Posts Tagged ‘Big Brother’

Narcissist-in-Chief Obama Posts A Campaign Tweet That Could Have Come From 1984’s Big Brother

May 1, 2012

Worship Big Brother.  Worship your Messiah.  Worship Obama’s Government-as-God.  Take his mark on your fight hand or your forehead:

Breitbart sums it up thus:

In other words, there are no red or blue states … just the Obama States. You have to love the narcissism of a president who posts a picture of himself at the center of America, presenting himself as greater than the country, all of which is united under his hopey-changey administration.

This is 1984-type stuff. This is the most polarizing president in American history, and he’s busy telling us that we’re all united under his auspices. War is peace. Poverty is wealth. Polarization is unity. United States is Barack States.

This shocking narcissistic chutzpah is also being decried on Weasel Zippers.

Don’t forget to worship Obama in the Temple of Barack.  You know, given that “The Party” built a Temple to him and everythingEven the left cringed at Obama’s over-the-top Barackopolis hubris.  They should have realized that it pointed to a man who was all about himself and agreed with the mainstream media’s depiction of him as “sort of God.”

Obama is sick.  His many sycophants in the most partisan and poisonous propaganda media are sick.

He’s leading us to ruin.  And demanding that we worship him for doing it.

Now don’t forget to have your Two Minutes Hate at Emmanual W. Bushstein.  Or the Obama media will find out and add you to Obama’s enemies list.

Obama The Fascist: Let Me Keep Counting The Ways

January 11, 2012

Update: It’s not very surprising that the VERY NEXT DAY after I publish this we find out that Barack Obama  plans to create “an Internet ID for all Americans.”  FASCIST!!!

In April of 2o11 I wrote a VERY long (you know, because of all the facts and documentation I had) piece entitled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”

My “favorite” Obama is a fascist article is an oldie but goodie available here.  As you read, it just keeps getting creepier and creepier the way Obama liberals have repeatedly targeted our children (like Freddie Krueger, but without the claws).  And if you don’t believe me, remember this little gem?

And who can forget that adorable little plastic-eyed little Hitler Youth girl:

There is something just …. seriously WRONG with Democrats since they found their messiah.  Like the Stepford wives after coming back from the clubhouse.  Only our Democrats were more than a little bit off even before Obama or they wouldn’t have voted for him in the first place.

Since that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” article I’ve written lots of follow ups about this little fascist species of weasel, such as (from the oldest to the most recent):

‘Independent’ NLRB My Foot: Obama Agency Pounds NLRB To Destroy Business’ Right To Locate In Right To Work States

US Is in Even Worse Shape Financially Than Greece. And Why Is That In The Age Of Obama???

Obama – Who Demonized Iraq And Afghanistan During Bush Administration – Now Warns Against Sending ‘Mixed Messages’ In His ‘Kinetic Action’ In Libya

Obama Rejected His OWN LAWYERS When He Waged His ‘Not-War’ With Libya And Ignored Congress

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Obama Jackbooted Blackshirt Fascist Thugs Alert

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

Even Head Of Obama’s Own Jobs Council Immelt Says Obama’s NLRB Attack On Boeing An Incredibly Stupid Idea

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

DEMOCRATS Set Up America For 2008 Collapse, And Barack Obama Became Their KING

Liberal Paul Krugman Says Government Should Lie To American People About Space Aliens To Impose Liberal ‘Solutions’

Democrat N.C. Governor Promotes Fascist Suspension Of Congressional Elections In Name Of Crisis

Democrats Continue Their Dirty Dealing Corrupt Crony Capitalist Boondoggles

Housing Under Obama Worst Since Great Depression – With Poor And Minorities Most Screwed By ‘Hope And Change’

Harry Reid And Senate Democrats Invoke ‘Nuclear Option’ In Pursuit Of Their Goal To ‘Fundamentally Transform’ American Democracy

Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Obama, Media Propaganda ALL Support Occupy Wall Street

Obama-Endorsed Cockroach Jon Corzine Acted Like A Democrat With Investors’ Money

Obama Keeps Governing By Crisis; Used ‘Fast And Furious’ As Ploy To Take Away Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

Newsflash: Obama Stimulus Was A Leftwing Boondoggle Created To Financially Benefit Obama-Connected Liberals

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Obama Says Bush Increasing Debt $4 Trillion In 8 Years Was Irresponsible And Unpatriotic. So Obama Increasing Debt By $6 Trillion In 3 Years Is WHAT?

Fascist Dictator Obama Ignores Separation Of Power And Imposes His Will By Tyrannical Fiat With NON-Recess ‘Recess Appointment’

Barack Obama And His Fascist Crony Capitalist Connections To MF Global, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup – And A Coming $600 Trillion Collapse

On Obama’s Viciously Divisive, Partisan And Unconstitutional Power Grab In Making Non-Recess ‘Recess’ Appointments

You put it all together – or just be lazy and take each piece separately – and Barack Obama is a FASCIST.

Here’s the latest installation about Barack Obama, our beloved Führer.

I mean, let’s play a little game called “IMAGINE IF BUSH DID THIS“:

Homeland Security Given Green Light to Monitor American Journalists
Posted on January 9, 2012 at 11:44pm by Tiffany Gabbay

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that emerged from the Department of Homeland Security in November, Washington has written permission to collectand retain personal information from journalists, news anchors, reporters or anyone who uses “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to DHS, the definition of personal identifiable information can consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”

RT adds:

Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.

According to RT, the website “Fast Company” reports that the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been in play since at least early-2010 and that the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

(h/t: RT)

Barack Obama has been an abject disaster for civil rights.  He is, according to the left, WORSE than the hated civil rights trampling George W. Bush ever was.  Even the Nation acknowledges this fact.  Even the Daily Kos acknowledges this fact.  Even the Socialist Worker acknowledges this fact.

And, yes, he’s targeting United States citizensObama can order you murdered now.

The Democrat Senate is going to vote on whether Obama can create a police state.  According to the obviously leftist ACLU:

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.

There are just a lot of things that “the ordinary homeowner” would say “can’t happen in the United States.”  Except they ARE happening.

Good thing Obama is watching those journalists.  Yes, they love their Führer now, but can he trust them?  It is better to keep them under surveillance to make certain of their continued loyalty, yes?

Democrats must suppress free speech and control the media narrative in order to advance their agenda.  That’s why they’ve been trying so long to do precisely that a la the Fairness Doctrine and other overtly fascist euphemisms.

History has a way of repeating itself:

…..Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

It’s bad, but in the age of Obama – just before the coming of Antichrist – it’s going to get a LOT worse.

Union Liberal Fascists Find Latest Crisis To Exploit In Wisconsin

February 19, 2011

The chaos of Cairo has come to America.  Brought by liberals, of course.  The motto of fascism is, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  Compare and contrast:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberationHence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.”  — Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, pp. 42-43.  Copyright 2007.

And then consider:

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” — Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, November 2008.


“Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it..” — Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2009.

I know what you’re thinking, liberal: “That bastard Jonah Goldberg got his hands on a time machine so he could summarize the Obama administration philosophy and label it as “fascist” before they said it back in 2007.”

There’s always a crisis with fascists.  And fascists are always saying “Carpe diem.”  And there’s also always a scapegoat.  Big Brother had Emmanuel Goldstein.  Adolf Hitler had the Jews.  Barack Obama has George W. Bush.  Heck, Soviet big government totalitarians even managed to blame seventy years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine, having executed all the other viable scapegoats.

And now the tens of thousands of mostly bussed in unions have their new crisis and their new scapegoat in newly elected Republican Governor Scott Walker:  Via Yahoo News:

Wisconsin Budget Debate Protests Prompt Nazi Signs About Governor

So much for toning down the hate-filled, partisan-inspired, Nazi-comparing that has been going on in the United States for the past decade. County, state, and anti-budget protests have erupted into 25,000-strong rallies in Wisconsin against the governor’s plans to eliminate collective bargaining while increasing pension fund and health care payments. This week a heated debate over the Wisconsin state budget is raging non-stop, complete with signs sporting the Nazi swastika and bearing slogans comparing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler have made appearances, according to CNN.

Hot Air has a collection of pictures in which liberal union activists in Wisconsin directly call Scott Walker “Hitler” and carry signs of him with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face.  Emmanuel Goldstein is back; this time he’s going by the secret identity of Scott Walker.

I’ve pointed out before in comments that I don’t care if liberals depict conservatives as Nazis and Hitler.  What I despise about them is how they attack conservatives as vile for doing things that they for the most part didn’t do (and see here and here and here and here and here) and then relish in doing again and again the very thing they demonized as being evil.  Liberals spent eight savage Bush derangement syndrome years comparing Bush to Hitler (example and example).  And then managed the chutzpah to react in hysterical outrage when a few conservatives did the same thing to Obama that they had done a billion times more to Bush.

And, just for the record, that control of the mainstream media to use propaganda to define the conservatives who DON’T want the “hope and change” that radical socialists have always offered is yet another defining element of fascism.

Well, there really IS a crisis, of course, but it’s not what lying liberal fascists say it is.  And if they want to see who the real Hitlers and the real Nazis are, they have only to stop screaming and put down their signs long enough to look in a mirror.

For example, the crisis is most certainly not that Governor Walker called out the National Guard to use as strikebreaking thugs to attack unions.  That’s a lie by lying liberals and lying liberal unions.  The reason Walker called the Guard is to staff the prisons while liberal union prison guards abandon their jobs and the public safety to go strike.  And in trying to create a crisis by denouncing that effort, apparently liberals actually WANT murderers and rapists to be allowed to escape and start murdering and raping again.

It also isn’t the tax cuts for businesses that liberals are blaming for the tax shortfall.  Unless, of course, businesses large and small alike should have all their assets seized so the money can go into the pockets of big unions and then pour into the Democrat Party machine.

The crisis is the massive unfunded union pensions that are now bankrupting one city after another, one county after another, one state after another.

You want a crisis to ogranize around and scream about?  Try that one.

Not that liberals would ever honestly face the real problems even once in their lives, or look at themselves long enough to see the Hitler in their own eyes.

Leftwing Warning Of ‘Obama’s Euthanasia’ Too

August 12, 2009

We are being told by the propagandists (including the propagandist-in-chief in the White House) about “rightwing efforts to frighten senior citizens.”  And we’re being told about “angry mobs” of  protesters at community town hall meetings are being “organized” (by the community organizer-in-chief).

But it isn’t true.  This health care legislation is no longer about the right vs. the left; it is about life and death.  There are plenty of independents and Democrats who are hollering mad at Democrats pushing ObamaCare.  And it turns out, there are leftwing blogs warning of “death panels” as well.

The Daily Beast is no conservative bastion.  In fact, they went after me once for daring to suggest that conservatives do unto Obama as liberals had unrelentingly done unto Bush:

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

My response, for the record, was to say, “‘One particularly unhinged culture warrior.’  I actually liked the ring of that.  Thought about making it my byline.  Michael Edenone particularly unhinged culture warrior.”

I offer that interaction only to provide you with my personal experience to assure you that the Daily Beast is hardly a bastion of rightwing plots.

So it is somewhat notable that Lee Siegel has an article entitled, “Obama’s Euthanasia Mistake” on the Daily Beast.

The Republicans carping about limitations on end-of-life care have a point. Lee Siegel on why the plans Obama is endorsing are dangerously sympathetic to “cost effective” end-of-life treatments.

For those of us who believe that the absence of universal health care is America’s burning shame, the spectacle of opposition to Obama’s health-care plan is Alice-in-Wonderland bewildering and also enraging—but on one point the plan’s critics are absolutely correct. One of the key ideas under consideration—which can be read as expressing sympathy for limitations on end-of-life care—is morally revolting. And it’s helping to kill the plan itself.

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

This is the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Obama told Diane Sawyer in June that government should “study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t.”

Sawyer then asked him: “Will it just be encouragement? Or will there be a board making Solomonic decisions?”

Obama replied, “What I’ve suggested is—is that we have a—a commission that helps—made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best—best practices.”

When Sawyer pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.

This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Leave aside the argument for ending life when its prospects for continuing seem too painful or too hopeless. Leave it aside because this is one case where Kant’s beautiful categorical imperative—act as though your particular deeds should be a universal law—will never apply. We know that theft and murder are wrong because if they were universally committed, the world would explode in chaos. But the decision to end your life before nature wrenches it away is as rational and humane as the decision to prolong your life by whatever means necessary. Life is too specifically precious to turn its final phase into any type of universal practice, whether it’s enforced by custom or by law.

As for the argument that fruitless tests and “senseless” procedures are bankrupting the health-care system, that is an insult to the intelligence. No one knows which tests and procedures will be effective beforehand. No amount of “study” and research is going to address the particular case and the particular condition, let alone the particular, desperate, irrational will to live—which, in animal terms, is pragmatic and rational.

(And anyone who thinks that we are not all animals—even the “experts” Obama is so enamored of— must read David Rieff’s remarkable account of his mother Susan Sontag’s refusal to accept her doctors’ verdict of imminent death. The will to live does not suddenly become an error of judgment just because a “system” cannot “afford” to accommodate it, especially when the system has the means to do so.)

Most consequential of all, even if limitations were put on certain tests and procedures, the only people who would be affected by it would be the people who, presumably, are the ones meant to be rescued by the very plan that would be imposing those limitations. The financially strapped, in other words, who are the intended beneficiaries of the health care plan would be the only people forbidden access to expensive life-extending technology. The rich will always be able to afford it.

Once the technology to extend life has become available, you cannot restrict its availability. That would be like only letting some people use cell phones. Such technology is a drain on the system? Then save money elsewhere. It’s ironic that lacking the will to tax the very wealthy, some of health-care supporters in Congress now wish to save money by limiting end-of-life options to the economically burdened.

Where is Obama coming from? Why is such an apparently humane man not more strongly condemning a utilitarian initiative straight out of Victorian England? A good part of the explanation has to do with the University of Chicago Law School milieu that Obama comes out of. By far, the most influential figure in that world is Judge Richard Posner, who teaches law at Chicago and publishes streams of pompous, robotically written books that are much praised and little read.

Judge Posner is both an enthusiastic advocate of euthanasia and an energetic eugenicist. He once wrote of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ ideas about eugenics—Holmes believed that a just society “prevents continuance of the unfit”—that “we may yet find [Holmes’] enthusiasms prescient rather than depraved.”

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama’s nominee for regulatory czar, is a disciple of Posner and believes in what Time magazine describes as “the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating a regulation.” In other words, Sunstein believes that the lives of younger people have a greater value than those of the elderly. This, obviously, would have a radical bearing on end-of-life considerations.

End-of-life treatment is still under consideration and would be a tiny sliver of Obama’s health-care package. But it is a highly volatile sliver. Betsy McCaughey, who singlehandedly killed the Clintons’ health-care initiative 15 years ago with her infamous and infamously inaccurate cover story in The New Republic, claims that this small passage in the bill “would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” Not quite. But—painful as it is to concede anything to an ideological hack like McCaughey—it’s uncomfortably close.

The section, on page 425 of the bill, offers to pay once every five years for a voluntary, not mandatory, consultation with a doctor, who will not blatantly tell the patient how to end his or her life sooner, but will explain to the patient the set of options available at the end of life, including living wills, palliative care and hospice, life sustaining treatment, and all aspects of advance care planning, including, presumably, the decision to end one’s life.

The shading in of human particulars is what makes this so unsettling. A doctor guided by a panel of experts who have decided that some treatments are futile will, in subtle ways, advance that point of view. Cass Sunstein calls this “nudging,” which he characterizes as using various types of reinforcement techniques to “nudge” people’s behavior in one direction or another. An elderly or sick person would be especially vulnerable to the sophisticated nudging of an authority figure like a doctor.

Bad enough for such people who are lucky enough to be supported by family and friends. But what about the dying person who is all alone in the world and who has only the “consultant” to turn to and rely on? The heartlessness of such a scene is chilling.

Yet many liberals seem drawn to such fantasies of power and control. We live in a highly quantified society, entertained on all sides by divertissements that reduce human life to cute little anecdotes illustrating the morality of statistical, utilitarian analysis, from Malcolm Gladwell to Freakonomics and beyond.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times Magazine unfathomably ran an entire essay arguing, in effect, for a eugenic attitude toward end-of-life treatment written by Peter Singer, a Princeton University “bio-ethicist” whose views are squarely in line with those of Posner and Oliver Wendell Holmes. The essay drove the conservatives opposing Obama’s health-care plan into even greater apoplexy, as it should have. The only point on which it convinced was that euthanasia is morally acceptable only as an antidote to tenure.

One of Obama’s most alluring traits has been what some see as a literary bent that relishes complexity, irony, and even the mystery of the human personality. Let him turn toward that part of his nature and leave the sterile precincts of utilitarian social and legal theory behind. He should immediately and publicly declare his commitment to not placing economic hurdles in the way of people who want to prolong their life, or the life of their loved ones. In that way, he would take the air out of charlatans like McCaughey. And he would calm the fears of people who, far from being right-wing fanatics, are in clear-eyed possession of perhaps the only universal truth there is. No one wants to die.

I’m glad that people on the left are realizing what is going on with this plan and attacking it accordingly.  Whether I’m “one particular unhinged culture warrior” or not, my fear and loathing of this plan is quite genuine, and quite justified.

When you see what key Obama officials intimately involved with the health care agenda have said, it should make your skin crawl regardless of your political party.

The idea of stopping health care reform just to make Democrats look bad is not a project I’m interested in.  If the Democrats’ health plan was good, I would simply ignore it and go after them over something else (just being honest).  But the problem is it’s NOT a good plan; it’s a terrible plan.

And euthanasia by denial of medical resources – what you might call ‘passive euthanasia’ – is right around the corner.

Global Warming: When The Pseudo-Science Fails, Send In The Psychologists

August 21, 2008

Alternative title: Send in the Psycho-babblers.

The so called “science” of global warming is increasingly being revealed for the straw man it always has been (see my articles: “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming“, and “What You Never Hear About Global Warming“, as examples). Yet the more evidence that discredits the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the more hysterical its proponents become.

NASA nutjob James Hansen, (who used to be a leading proponent of “global cooling,” by the way) is a classic example of the WAY over-the-top hysteria:

The global warming debate, a top NASA scientist says, is over. Now, he adds, the issue has turned urgent.

“We have reached a critical point,” NASA scientist James Hansen said Tuesday in an interview. “If we don’t get on a different path within the next several years, then we’re going to pass tipping points in the climate system with large consequences that will be felt especially by our children and grandchildren.”

The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen was in St. Paul with Arctic explorer Will Steger to participate in several forums Monday at the Science Museum of Minnesota. He was one of the first scientists to issue warnings about global warming more than two decades ago.

Already, the Earth’s surface temperature is 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago. Many climate scientists predict it will rise many more degrees in the next century, melting glaciers, raising sea levels and leading to other ecological changes.

So here we are: an incredibly weak scientific case for what amounts to an enormously costly socialistic redistribution program, and global warming advocates becoming increasingly over-the-top in their rhetoric. What comes next?

Dennis Prager has said that he majored in Soviet studies to learn how the other side thought. And he has said that his studies of Soviet totalitarian communism revealed numerous parallels with the mindset of the American liberal.

So how did the Soviets deal with their dissidents?

They put them in gulags and treated them as mentally ill.

Well, in the global warming debate, enter the white-coated psychobabblers.

A frankly incredible article begins as follows:

Psychologists determine what it means to think ‘green’

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living “green” your business.

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

“We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,” says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. “We know what messages will work and what will not.”

During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources.

Now, you might dismiss these statements, “We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do.” You might even ridicule them (Remember KAOS villain Siegfried from Get Smart? In one show he said to a pigeon, “Fly UP!” And when the bird sat there he leaned over and said, “So, you will not fly. We have ways of making you fly. Do you have any relatives in the park?“). But when white-coated “professionals” – who literally have the power to have people committed, take such a radical stand about an issue completely outside of their field and come to such conclusions about people who don’t happen to believe in global warming, it should be alarming.

If that isn’t freaky enough, one passage in the middle of the article reads:

• News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people’s beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

His presentation will detail a decade of American attitudes about climate change. His new experiment, conducted in May, illustrates what he says is a public misperception about global warming. He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort.

In other words, just a relative few seconds’ worth of skeptical treatment opposing the doctrine of man-caused global warming sufficiently innoculated viewers such that well under half continued to buy the garbage they were being fed.

This is beyond disturbing. The long-politically correct American Psychological Association has essentially determined that only the mentally ill don’t accept man-caused global warming, and that any exposure to alternative views increases the “sickness.”

This is right out of Stalinism. Even worse, it’s right out of 1984 with “Big Brother” controlling the not only the lives but the very thoughts of everyone. The essence of totalitarianism is megalomania: the need to have absolute control over everyone and everything. And anyone who came to think differently from the official doctrine of Big Brother was subjected to “treatment” until he was capable of believing that “two and two made five.”

Lev Trotsky wrote in Literature and Revolution:

“The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training … Man will make it his goal…to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will.”

And in its article on “the new Soviet man,” Wikipedia says:

The three major changes postulated to be indispensable for the building of the communist society were economical and political changes, accompanied with the changes in the human personality.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy’s prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.

Author and philosopher Bernard Byhovsky, Ph.D. writes: “The new man is endowed, first of all, with a new ethical outlook.”

Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism.

Thus the parallels between the aims of the American Psychological Association (the concept of the “construction of the new man” angle becomes quite clear in the article) and the aims of the “new Soviet man” become clear. And the logical implications between the potential tactics of global warming alarmists and the historical tacts of the gulags become clear as well.

These people are genuinely scary. All they lack to transform society in a terrifying way is the power to fully implement their ideas.

Obama’s “Education Birthright” Underscores Sweeping Socialist Agenda

June 9, 2008

What’s the difference between liberalism and socialism?

Whatever it is, Obama has clearly crossed the line between the two.

Socialists believe that “the people” – which has always invariably ended up meaning “the government” – should own and control the means of production. And the candidate of “change” is clearly proposing more and more of just that very thing.

During the final primary night remarks of Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota, Barack Obama said:

It’s not change when [John McCain] offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college — policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt…

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.

If a college education is a “birthright”, then you and I and everyone else classified as an American (and a lot of Democrats are very quick to point out that “undocumented immigrants” are “Americans” too), are entitled to it. And only someone really awful, like that awful President Bush – or that awful McCain, who as we all know is exactly like Bush (just ignore McCain’s entire career and listen to any Democrat’s demagoguing instead) – would deny it to you. Come on, it’s your birthright.

Students should have the absolute right to treat their college years with the same contempt that many of them treated their K-12 years, shouldn’t they?

Now, whenever one person is entitled to a right, it by necessity follows that everyone else in society has the duty imposed upon them to provide for (read “pay for“) that right. So let’s be straight here: you OWE me the PhD I’ve always wanted; heck, you probably owe me room and board for the next several years while I study for it and write my dissertation.

What’s that, you’re happily working as a janitor who wants to go to college the way most people want root canals? That’s okay; you can just get extra busy mopping those floors so you can fork over the dough for me to get mine. It’s my birthright. You owe me; Barack Obama said so.

Barack Obama’s words that clearly call for a socializing of education so that every American can have his “birthright” of a free college education follows a number of serious similar moves over sweeping aspects of our economy and our very way of life.

According to a major energy study, it will cost $45 trillion to combat the bogeyman of “Global Warming.” It’s too big of a problem for the free market to solve; only Big Brother can do the job.

Democrats just tried to get an energy bill passed that would have actually provided no new energy but imposed an additional $5 trillion to the cost of energy providers’ bottom lines by imposing penalties on energy emissions. The fact that the bill would have resulted in higher energy cost when Americans are already paying record prices, and the fact that it would have put more of the economy under direct federal control than at any time since the 1930’s was not a relevant factor to the many Democrats who voted for it.

Recently, in a very political decision, the Interior Department used the Endangered Species Act to declare polar bears as an endangered species – in spite of the fact that their population has doubled since the 1970s – because they might be endangered within the next 45 years or so if global warming alarmism is true.

The Endangered Species Act was written in 1973, at the very time climate Cassandras were saying that the world’s climatologists were agreed that we must prepare for the next Ice Age (see Science Digest, February 1973).

As George Will recently commented:

Now that polar bears are wards of the government, nad now that it is a legal doctrine that humans are responsible for global warming, the Endangered Species Act has acquired unlimited application. Anything that can be said to increase can – must – be said to threaten bears already designated as threatened.

Want to build a power plant in Arizona? A building in Florida? Do you want to drive an SUV? Or leave your cell phone charger plugged in overnight? Some judge might construe federal policy as proscribing these activities.

Thomas Jefferson – who presumably knew something about how our government was actually supposed to work, wrote:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Yet these are the very types of judges that Barack Obama has vowed to appoint if he is elected president.

The same activist judges who once found penumbras and emanations in the Constitution that somehow gave them license to create from scratch a right of a woman to kill her child, the same activist judges who recently overrode an overwhelming majority of California voters to radically redefine marriage, can do pretty much whatever they want.  And a swath of decisions are revealing that they want a lot.

Now that a federal judge can step in at darn any time he or she wants and put the kibosh on anything that could add to “global warming” and harm polar bears, and now that we are on the verge of socializing our health care industry – which represents more than 1/6th of the U.S. economy – it only makes sense to socialize our education system as well.

Barack Obama promises sweeping changes if he is elected president, and there is no question he fully intends to bring unparalleled changes to the United States. He intends to change our country from the classical liberalism of our history as a Democratic Republic – in which Americans have been free to choose for themselves, and been held responsible for themselves and for their choices – and embrace a form of socialism that has already bogged down the economy of Europe.