Posts Tagged ‘We are all socialists now’

New York University Liberal Celebrates Gang-Raping Of “War Monger” CBS Journalist By Egyptians

February 16, 2011

Liberals are people who need to be exposed so that everyone can see how truly hypocritical and in fact truly evil they are.

Invariably, liberals end up disguising who they are; they will run as moderates, fool the foolish masses, and then the gloves come off and the fangs come out.  And then they are widely rejected by Americans who don’t want the vile garbage liberals euhamistically label “social justice,” and they go back to trying to deceive the masses until they can demagogue their way to their next opportunity to sink their fangs into Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty.

Take Barack Obama.  Here’s a guy who spent two full years governing as an off-the-wall over-the-top liberal.  What were the magazine covers?

And even better:

What does the story somehow morph into once the people rise up in rage and vote out all these liberal scum?

Now, some fool might argue that that’s just elite media liberals, and Obama doesn’t have any control over what other liberals put on their magazine covers.  But that isn’t true.  Obama started this whole “I’m just like Ronnie!” thing off by carrying a book about Reagan around.  And then a few of his advisers went around and made comparisons.  And that started an Obama-friendly blitzkrieg of comparisons of Obama to Reagan, and how Obama actually has all the greatest of Reagan’s qualities while harboring none of his nasty policies.  And then Obama appears with his outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs and refers to himself as “the Gipper,” which was clearly Ronald Reagan’s most famous line as an actor and a line he repeated often as president.  These people are not stupid; it was all quite intentional. 

The American people did not like the liberal face that Obama showed them.  So Obama said, “Don’t look at my face with the fangs!  Look over here at my Reagan sock puppet!”

Let me just take a moment to assure you that Ronald Reagan never tried to deceive people into thinking he was really a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

But rather than looking at the false face of liberalism that liberals want you to look at, the face they show you when they realize that the people have seen their ugly and hateful soul and rejected it, let’s look at the real face of liberalism.

Here’s the latest story exposing why you don’t want liberals in charge of anything but the insane asylum and convict inmate popuations:

This afternoon, atrocious news surfaced that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been subjected to “brutal and sustained sexual assault” while covering the celebrations in Egypt.

According to a full statement released by CBS:

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS Correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a 60 MINUTES story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering.

There will be no further comment from CBS News and Correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.

When the news initially broke, I was on Twitter as people began talking about it. Almost everyone was shocked, appalled, and deeply sympathetic for Logan, except for one man.

That man was Nir Rosen. Rosen is a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. When he realized what he said was outrageous and others began informing him of that, he deleted his worst comments. However, some were captured using a “screen grab.”

The ones grabbed show Rosen letting everyone know that he “ran out of sympathy” for her and that everyone should “remember her role as a major war monger”. Also stating, we have to “find the humor in small things”. Rosen also deleted his bio as people began to tweet him. (click pictures to enlarge.)

These are not the kinds of things anyone should say, let alone a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. If you would like to contact NYU about the matter, click this link for the contact information.

The left love to depict themselves as being “pro-woman.”  But they’re not; they hate real women unless those women are hard-core liberal feminists.  If you’re a successful and independent and accomplished woman such as a Sarah Palin, those fangs come out.  And nothing would make them happier than were Sarah Palin to be viciously gang-raped like that poor CBS correspondent in Egypt.  Nothing.

Of course, it’s the same way with the left being “pro-black.”  Unless your a black person who has any ideas of thinking for yourself.  Then you become an Aunt Jemima (e.g. Condoleeza Rice) or an Uncle Tom (e.g. Clarence Thomas) or a house negro (e.g. Colin Powell).  It doesn’t matter how successful or how accomplished you are; if you’re a conservative or even a Republican, those tolerant liberals will viciously call you a “nigger” and want to send you back to the cotton fields.

This crap never ends with the true racists among us, by which I mean liberals.  It just happened yesterday, as a liberal described successful black conservative businessman Herman Cain as a “monkey in a window” and used terms like “coon” and “sambo” to refer to him.  Every day in every way, it is LIBERALS who want to put a racial box over everyone and everything and if there’s a black person who wants to think for himself or herself, they have no compunction whatsoever of “putting that monkey in its place.”  And you remember that it was the Democrat Party that fought for slavery against Republicans who died to stop it.  And you remember that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party whose victims consisted of black people and Republicans.

And it’s not even just conservatives or Republicans.  Even liberal Hillary Clinton got “the treatment” when the more uber-liberal Obama ran against her.  She was mocked as a woman; Obama’s team played the race card on her.  These are the kind of people who will devour even their own if doing so will get them a step closer to the power to shape and control other people’s lives that they crave.

According to liberal writer and liberal university fellow Nir Rosen, CBS correspondent Lara Logan is a war monger.  And therefore it is a joyous thing that she was repeatedly violated as a woman repeatedly by the very Egyptian people that liberals hailed as being so wonderful even as the gang rape was happening.

Some liberals are more disciplined.  The fangs and the claws only come out when they believe they’ve gained the upper hand in the political debate.  Many others are just so ugly that they wear their fangs and claws and think their ugliness is lovely.  But one way or another the fangs come out and their ugliness is revealed.

The American people foolishly gave people very much like Nir Rosen a chance to govern in 2008 (I’m thinking of the open Marxists Obama appointed like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and the many union thugs who serve as footsoldiers for Obama).  Then there are the craftier liberals like senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is in fact a slum lord.  These people are as thick as cockroaches in Obama’s White House.  In 2010, these same fang-bearing liberals got the most massive political asskicking since the 1920s when the people rightly saw them for what they are.

Don’t give these liberals another chance.  Because whether they’re showing it at the moment or not, there is a vile monster just beneath the surface of these people, just waiting to emerge.

Update, February 17: Nir Rosen resigned, citing a “right wing attack machine.”  Informing us that his university did not think he’d done anything to merit a reprimand (I mean, all he did was rejoice in the vicious gang-rape of a journalist), he said as his reason for leaving:

“US academic establishments are already under attack from the right, and my Center at NYU stood to be harmed by the pack of dogs sent to take me down, and I did not want to harm a very important center or the work of people I greatly admire.”

Let me first say that if you want to see a pack of dogs, take just a few moments to look through Lara  Logan’s eyes at the 200 men who jeered and celebrated while others were taking turns raping her.

I have written over a thousand articles on this blog.  You can search through them one by one; what you will find is that – as “hateful” as liberals want to claim I am – I have NEVER rejoiced in the killing, death, physical suffering or rape of a single person who had a different political ideology than my own.  And I can honestly say that if I were to come across a liberal progressive woman being raped, that I would rather be dead than not do everything I could to stop such an evil attack.

But that isn’t the way liberals like Nir Rosen think.  In fact, as I think of what the left has gleefully done to Sarah Palin or how they exhalted in the lingering death by cancer of Tony Snow, I have come to learn that many, many liberals are exactly like Rosen.

You see, liberalism and Nir Rosen are the victims.  They always see themselves as the victims, and they will use any distortion of logic and any rhetorical ju jitsu to make themselves the victims no matter what they said or did to bring righteous anger down on their own heads.  It is who they are and it is what they do.  You see, celebrating the vicious rape of a woman is a good thing as long as that woman has done something to offend liberal ideological sensibilities, and liberals are good people for pointing that out.  It’s the conservatives who don’t like rape that are the malicious attack machine.

Conservatives constantly find themselves in the difficult position of trying to reason with complete moral idiots who are about as capable of moral reasoning as cockroaches.

Advertisements

It’s Official: Democrats LOVE Their Socialism

February 11, 2010

So what do you say when you find out that 53% of Democrats and 61% of liberals are perfectly at home with socialism?

What do you say when you find out that 17% of RINO Republicans say they’re quite at home with the concept?

I reach for the nearest receptacle that can hold the entire contents of my stomach and hurl.

Redistribute that.

This is what socialism is according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You likey?  Can I bring my family to live in your house, drive your car, and eat all your food?  I mean, I hope you won’t be one of those capitalist pigs and object to me bringing my welfare mom and our 19 snot-nosed kids to spread your wealth around.

There’s a pooh-pooing view that the people who said they were positive to “socialism” simply didn’t understand what the word meant.  On this view, of course, there are a lot of profoundly stupid people in this country – and the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats/liberals.  Take careful note that NONE of these stupid people are Sarah Palin supporters, who are smart enough to know a lot better.

As for me, I tend to take people seriously.  If they claim to be positive toward socialism, I take their words for it.

You might remember Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters using the “S” word and saying she wanted to socialize privately-owned businesses:

You might remember all the hullabaloo when Barack Obama was caricatured as the Joker with the word “socialism” attached to it:

(It wasn’t such a big deal when liberal Vanity Fair did the same thing to George Bush sans the socialism, but the left have always wholeheartedly embraced their hypocritical double standards).

Barack Obama got himself in trouble when he let the tiger out of the bag about how he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Joe the Plumber responded, “That sounds like socialism.”  Oh, how the Democrat spin doctors started to spin and spin and spin some more.  Obama isn’t a socialist, we were assured.  And my, my, anybody who thinks something like that is just talking crazy.

And then Obama got elected, Democrats passed Barry Hussein’s gigantic $3.27 trillion dollars “stimulus,” and the liberal Newsweek was triumphantly asserting:

It’s funny how we do this song and dance: oh, no, Democrats aren’t REALLY socialists!  How on earth can you possibly believe that?

Well, yes, they are.

And now we’ve got the polling results to prove it.

Bottom line: Barry Hussein and the Democrat Party are every single BIT as socialist as they think they can get away with in a nation that would hate socialism if they only had the first freaking clue about our history and about the history of socialism.  They are insinuating mega-doses of socialism into American life as we have never seen before in this country.  And if they thought they could impose more socialism on us, they would do it.  Period.

——————————————————————————————–

February 4, 2010
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
Majority of Americans positive on capitalism, entrepreneurs, free enterprise, and small business
by Frank Newport

“Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.”

“Socialism” was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll. Americans were asked to indicate whether their top-of-mind reactions to each were positive or negative. Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.

Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.

In similar fashion, there is little distinction across ideological groups — conservatives, moderates, and liberals — in the ratings of several of these terms, but more significant differences in response to others, such as big business, the federal government, and socialism.

These differences will be discussed in the sections that follow.

Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define “socialism” or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans’ reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them — an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to “socialism” across ideological and partisan groups:

  • A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
  • Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

Capitalism

“Capitalism,” the word typically used to describe the United States’ prevailing economic system, generates positive ratings from a majority of Americans, with a third saying their reaction is negative.

As was the case with “socialism,” there are differences across population segments.

  • Republicans are significantly more positive than Democrats in their reactions to “capitalism,” although majorities of both groups have favorable opinions.
  • Opinions of the word by ideology are divided in an unusual, though modest, way. Conservatives have the highest positive image, followed by liberals. Moderates have somewhat lower positive ratings than either of these groups.

One might expect those with negative attitudes toward capitalism to be more likely than others to have positive attitudes toward socialism. That is indeed the case, but the difference in positive attitudes toward socialism between those with positive and those with negative attitudes toward capitalism is fairly modest: 33% vs. 43%, respectively.

Free Enterprise

Eighty-six percent of respondents rated the term “free enterprise” positively, giving it substantially more positive ratings than “capitalism.” Although in theory these two concepts are not precisely the same, they are in many ways functional equivalents. Yet, underscoring the conventional wisdom that words matter, the public clearly reacts differently to the two terms. Free enterprise as a concept rings more positively to the average American than does the term capitalism.

Strongly positive ratings of free enterprise are generally uniform across both partisan groups, and across the three ideological groups.

Small Business and Big Business

“Small business” is the most positively rated term of the seven included in the list, with a nearly universal positive rating of 95%.

In contrast, Americans were sharply divided when asked to react to the term “big business,” with 49% of respondents rating the term positively and 49% negatively.

This contrast in images, based on whether the adjective “small” or “big” is placed in front of “business,” confirms a number of previous Gallup findings. Americans have a strong tendency to react positively to “small” and negatively to “big” when it describes business entities.

There is remarkably little difference between Republicans and Democrats in their ratings of the images of small and big business. Both partisan groups are overwhelmingly positive about the former, and roughly half of both partisan groups rate the latter positively. The finding that Democrats and Republicans have roughly equal reactions to big business is significant given the usual assumption that Republicans are more sympathetic to large businesses and corporations than are Democrats. These data do not confirm that hypothesis at the rank-and-file level.

All three ideological groups rate small business very positively.

Big business is rated positively by 57% of conservatives. Less than half of both moderates (46%) and liberals (38%) have positive images of big business.

Entrepreneurs

Because “entrepreneurs” are usually by definition associated with start-ups of small businesses, it is not unexpected to find that the term generates nearly the same level of positive reaction as did the term small business.

And, as was the case for small business, there is little distinction in ratings of entrepreneurs across partisan or ideological groups.

The Federal Government

Americans’ reactions to the term “the federal government” are similar to those for “big business,” with about half rating the term positively and half negatively. However, while there are only minimal partisan differences in reactions to “big business,” there are substantial differences in reactions to the federal government, which may reflect the current partisan control of the White House and Congress.

  • Democrats are much more positive about the federal government than are Republicans.
  • Liberals are over twice as likely as conservatives to have a positive image of the federal government, with reactions of moderates in between those of these two groups.

Bottom Line

As most politicians and many in business have learned, the choice of words to describe a concept or a policy can often make a substantial difference in the public’s reaction. The current research confirms that assumption.

“Socialism” is not a completely negative term in today’s America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means. Reaction to the term is not random, however, as attested by the finding that positive images are significantly differentiated by politics and ideology.

It is apparent that “free enterprise” evokes more positive responses than “capitalism,” despite the apparent similarity between the two terms.

President Barack Obama made frequent positive references to small business in his recent State of the Union address, perhaps aware of the very positive associations Americans have with that term. In particular, this research underscores the fact that Americans’ image of business can vary substantially, depending on whether it is described as small or big. Along these same lines, it is perhaps not surprising to find that entrepreneurs are held in high esteem by Americans.

The finding that Americans have mixed reactions to the term “the federal government” is not new. Much previous research has shown that at this point in history, a majority of Americans are not enamored with the federal government, particularly the legislative branch.

Obama As Joker And Typical Hypocritical Liberal Outrage

August 7, 2009

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush.  Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

Joker_Bush

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker.  Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

And how long did you think it would take for some leftist goon to depict it as an act of racism? I mean, after all, we ALL know there is a long historic association between “the Joker” and the negro, going all the way back to when Cesar Romero played the role on the the campy Batman program in the 1960s.

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role?  No one I know, anyway.  And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism.  I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”  When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back.  The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster … or not

11:50 AM, August 5, 2009

Joker There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush.  Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it.  But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama?  Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.”  It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives.  So it’s okay.  You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes.  The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds.  “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist.  Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not.  Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.”  Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist?  You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.”  If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif?  Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis?  What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it?  Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way?  Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire.  And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is.  If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost.  So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

And secondly, I would submit to you that there very much IS a context.  And that context is that President Obama, like the Joker, is “changing” society in what will be an incredibly destructive way.  Like the Joker, who loved to mar traditional societal representations with his own image, Obama is out reshaping and distorting and perverting our society into his own, yes, socialist image.  I can’t help but think of that elderly woman who got so tired of seeing Obama that she sold her televisions.

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.”  And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings.  Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care.  An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others.  They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

April 28, 2009

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism’; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

we-are-all-socialists-now

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ ”

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.