Posts Tagged ‘communism’

White Working Americans With JOBS Obama’s Biggest Problem

October 9, 2010

If you don’t have a job, or if you are just pathologically predispositioned to look for a handout, then you likely support Obama with your hand held out.

But what happens if you actually HAVE a job?

In that case, you are likely to realize that if Obama puts money into someone else’s pocket, it’s probably the very same dollars minus the generous cut that end up going into his and his fellow Democrats’ campaign contributions – that he took out of YOUR pocket.

And you are an enemy of the state, as far as your Marxist-in-Chief is concerned.

AP-GfK Poll: Working-class whites move toward GOP
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer   – Wed Oct 6, 7:40 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Working-class whites are favoring Republicans in numbers that parallel the GOP tide of 1994 when the party grabbed control of the House after four decades.

The increased GOP tilt by these voters, a major hurdle for Democrats struggling to keep control of Congress in next month’s elections, reflects a mix of two factors, an Associated Press-GfK poll suggests: unhappiness with the Democrats’ stewardship of an ailing economy that has hit this group particularly hard, and a persistent discomfort with President Barack Obama.

“They’re pushing the country toward a larger government, toward too many social programs,” said Wayne Hollis, 38, of Villa Rica, Ga., who works at a home supply store.

The AP-GfK poll shows whites without four-year college degrees preferring GOP House contenders 58 percent to 36 percent. That 22-point bulge is double the edge these voters gave Republican congressional candidates in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats won House control and then padded their majority.

Ominously for Democrats, it resembles the Republicans’ 21-point advantage with working-class whites in 1994, when the GOP captured the House and Senate in a major rebuke to the Democrats and President Bill Clinton. The advantage is about the same as the 18-point margin this group gave Republicans in 2004, when President George W. Bush won re-election and helped give the GOP a modest number of additional House and Senate seats.

“Obama ran as a centrist, and clearly he’s not been that,” said GOP pollster David Winston. “People who have been part of our majority coalition are looking to come back to us.”

Working-class whites have long tilted Republican. Many were dubbed Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, when some in the North and Midwest who had previously preferred Democrats began supporting conservative Republicans.

The Democrats can hardly afford further erosion from a group that comprises about four in 10 voters nationally. […]

In addition, working-class whites are likelier than white college graduates in the poll to say their families are suffering financially and to have a relative who’s recently lost a job. They are less optimistic about the country’s economy and their own financial situations, gloomier about the nation’s overall direction and more critical of how Democrats are handling the economy.

“Democrats are more apt to mess with the middle class and take our money,” said Lawrence Ramsey, 56, a warehouse manager in Winston-Salem, N.C. […]

“The country hasn’t come up the way it should have under Obama,” said Barbara Schwickrath, 64, a clothing store employee from Brooksville, Fla.

Some points occur to me:

1) Of course the idiot mainstream media concludes that working-class whites are racist for abandoning Obama.  But if that is the case, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter clearly must be a black men, because the same working-class whites who are dumping Obama dumped Clinton and Carter in nearly the same numbers.

It could be that these working-class whites are dumping Obama because he is a failed president who is hurting the country with his terrible policies.  But that is something that the mainstream media could never bring themselves to consider.

2) It could be that working-class whites recognize that Obama – who got elected presenting himself as a “centrist” – has fundamentally deceived them.  The Senator who was “THE most liberal” – even to the left of Bernie Sauders, who ran as a SOCIALIST – has turned out to be the most liberal president of all time.  Surprise, surprise.

It just might be that working-class white Americans are angry that a man who got elected on the promise that he would transcend partisan and ideological politics instead became the most polarizing president in American history.

Thanks to Obama, more Americans of all groups have come to their senses and abandoned the liberalism that has clearly failed.  According to a very recent Gallup poll, 54% of Americans now label themselves “conservative,” versus only 18% who drink the Kim Jong Il KoolAid and call themselves “liberal.”

Think I’m going too far?  Consider that Democrat candidate for governor Jerry Brown is a man who illegally traveled to communist Cuba so he could hobnob with tyrant communist dictator Fidel Castro.  And a man identified as a “traitor” against the United States set up the meeting.

And this happened in 2000.  When Bill Clinton was in office refusing to do anything about it, and back before Castro realized that communism wasn’t working.

And, if Jerry Brown manages to get elected, we’ll get to put that thesis as to whether communism works or not to the test yet again.

3) But the real problem white working-class Americans have with Obama is simply because they’re WORKING.  And they know that Obama is an enemy of working people, because he is an enemy of the businesses that give them jobs.  In particular, it is the small businesses who employ most Americans that are Obama’s real enemy.

It’s a shame.  People with jobs should be seen as the greatest asset to a nation.  But to Obama, the people who fund government with their taxes are enemy number one and persona non grata.

Advertisements

Ground Zero Mosque And Moral Idiot ‘Tolerance’

September 7, 2010

The New York City Community Center – with its proposed site being just two blocks from Ground Zero – is moving forward.

The basis of that forward movement is political correctness and “tolerance.”

New York Mayor Bloomberg told us why our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq:

“I think our young men and women overseas are fighting for exactly this,” Bloomberg said. “For the right of people to practice their religion and for government to not pick and choose which religions they support, which religions they don’t.”

It might be news to our soldiers that their real motivation for fighting overseas is so Muslims can build a giant mosque virtually on top of the site where Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans.

CAIR leader Nihad Awad has repeatedly said that Muslims didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.  And, of course, anyone who suggests that Muslims had anything to do with 9/11 is a bigot.

But the religion whose culture would murder a Christian for giving a Muslim a Bible – let alone building a Christian church near one of their hallowed locations – turns out to be quite judgmental, indeed.

Sorry, Nihad, but here’s the real face of Islam:

This is the latest Time Magazine cover, featuring the face of a woman whose story makes me want to vomit, then cry:

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

Nihad says that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (the terrorists were like Barney the Dinosaur worshipers, rather than Muslims), and that all Muslims were appalled by the destruction.  The thing is, I remember it very differently.  I remember that the name “Osama bin Laden” was so popular after bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans and brought the Twin Towers down that many embarrassed Muslim countries banned it.  And I remember footage from all over the world such as in the Palestinian territory and in Barcelona of Muslims literally cheering in the streets in celebration of the 9/11 attack.

So please don’t insult me by trying to tell me something so profoundly stupid that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.  I’m not that dumb.

9/11 was a religious act, committed in the name of Allah and Islam (which means submission, not “peace”).

And please don’t insult my intelligence with politically correct nonsense, suggesting that it is my “tolerance duty” to enable a Muslim shrine to be erected on top of an act of Muslim horror.

Let’s say – by way of analogy – that some Jewish group bombed the Dome of the Rock.  Let’s say that, oh, ten years later, another Jewish group – saying that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the group that bombed the Dome of the Rock – wanted to build a temple there.  You know, to advance the cause of understanding between Muslims and Jews.  And let’s just say that the rabbi behind the project had made a number of incredibly controversial statements (more here), having been frequently caught saying one thing in Hebrew to Jewish audiences, and another thing in English for media consumption.

Do you think that would fly?  Or do you think that the Muslim world would erupt in the greatest outrage the world had ever seen?

Would Nihad Awad or CAIR condemn as “bigoted” any Muslim who opposed that construction?

Anyone who says that Muslims would allow such construction is a liar, a fool, or, more likely, a lying fool.

Germany – which had experienced the bitter ultimate results of Nazism – banned the Nazis from their culture.  They never wanted to experience that evil again.  But our liberal progressives in the ACLU fought hard for the rights of Nazi groups to flourish here in America.

This isn’t about “tolerance.”  It’s about political correctness.

Political correctness is not merely an attempt to be more inclusive or to make people feel better about themselves.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it.  Early Marxists implemented this tactic long ago and continue to execute it today — and now the American liberals who share the Marxist worldview are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language and hence the “acceptable” ideas and values.  Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

Radicals who want “fundamental transformation” push for anything that will destabilize the hated current system.  They begin in revolutionary mode, inviting change, attacking the status quo.  They are permissive, attacking established and transcendent authority, advocating total sexual freedom, and promoting radical artistic and cultural experimentation.  But once they gain power, however, they are determined to defend the new status quo that they have created.  The questioning of all authorities gives way to the supreme elevation of a new authority that must not be questioned.  Permissiveness gives way to ruthless suppression.  Subversion of order gives way to the imposition of a new order.  And the previously “tolerant” revolution will systematically and ruthlessly suppress any “change” that “hopes” to overcome the big government totalitarian system they have imposed.

Both the Soviet communist (“Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”) and the Nazis (“National SOCIALIST German Workers Party”) were socialist.  Both came from the radical left.  The only major difference between the two was that communism was an international socialist movement, whereas Nazism was a national socialist movement.

Socialism is a germ that can easily become viral and violent.  It’s in the very DNA of socialism.  And those that play with it play with fire (given that it is a political philosophy that has been responsible for the murders of more than 100 million people in peacetime alone).  I say that in recognition of the fact that 55% of Americans now recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist (as were both his parents and all his mentors before him).

American liberals and progressives served as the useful idiots for communism – including Stalinism – just as they served as useful idiots for fascism – including Nazism.  All one has to do is look at the 1920s and 30s, when Democrat progressives were cheering first Marxism and Joseph Stalin, then Italian fascism and Benito Mussolini, and, yes, Nazi fascism and Adolf Hitler.  FDR‘s cabinet was filled with admiring bureaucrats who had gone to Germany and Russia and Italy to study the “marvelous developments” that were taking place in these planned societies.

And now they are useful idiots for Islamic radicalism as well.  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf has Muslim Brotherhood provenance, and is an adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam.

And only useful idiots wouldn’t understand that.

What we are seeing is that it’s not “religion” that Democrat progressives hate per se; it’s orthodox Christianity, which has been the guiding force that shaped the American cultural history they now wish to “fundamentally transform.”  And if these progressives can use Islam to undermine and supplant Christianity, they will do so.  They will use Islam to attack the Christian hold on American culture.  They will use anything at their disposal to burn Christianity out of American culture.  So they can fill the vacuum with themselves and their poisonous ideology.

Christian conservatives [and Christians are conservative because our Messiah revealed Himself and His teachings two millennial ago, rather than a two-year election cycle ago] are “intolerant,” say Democrat progressives.  “Just look at how they are treating these wonderful Muslims who merely want to build a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero.”  You don’t want intolerant – and therefore bigoted and evil – people like that leading America. Liberals then hold themselves up as morally superior to their “intolerant” conservative opponents, hoping that no one perceives enough to ask why liberals are so tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism but so profoundly intolerant of Christian conservatism.

That’s the real reason the ACLU fought for Nazism in the town of Skokie, where Nazi death camp survivors lived after fleeing the horror of Europe.  And that’s why the ACLU is fighting for Islamic jihadism today.  Because, as their founder said, “communism is the goal” – and anything that undermines the current Christian and free market system of America takes them closer to their cherished “goal.”

The problem with the ideological left trying to harness Islam to destroy the even more hated enemy Christianity is that the left don’t realize that they have a tiger by the tail.  They have bought into their own rhetoric that they can satisfy Islamic jihadism by appeasing them (by serving them Israel on a platter, for example).  But Islam is even more determined to have its way, and even more determined to employ whatever means are necessary – including catastrophic violence – to get it, than the socialist left.

In inviting Islamic fundamentalism to come into America and take root (as it is already doing in our “tolerant” prison system), it is as though the left are using a deadly plague to destroy their opponents, not realizing that they have no cure for the plague themselves.

As for the New York City Community Center, the Muslims certainly should be able to build their mosque (or community center, or whatever they want to call it).  But they should build it elsewhere, rather than near the site of the worst Islamic terrorist attack in history.  They should not be allowed to build a shrine commemorating their conquest of the Twin Towers.

If they are determined to build their “center” two blocks from Ground Zero, then they should be required to live up to their own disingenuous rhetoric: build a multicultural religious center that features a Jewish synagogue and a Christian church, such that men and women of all three monotheistic faiths may come and worship side-by-side together.

The fact of the matter is that they most certainly WON’T do the above.  Which proves that their stated goals are lies, and that what this construction really is is a political act.  If the “community center” is built, it will be a symbol of coming victory for radical Islam; it will be a demonstration that our enemies can violently bring our mightiest buildings down, and then erect mosques on top of their destruction.  And we’re such weak, insipid, pathetic moral fools that we actually help them supplant us.

The Ground Zero mosque (I don’t care if the mainstream media won’t use the most accurate description anymore) is provocation.  That is the entire idea: to suggest doing something despicable, and then point a finger at the American people over their “intolerant” reaction.

Meanwhile, the real insult to the American people is the giant hole where the World Trade Center used to be.  Because there was a time when we were the sort of people who would have immediately built an even greater building there – and defied our enemies to knock that one down.  Now we’re the sort of people who spend ten years twiddling our thumbs (both of which seem to be left thumbs) and listening to useful idiots lecture us.

Much the same way those ACLU attorneys lectured the Jewish Holocaust survivors living in Skokie, Illinois during the Jimmy Carter era.

Helen Thomas, Liberal Journalist, Useful Idiot And Typical Progressive Bigot

June 7, 2010

What liberal White House press correspondent Helen Thomas recent said is simply mind boggling:

On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”

“So, where should they go?”

“Go home. Poland, Germany.”

“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”

“And America and everywhere else.”

How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???

And go back to Germany?  Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying?  “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”?  That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen.  I mean, how dare you???

Helen Thomas is a liberal.  That’s easy to prove:

Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

I don’t know.  Maybe “objective” would have been nice.

Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately.  It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left.  They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing.  Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics.  Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

Of this effort, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”

And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.

Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”

Obama Suffers From Kennedy-Confusion Syndrome

July 25, 2008

If you start thinking you’re John Kennedy, take two of these and then check yourself into a rubber room.”

There’s little question that Obama seeks to be viewed as the next Kennedy:

Even before Obama clinched the nomination, Germans viewed him as “the new Kennedy.” Over the next few days, that notion is likely to get conveyed to American voters, which is precisely what Obama wants.

His speech in Berlin is being compared to President John F. Kennedy‘s appearance in the divided city, at the height of the Cold War, which drew ecstatic crowds and became the stuff of legend. (Another part of Obama’s effort to model himself after Kennedy: giving his convention acceptance speech before a large crowd at a nearby stadium, as JFK did in 1960.)

Obama spoke to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin – his greatest turn-out ever. But It’s frankly rather hilarious how the event has unfolded.

Obama originally wanted to insert himself into the Brandenburg Gate scenery of Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech. But that was just a bit too much of a brazen display of ostentatious arrogance for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. So Obama had to find another location for his Obamessianic rally so he could show just how much Europeans love him.

So he picked the Victory Tower, another historic landmark.

This one was made famous by Adolf Hitler, who used it as the phallic-symbol backdrop for his own political rallies. Maybe great messiahs think alike. From Uber-messiah to Oba-messiah. And the same people that cheered the first one are now equally enthusiastic about the second one.

One can only go so far in any Hitler-Obama comparison, obviously; for one thing, nobody really knows just WHAT Obama stands for, do they? But like Obama, Hitler spoke also spoke in broad generalities to paint beautiful images, and used his personal cult of charisma and his power as a speaker to rally the people to himself.

But Obama doesn’t want to identify himself with Hitler, but with Kennedy. So let’s look at that relationship instead.

When President Kennedy came to Brandenburg Gate and spoke on June 26, 1963, he said:

There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin…

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free…

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

Kennedy presented a vision of freedom from tyranny, and Reagan’s speech anticipated his fulfillment of that vision a short time after he delivered it on June 12, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

And just how is Barack Obama in any way part of that vision? How is the man who said that liberating 25 million Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein – from rape rooms, from being taken away by secret police and never seen again, from mass graves – was a bad idea? How does that deserve to share the stage with Kennedy’s vision of freedom and his willingness to stand up and fight tyrants to secure that freedom?

Barack Obama is a guy who didn’t even bother to waste his time going to see some of the injured American heroes recovering from wounds sustained fighting for the freedom of human beings in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But there’s another thing.

Given that Kennedy and Reagan both stood up against communism (and in Reagan’s case, stood against it over and against the continual opposition of Democrats in Congress), it is pertinent to ask: what really is the difference between the Communist Party that Kennedy and Reagan fought to defeat and The Democratic Party of Barack Obama today, anyway?

Let’s see, Karl Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie; the Democrat’s “two Americas.” Check.

The belief that the evil wealthy proletariat enslave the poor by seizing and hoarding the means of production. Check.

The demand to seize the assets of the evil proletariat in the name of the people. Check.

The liberal-Democrat ideology of a “separation of church and state,” which does not exist in our founding documents but is very much a part of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Check.

The theology of Barack Obama’s long-time spiritual mentor – black liberation theology – comes right out of Marxism and does little more than view Christianity through Marxist eyes toward a Marxist end. Check.

President Kennedy had the vision to realize the need to cut taxes to stimulate economic growth.  But Barack Obama clearly doesn’t share the same principles.

Pardon me for having a really, REEAAAALLLLYYY hard time seeing John Kennedy in Barack Obama.

As Dennis Prager has put it many times, “A 1960s Kennedy liberal is a conservative today.”  It is most definitely NOT Barack Obama.

Where’s that guy who said, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy“? I think we can use him now.