get tongue-tied about.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: July 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Now that BHO has appointed Donald Berwick – a man who has made it clear that universal health care necessitates redistribution of wealth – to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid health-insurance programs, it's yet another reminder that progressive politicians and non-elected bureaucrats believe they have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights.

All this gives new meaning to the word arrogance. Any civil human being knows, in his heart, that people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies and their own property. This simple truth is commonly referred to as "Natural Law." It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression.

If one believes it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something he does not want to do (e.g., give up part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed.

Where confusion comes about – and trouble begins to set in – is in the progressive's perversion of a unique human trait known as compassion. Compassion is why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities.

Charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire – to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it?

The progressive, however, does not get it. He tries to sever the link between compassion and charity, and instead links compassion with aggression – i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty.

After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed … homeless … in need of medical treatment … lacking money for education … the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force to give them the free services they desire is unconstitutional – and, more important, immoral.

Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can "help" people – whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care, or any other commodity – is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs.

If we are to steer the USA Titanic away from the gigantic Obamaberg that lies in the treacherous financial waters just ahead, the entire concept of entitlements – of any and all kinds – must be rejected by a majority of Americans. The notion that anyone has a right to anything other that what others are willing to pay him in a free market is progressive nonsense.

That includes such sacred cows as Social Security, Medicare, and especially unemployment benefits. Liberty-minded folks must not allow themselves to fall into the compassion trap that results in hopelessly tied tongues.

Many conservatives squirm for an answer when asked if they are not concerned about people with pre-existing conditions that have no health care. Of course they are concerned, as am I and most other people. But the solution is not to destroy our current health-care system and make everyone equally miserable.

If insurance companies are forced to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise everyone else's rates dramatically, which is the equivalent of a transfer-of-wealth program. If people refuse to pay such increased rates, their insurance companies will go out of business. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

On the other hand, if the government prevents insurance companies from raising their rates so they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, those companies will go out of business because they will quickly incur unsustainable losses. Same presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

Get the picture?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

He wasn't just whistling Dixie ~ By Henry Lamb

In this column, Henry tells us more about what Barack Obama meant by fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And folks, it isn't good. As you will read, and see (be sure to refer to the videos at the bottom of this page!), you will find out that despite what BHO says in scripted speeches about being for "free markets," when he's not at his teleprompter, he has a tendency to say what he really believes.

By Novemember 2, 2010, it is our hope that all citizens that don't believe in Socialism or Marxism will vote all of those people out of office. If you know somebody that doesn't understand that Socialism and Marxism results in the loss of their freedom, please make sure that they know before the election in November. And if they don't want to believe that Obama and his minions are Marxists, show them columns like this. It is up to us to make sure people are educated.

Henry Lamb doesn't write these columns just for the money. He is doing his best to give us the tools to educate those that may otherwise be ignorant of what is going on. It is then up to us to make sure we share the information (like what I am doing at this very moment). Just sayin'...

The fundamental change Obama promised is this: a change from America's historic constitutional republic form of government to a new, modernized Marxism delivered in little bites with nifty new sound-good names: health-care reform; card check; smart growth; cap-and-trade; comprehensive planning; and a laundry list of additional schemes, plans, and programs, all designed to tighten the government noose around the neck of every citizen.

Obama meant what he said, and he is doing exactly what he said he would do. He is fundamentally transforming the United States of America. He will undoubtedly continue this transformation until the voters transform the Marxist majority that now dominates Washington. Nov. 2 is fumigation day.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

He said he would "fundamentally transform the United States of America." He wasn't just whistling Dixie. He meant what he said, and he set out to do it the minute he took office.

People close to him knew exactly what he meant and what he intended to do, and were ecstatic at the opportunity to vote for him. The vast majority of the black community who voted for him had no idea what he meant, but voted for him anyway because he was black. Southern Democrats had no idea what he meant, but voted for him anyway because he was not a Republican. Independents thought he meant that he would "change" the process in Washington and offer some "hope" for political integrity.

What he meant is now painfully clear: Obama is on a mission to transform the government of the United States of America into a government based on Marxist principles, acting to achieve Marxist objectives, using the Marxist tactic: whatever it takes.

Obama is quick to ridicule (See Video 1 below) those who point out his socialist leanings. But in unguarded, unscripted moments – without the benefit of his teleprompter – he reveals what he really believes (See Video 2 below) about "spreading the wealth" and limiting personal income.

He went even further in a recent speech, explaining that we have to rebuild the economy on a stronger foundation. There is no stronger foundation, of course, than a market in which people are free to become willing buyers of products and services from willing sellers at prices mutually agreed upon. It is precisely when government begins to "improve" upon this concept that the market begins to weaken and becomes less than free.

Obama says he believes in markets that are "free and open" to all who are willing to work. Then he explains how he believes that government should intervene (See Video 3 below) in those markets to make them stronger. He says, for example, that government should provide loans to students to pay for tuition. Why?

There is no authority within the Constitution for the federal government to lend money to individuals. Moreover, in a free market, if there is a demand for tuition loans, the market will provide those loans. Government has neither authority nor need to be in the student-loan business. Nonetheless, Obama has put the private student lenders out of business and put the federal government in business where it has no business being.

Why? Obama's Marxist philosophy dictates that the more government controls, the better life is for all. If government controls student loans, then students will study in the fields government wants to exploit and will not study in those areas government wants society to avoid.

Obama believes that government should fund "basic research" and provide "incentives" for development in energy. This is not belief in a free market as he says; this is market manipulation, which is the essence of Marxism.

A free market cannot tolerate tax levies placed on certain products to discourage their use, while providing subsidies for other products to encourage their use. Nevertheless, government maintains enormous bureaucracies to intervene in the market with extensive taxes and subsidies in an effort to control the market.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEOS:

Video 1 - Ridicule

Video provided by PresidentObama3

Video 2 - He reveals what he really believes about "spreading the wealth" and limiting personal income.

Video provided by henryzeke

Video 3 - How he believes that government should intervene

Video provided by henryzeke

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

'Avatar' abominations: Get rid of those pesky humans! ~ By Dr. Ted Baehr

From WorldNetDaily I just saw the movie, "Avatar," last Tuesday (Jan. 12, 2010), in the 3-D version. What I told people about it was very similar to what Dr. Baehr and Mr. Snyder write in this column I came across tonight. I told people that I loved the cinematography, the special effects, and the plot was "interesting". However, as I explained, it was quite disturbing how anti-capitalism and anti-American it was. The part I missed saying, but that Baehr and Snyder mention, is how quite anti-HUMAN the story is. Hey, other than that, good movie and I recommend seeing it (in 3-D).

By Dr. Ted Baehr and Tom Snyder Posted: December 15, 2009 ~ 6:18 pm Eastern © 2009 Ecological disaster has long been a hallmark motif in many science fiction stories and movies, from "The Day of the Triffids," where alien plants take over earth to "Them," the classic science-fiction movie about ants transformed into giant arthropods by the atomic bomb. In the Hugo-winning science fiction novel "The Sheep Look Up" by John Brunner, (perhaps the ultimate environmental disaster novel), the final solution to stopping the environment from being destroyed by man is to kill off the most "wasteful" nation on earth, the American people! James Cameron's new sci-fi extravaganza, "Avatar," set to open Friday, says virtually the same thing, but on a bigger scale. The major problem with "Avatar" is that Cameron tells a story that hates people. In the story, a group of nature-worshipping aliens triumph over the greedy, evil human corporations that want to destroy their planet. The aliens eventually send the humans back to a dying earth to die. How marvelous! If you think this sounds as if Al Gore wrote the script for "Avatar," not James Cameron, you may be right. This theme of kill all the humans, especially the pro-American, capitalist humans, has long been an underlying message of the left-wing, environmentalist movement, beginning with Rachel Carson's hysterical plea to ban DDT, even though, to this day, there is no evidence that DDT is harmful to humans or the environment, and even though the use of DDT can save millions of human lives from the deadly disease of malaria. Many millions of malaria deaths later, along comes "Avatar" to, once again, cast human beings, especially militaristic capitalists, as the super-villain and to create heroes out of a bunch of pagan primitives who have achieved an idyllic, but impossible, at-one-ment with nature. For hundreds of years, the pagan, communist ideas expressed in this movie circulated among a threadbare group of outcasts with dirty fingernails and greasy hair, who shared their obtuse, occult ideas amongst themselves with manic, alienated glee. Now, James Cameron has made these insane views the major bulwark of a very spectacular movie, but the spectacle does not make these Neo-Marxist views any more coherent, rational or uplifting. READ FULL STORY >

Full-scale rebellion ahead ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: January 09, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The underlying reason for America's past greatness is the freedom of her people. As the people's freedom is diminished, so is America's greatness. Once lost, neither freedom nor the nation's greatness can be easily regained. The people's freedom has been dramatically eroded in recent years, and the Marxist majority now in control of the federal government is trying hard to extinguish those few flames that still flicker. The underlying principle of America's system of government is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence: Governments derive their just powers "from the consent of the governed." People are free when they control their government. When government controls the people, there can be no freedom. For most of the 20th century, the philosophy of Karl Marx permeated most of Europe and made strong inroads in America. The strong anti-communist movement of the 1950s collapsed when political power was abused. Except for a brief period during the Cuban Missile Crisis, communism, socialism and Marxism faded from the American vocabulary. Instead, "give peace a chance," the war on poverty and environmentalism filled the popular agenda. The new agenda required new government involvement. Lyndon Johnson's 1960s War on Poverty promised to end poverty through government supervision and redistribution of wealth. Detroit's "Model Cities" program was the predecessor of today's "Sustainable Communities" agenda. Detroit provides a great example of why these Marxist policies should be avoided at all costs. Reduced to its lowest common denominator, Marxism is government managing society. Freedom is society managing government. The current arrogant, Marxist majority in Washington could not care less about what the people want or say. They are convinced that they know best how society should be managed, and they are hell-bent to manage it the way they want. READ FULL STORY >

Czar's 'communist manifesto' scrubbed from Net

From WorldNetDaily

Founded group with 'commitment to fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism' Posted: August 30, 2009 ~ 7:15 pm Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily Last week, WND reported the official communist-oriented manifesto of a radical group founded by Obama's environmental adviser, Van Jones, was published in full on the Internet. Just hours later, the manifesto was removed and the entire website was taken down. It is, however, still available in web archives. As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist. Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. STORM's official manifesto, titled, "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet. A WND review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism." "We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," reads the manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral." [CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING ENTIRE COLUMN]

'Castroturfing' America ~ By Erik Rush

By Erik Rush Posted: August 06, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

I recall an episode of the 1970s documentary "Scared Straight" in which one of the teenage subjects (whom the authorities were attempting to turn from his evil ways via direct exposure to convicts) divulged that it was his intention to enroll in technical school to learn about security systems. That way, he reasoned, he would have carte blanche with respect to any establishment he wished to rob. So I believe was the objective of one young Barack Hussein Obama when he set about the study of constitutional law. This does make sense; in many ways, President Obama's machinations have been akin to those of a stalker or bullying neighbor who has sufficient knowledge of the law to keep his actions just inside the law, while smugly flouting all notions of morality and ethics. Our president's haste in passing the "health care reform" bill (America's Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009) currently being considered by Congress has been unprecedented; the absent perspicacity one might expect given the prospect of a trillion dollar expenditure has been stifled to a degree due to complicity on the part of the establishment press. Obama admonished Congress to get this leviathan legislative beast passed prior to the August recess to avoid facing what they are facing now: The ire of the American people, some of whom are actually beginning to comprehend the profound dangers connected to this bill. Most Americans – even if they did not support Obama for president – are not yet prepared to believe that he is telling lies of the magnitude that he indeed is telling about the health care reform bill; perhaps most do not believe he is capable of doing so, or that so many would stand idly by while such a calamity transpired. But that is just what is happening, and Obama's haste has been to ensure that as much of his agenda is manifested before too many do discover that he is essentially "Castroturfing" America. For Obama's part, much of his duplicity has been overlooked because he is black; the motives and integrity of black Americans – and our illustrious "first black president" in particular – have been considered beyond reproach for reasons I have previously elucidated in this space. Other of Obama's shortcomings and designs are being deftly spun by the establishment press, which is essentially an arm of the administration. The president's dedicated Marxism is overlooked for an additional reason, itself being twofold: Many Americans simply aren't aware of his historical political leanings. Some don't have a working knowledge of what Marxism is, regarding its inherent and profound evil as an ideology. Ergo, they know little and suspect less regarding what this administration really has up its sleeve, that being the installation of a Marxist oligarchy comprised of politicos, activist ideologues and former titans of industry. For those of us who do perceive these deeper machinations, recent developments across the political landscape have been like those in a sinister cult film. Sometime in early 2007, certain pragmatic pundits began speaking on the danger of an Obama administration ushering in full-blown socialism. What has become apparent given the audacity of the "Audacity of Hope" man and the frenetic advancement of his agenda is that we are not actually looking at the advent of full-blown socialism. We're looking at the advent of full-blown communism. [Emphasis mine] [CONTINUE READING]

Obama to America: 'Who's your daddy?' ~ By Erik Rush

By Erik Rush Posted: July 23, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Recently, I was discussing President Obama's so-called health care reform proposal with someone in the health care industry. This person was not in favor of the legislation, enumerating many of the reasons it is a horrible idea; still, he was somewhat unclear as to the motivation of those in government, particularly Obama, who are almost perceptibly aching to get it through. In addition to the reasons not to implement this variety of health care reform, which fall into the realm of common sense, historic and economic concerns, we discussed our disquietude as regards the level of power doing so would give the federal government, the potential consequences of which are not being discussed in the establishment press. "Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason they are seeking that degree of control is that – like others before them – they're simply evil?" I asked. After all, despots and tyrannical governments have never come along and said: "Hi, I'm evil. Would you mind putting the future and fortunes of yourself and your posterity into my hands? Thank you very much." Typically, they devise a manner by which they might acquire the power desired before they manifest their true intentions. More often than not it is in the form of a real smoothie who represents himself as something wholly other than what he is. Apropos Americans who support the currently proposed health care reform and President Obama's other obscenely expensive and risky schemes (remember that oft-uttered charge from the George W. Bush years?), the questions remain, ones that have many American brains in knots right about now: Why would people who owe everything they have to a system that promotes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness wish to advance a system that promotes stultification (death), slavery and poverty? Why would those who have secured such blessings opt for changes that will drastically curtail the opportunity for subsequent generations to enjoy the same blessings? Considering some who are of this class – primarily politicians – the answer is easy: These are people who are incapable – or perceive themselves as incapable – of prospering within the framework of a competitive system wherein production and contribution are recompensed commensurate with the inherent value (of the contribution) to society. The reason they favor socialism and Marxism over representative republics and capitalism is that they and others like them stand to profit more in the long run within a system in which their particular talents – duplicity, nefariousness and guile – supplant those of our current system. [CONTINUE READING]

None dare call it Marxism ~ By David Limbaugh

By David Limbaugh Posted: July 03, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 All right already. I won't call Obama a Marxist in this column. Instead, I'll point to some signs that indicate that Barack and Karl might well be soul mates. At least, they have similar attitudes about capital, labor and profits, er, surplus value. Liberals, even those of the Marxist variety, take umbrage when you point out their ideological kinship with Marxism. I suppose this dates back to the days when being a communist was tantamount to being an enemy of the United States, in that there was a global communist movement intent on – and coming darn close to – world domination. Though global communism has been defeated, there remains a strong contingent among us, whose nerve center is the Democratic Party leadership under President Obama, committed to obliterating America's free market. Without getting into the intricacies of Marxist theory, suffice it to say that at the core of this political and economic philosophy is a belief in the historical class struggle. The capitalist (bourgeois) exploits the industrial worker (proletarian) by underpaying him and adding on unnecessary charges to the prices of goods and services, driving up costs to the consumer, and pocketing the profits. In "Basic Economics," Thomas Sowell puts it this way: "Profits may be the most misconceived subject in economics. Socialists have long regarded profits as simply 'overcharge,' as Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw called it, or a 'surplus value' as Karl Marx called it." The theory is that under socialism or Marxism, these surplus charges would be eliminated and goods and services would become more affordable. But in reality, socialism doesn't make goods and services more affordable, but less so. As Dr. Sowell explains: "The hope for profits and the threat of losses is what forces a business owner in a capitalist economy to produce at the lowest cost and sell what the customers are most willing to pay for. ... Under socialism (there is) far less incentive to be as efficient ... much less to keep up with changing conditions and respond to them quickly." With less incentive for efficiencies and cost control, the prices of goods might well be higher. Profits are not arbitrary charges added on to the costs of producing goods and services; nor are they attributable to artificially high prices charged by those motivated by greed. Indeed, writes Sowell, most of the great fortunes in American history were amassed when entrepreneurs were able to reduce costs and charge lower prices and to increase their volume sales to mass markets. You get the point. Capitalists don't view profits as evil or the product of greed. Their opponents – call them Marxists, fascists, socialists, radical liberals or whatever – do. Which brings us back to Barack Obama. Both his father, Barack Obama Sr., and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, were communists. His church of choice was one of black liberation theology, whose Marxist roots are inarguable. He associated with far leftists on the "organizing" streets of Chicago, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Mentorship and associations are one thing, but what have Obama's words and actions revealed about his attitudes toward labor, capital, profits and government control of business and industry? [CONTINUE READING]

Obama: I Am Not A Socialist

Barack Obama has declared to The New York Times that he is not a socialist. Regarding the picture on the right, that would be referring to the Obama Minions at the New York times...

Barack Obama has declared to The New York Times that he is not a socialist. “Let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no,” Obama said when asked directly. “If you look at our budget, what you have is a very disciplined, fiscally responsible budget, along with an effort to deal with some very serious problems that have been put off for a very long time.” [Continue reading at The Right Perspective]

digg story, submitted by NewsGuy2005

The enemy within - By Hilmar von Campe, former Hitler youth

Enemies within are more dangerous than terrorists. People and nations living in moral defeat are blind and therefore cannot detect them and believe their lies. For America, a moral cleanup is essential to overcome the enormous problems we are facing and achieve victory in the global ideological war, which is either freedom or slavery. Related story: Obama Wants A National Civilian Security Force. We Should All Be Asking…WHY?

read more | digg story

Marxist tsunami won't douse liberty - by Henry Lamb

It is not just a victory for the Democrats; it is a Marxist tsunami. The principles that have guided President-elect Obama to this point are deeply rooted in Marxist philosophy. He is now in the position to infuse govt with this philosophy through his appointments and legislative agenda. But a Marxist tsunami cannot extinguish the flame of freedom.

read more | digg story