Yes, Obama is a Socialist

Please note that this post is a work in progress and is continually edited for clarity.

Perhaps it is human nature that there are still some trusting soles that don’t believe President Obama is a socialist (of course this is foolishly based on his words over his deeds).(1)  This rebuke is often followed by the fact the Wikipedia definition of a socialist doesn’t define the president (of course this is foolishly based on his words over his deeds). One also has to realize that the terms of a socialist state are not written in stone; even Karl Marx admitted that socialism would have a much better chance of working if the state allowed privet ownership of homes and some businesses. This dichotomy between what Obama says and what he does, would be by design if it is the President’s intent to incrementally create a socialist state against the will of the citizenry (in "The Death of Liberalism" by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr, the author refers to Obama as a stealth socialist); when one looks at an interview with then candidate Obama, one sees the evidence that this is what’s happening. In the interview, Obama said his intent would be implement a single payer health plan, however it is not what the American citizens want, so he would have to phase it in over time; and this is exactly what ObamaCare does. Obama has also said he favors the private sector to create jobs, but these are just empty words to placate those that are not paying attention (2). Certainly no other President has ever interjected the redistribution of wealth and stoked the fire of class warfare in every speech he makes; these being the two pillars needed to rationalize the need for socialism.

The next step in creating a socialist state is controlling every aspect of peoples lives (3); this includes what kind of lunch a parent can make for their child, how much ones allowed to weigh, what temperature you can set your thermostat, what you have to buy, what you can listen to on the radio and what you can see/read on the internet. All these and many more rights and freedoms have been discussed as needing government regulation; and Obama has created a large federal security force from what was a small contingency of airport security guards, to enforce his regulations. The President has also proclaimed the ability to circumvent the power of congress with administrative regulations and to ignore via executive privilege, the findings of the Supreme Court. The only thing separating the President from his socialist state are our freedom of speech and right to bear arms; both of which are being whittled down by Obama as we speak.(4) It’s time to take our liberty back at the polls; the alternative is unthinkable (5)..

(1) The basis of socialism is the unwashed masses make bad decisions based on individual needs. This requires a totalitarian government that has a better understanding of the big picture to direct the the masses from their individual needs to the needs of the collective determined by the government.

(2). President Obama is a living breathing example of the socialists belief in the big lie; "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The reason being most will be wary of a small lie because they do it themselves, but if a lie is the complete reversal of the truth it is much harder to accept that it is really a lie. With President Obama there is simply no correlation between what he says and what he does; in most cases they are actually diametrically opposed to each other. Here, the president has not followed through with any of his pre-election promises with the exception of ObamaCare (it was later released that Obama choose ObamaCare over fixing the economy for what he believed would leave a better legacy), which was passed with a one sided partisan vote late on Christmas Eve using a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation; a tactic Obama himself described as “Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate uh forever and uh what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian uh absolute power on on either side and that’s just not what the Founders intended.” Other broken promises include the use if signing statements, employing lobbyists, the ending of the war in Afghanistan and the need for bipartisanship with major legislation..What has become obvious by now is Obama does not feel constrained by the intent of the founding Fathers.

(3)There is an old saying, "to make a Republican made tell a lie; to make a Democrat mad, tell the truth." Socialists always promise more than it can deliver; and while capitalists tend to be more realists, the left calls them uncaring and draconian (while there are problems with capitalism, it would seem to make more sense to try and fix the problems of a system that has proven itself to be incredibly successful, than to scrap it for a system that has always failed spectacularly). Eventually the entire collective must be indoctrinated to believe they have no worth as an individual and their only worth is being a productive part of the collective; therefore all individual rights and ownership must be relinquished to the government. This process is not natural so a socialist government must create a false reality to rationalize the erosion of liberties in the name of safety. therefore the socialists must have a monopoly on the truth and control the flow of  information (it has become common place for left leaning students to protest and disrupt speeches and presentations they consider contrary to socialist thought; the concept of being open a all ideas and critical thought has pretty much been done away with by the socialists in academia, instead they mean to shut down all thought that does not propagate socialists propaganda).  While the US media seems to support the socialist view, the Obama administration has been pushing toward controlling the content of alternate radio and the internet. Without complete complete block out of non-controlled information, socialism will always be shown for the farce it always becomes.

(4). Socialism is a one size fits all form of government. While it  has shown some validity with small groups living in a commune, which requires each members abilities to survive and sharing similar goals and values . But even when socialism seems to be in it's best element, history shows (as with the Jamestown settlement in 1607) that allowing members of the settlement to keep any surplus goods to trade above  and beyond the what is given toward the collective (capitalism), increased the individuals production substantively. Without these incentives you have as some Soviet Union workers would say, "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Socialism demands the end of individual needs and assumes everyone in the collective will work for the state (aka the collective) to the best of their ability. Further the watchers who nudge, direct and re-educate and have dominion over the members of the collective; they are required to be selfless caretakers of the grand cause of socialism. To control and watch the collective requires a huge bureaucracy usually divided into various bureaus, syndicates, agencies and now czars. But when someone is a watcher, or works directly under a watcher, they start believing themselves to be above the rest. This is why the larger government gets, the more corrupt it gets; as Lenin asked, "who watches the watchers?"

(5)When the re-education process fails it has always led to genocide, as over 100 million people have been systematically murdered in the name of socialism; China brags they starved 80 million Chinese when they went to collective farming under Mao Sedong and his cultural revolution, yet modern day socialists still quote Mao as if he was a philosopher and not the horrific and apathetic murderer of  millions. This very fact alone shows that socialists care more for their failed theories than even humanity itself. So be afraid; be very afraid.    

Why liberals have to lie Part 7; George Zimmerman

Once again we faced with the adage if you want to make a Liberal made tell the truth.

Much has been said about the George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin shooting with it's racism overtones. It should be noted however that Zimmermen has called 911 on over 40 occasions (over 8 years) on various race people that were suspicious in his mind, but only this one ended tragically. It is also obvious left is investing all their energy in trying to disprove Zimmerman's account, by simply fabricating worse case scenarios that Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down and executed Martin; a scenario that has absolutely no basis what so ever.

The following is a blog exchange from the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Media has created Trayvon controversy
Arlette Lees writes that "if Trayvon Martin had been white and George Zimmerman been black, Zimmerman would have been portrayed as the big black bully who killed a little white boy armed with nothing but candy.' " Wrong. If that had been the scenario the article would never had made it past the Sanford Herald Newspaper, which it shouldn't have anyway. The liberal media that controls the news of this country loves to pounce on black/white issues to create controversy. And once again they did it big time, by stirring up the black population of the country with an incident that has yet to be proven to be a race issue.

Blame the liberal media? Of course!
As predicted, the conservative response to injustice, racial profiling, and the killing of an innocent boy is to blame the "liberal media." Elwin Haddix claims that if the victim had been white and the killer was black the story would not have made it out of the Sanford Herald newspaper. Firstly, as a proud Liberal, I must confess, I agree with Elwin here, but of course for a different reason: Indeed, it would not be in the national spotlight because the killer would have been arrested and justice would have been pursued. The facts: A paranoid wannabe cop he made numerous calls to 911, armed with an automatic weapon, hunted down a 17 year-old boy and executed him. Self-defense? Really? Who followed whom with a loaded gun? Secondly, mainstream media liberal? Look at our local media and which corporate interests own most media outlets.


Next was another exchange regarding NBC editing the Zimmerman 911 tape specifically to make Zimmerman look like a rasicts. On another blog this is what was said (I also responded but the second response was so much better than mine, I decided to use it instead.

Poster #1 Assuming all the above is true (that NBC edited the 911 tape), according to the link you posted, NBC has also acknowledged this crap and is investigating it. I can count on one nutsack how many times Fox News has admitted a screwup and investigated it and I'll still have room to spare.

Poster #2 NBC edited (the) tape to make it sound racist to ignite an already troubling event. That is the lowest form of douchebaggery I have witnessed in my lifetime. Sorry but NBC takes the cake on this one. That is a complete lack of integrity and violates the rights of Zimmerman to a fair trial and even puts his life in danger. NBC did the same type of thing to the security guard that found the explosive device a while back. If I recall he sued them and won an undisclosed settlement. Bias is one thing (FOX) but outright deceit in editing to manipulate and misdirect is completely unacceptable. I don't care who you are or what side your on, the actions by NBC in this incident should infuriate you to the point of writing them and telling them this type of BS has to stop. (I couldn't have said it better and I tried)

Trying to tie it all together I sent this to the Sentential.

The left has gone crazy trying to disprove Zimmerman account of the Martin shooting. As usual they are creating scenarios that are not based in reality. The left cries out that Zimmerman was a paranoid wantabe cop that called 911 40 times! What’s not mentioned is this occurred over 8 years! That’s a watchful neighbor calling the police 5 times a year on suspicious subjects in the neighborhood and in all those incidents with suspicious subjects of all colors, there were no violent incidents? Why was this incident different? The left says Zimmerman hunted down Martin with an automatic weapon and executed him. Really? Even if Zimmerman has a machine-gun, which he did not, he only fired the one round that tragically killed Martin. All the known evidence and witness statements show the incident occurred as Zimmerman said and Martin attacked him as he was walking away. Still ABC News releases a tape proclaiming Zimmerman had no injuries, then had to back peddle and admit there were. NBC tampered with the 911 tape and released it as news; but now they're looking into it as if they have no idea how it could have happened (obviously this is a stall so they can come up with some believable damage control; good luck with that). All that’s obvious here is the left is once again telling one lie after another to manufacture facts that to fit their agenda. Nothing new here..

Individualism vs The Collective Part #1 "The Teachings of Jesus"

After returning from the Religious Educational Congress in Anaheim, I was reminded of several years ago when I heard Jim Wallis, the great apologist for Pol Pot’s massacre of a million Cambodians (Marxism for Christianity; Jim Wallis, Running With the Devil) and also an apologist for President Obama’s lack of a true Christian faith. Jim Wallis’ Sojourners and Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology are two good examples of Liberal Christian Organizations that are co-opting Christianity for their political purposes (a truer meaning of “using the Lord’s name in vain” is using God for your own selfish purposes, not necessarily cursing). In this liberals using Christianity to spread communism. Listening to Jim Wallis he will tell you that Jesus was a Socialist; the truth is Christianity and Socialism are mutual exclusive.

Throughout history dictators and kings have used the concepts of collectivism to control the masses. Then as in now, the leaders cared not for the welfare on any one individual, but the health of the peasants or workers as a whole; for from the peasants/workers came the armies that would be needed and the food grown by the collective farmers needed to feed them. Then along came Jesus and Christianity, where for the first time the individual was the most important the collective non-existent. President Obama has discussed the need for “Collective Salvation”, a belief system advocated by Jeremiah Wright and his Black Liberation Theology. Here we have an almost perfect parallel with the Bible and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. The infant church was being corrupted as teachers added complexity, new rules and necessary deeds to earn ones salvation. The pillar of Christianity rests on John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. In other words one is saved, by the grace of God, from eternal punishment for sin which is granted to those who accept by faith God’s conditions of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. More simply put, salvation is gods gift to the world as no amount of deeds could free the world from sin; this is what is referred to in Christianity as “God’s Grace”.

In Christianity, redemption (the paying of a debt) was Jesus’ death on the cross that paid for the sins of the world. However Jeremiah Wright has other ideas. Black Liberation Theology teaches that the white race must redeem themselves for the past oppression of blacks; apparently the sacrifice of Jesus was not enough and the white race will still have to pay off the black race to reach salvation. This best described in Galations 1:7-10 Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse. Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Jesus never spoke of collective salvation or collective redemption; in fact it was the complete opposite. Jesus spurned the idea of the collective, in the name of a personnel savior. The health of the collective was not a concern of Jesus, nor was one’s station in life or economic status; in the Lord’s Prayer we pledge to “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (apparently Jeremiah Wright would want to interject an asterisk in the forgiveness part). And of course what is either purposely distorted or lost with Liberal Christian Organizations, is that giving is for the sake of the giver, not the receiver. While Jesus repeatedly directed his followers to feed the poor (and the poor certainly benefited), it was for the sake of the givers repentance (the act of changing your ways to God’s ways) and individual salvation, that Jesus wants us to give; as Jesus said in Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Liberal Christian Organizations believe that communism (or socialism) would create a world according to the teachings of Christ, but the real teachings of Jesus are the bane of Liberal thinking. Jesus taught his followers since all are equal in God’s eyes, that material equality is insignificant; one should simply be the best at what ever their station of life and spend their energies helping others and loving god. To Jesus the collective had no meaning, because he was concerned about the saving the souls of individuals, not the health and/or control of the collective. I close with Jesus words in Mathew 23:13-15; words that could have been directed at Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

To Make a Democrat Mad

As the facts start to come out it becomes very obvious that the entire contraception issue was manufactured by the White House. Rather than Obama face the wrath of the electorate as he is unconstitutionally trying to force religious institutions to pay for contraception and abortion, he has used the press to re-define the issue, not about the right to practice ones religious beliefs, but planting the fear that government is going to outlaw contraception It started in January when ABC news, seeming out of the blue queried both Rick Santorium and Mitt Romney if theoretically states could ban contraception. The issue has then latched onto by the Democrats, not only to to create the fallacy of losing contraception rights, but to also avert the attention of the American voter away from huge deficits and high unemployment (using the 1930's formula we are at 16%). 30 year old Sandra Fluke, long time abortion advocate, was recruited by the White House via ex-White House Communications Secretary Anita Dunn who now runs a PR firm. The Democrats tried to interject Ms Fluke at the last minute into a Congressional hearing on the Constitutionality of mandating birth control on religious organization; since Ms Fluke is not a Constitutional expert she was not allowed in. When the Democrats propped her up in her own hearing she introduced no facts, offering only anecdotal information, including an account of an unknown student/employee was denied contraceptive medicine for non-contraceptive medical purposes because Georgetown University would not pay for it. Turns out this is a lie, the Georgetown University health plan does pay for any non-contraceptive use of contraception medicine. As usual, if you want to make a Democrat mad, tell the truth.

Teacher Represents All Republicans as Stupid

One of the lefts favorite attics is to paint all conservatives as stupid. The reason is that it takes a great deal to manipulation of the truth to sell liberalism; aka socialism. So when Conservatives argue the simple truth, it is presented as too simplistic to be intellectual by the left. It is also a tactic of of the indefensible to attack the messenger, rather than try to defend their position; this is especially true of elitist teachers who's progressive world view is unchallengeable in the classroom, leading them to believe that they are intellectually superior. This was a letter to the editor to the Santa Cruz Sentinel responding to such a denigration of GOP messengers.

You (Santa Cruz Sentinel) recently published a letter to the editor from a teacher, Frank Drees. It is certainly not unusual for a teacher to be condescending and have an elitist’s liberal attitude, but I was somewhat surprised at how inane his argument was. “As a teacher it seemed as if 55% of my students came from broken homes and 44% were born to unwed mothers, something I've also read. As for the parents I met, most were as intelligent as a Republican candidate for president.” While I don’t have the room here to dissect such a condescending and liberal ego, lets at least explore the intelligence of the Republican Candidates. Not even considering their political backgrounds as State Governors, State and Federal Representatives, lets just look at their education.


Michelle Bachman; a BA Political Science from JD Oral Roberts University and Master of Law LL.M from William and Mary School of Law.
Mitt Romney; a BA English Brigham Young University and a JD/MBA (Joint Degree) fromHarvard Law School/ Harvard Business School.
Ron Paul; a BS in Biology from Gettysburg College and an MD from Duke University.
Tim Pauley; a BA in Political Science and a JD from the University of Minnesota.
Newt Gingrich; a BA in History Emory University, a MA in History and PhD in Modern European History from Tulane University.
Rick Santorum; a BA Political Science from Pennsylvania State University, a MBA from the University of Pittsburgh, and JD from the Dickinson School of Law of Penn State.

Equal Justice and Protection Under the Law.

Equal protection under the law does not mean having an equal defense, it is related to equal justice; "Equal justice under law" is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. This does not mean that everyone is entitled to the best defense money can buy; or that every victim will get the best prosecutor. Having equal justice under the law, means no one is above the law. In other countries at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, a person could rape, kill or steal and if the perpetrator was a person of wealth and/or position and the victim was poor, the perpetrator could have immunity from the law. You notice I did not say immunity from prosecution, but immunity from the law, as the law simply did not apply equally to the rich and powerful. This was not the result of a high priced attorney or a payoff to the judge, it was the result of a criminal justice system that did not protect the poor from the rich and powerful; this is what the rule of law , equal justice and the of concept equal protection, was to eliminate.

The so called equal protection clause did not exist in the US Constitution until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868; the 14th amendment was “reconstruction amendment” designed to address issues the borne out of the civil war. The wording was as follows;

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In essence the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment gave teeth to the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. At the end of the end of the civil war, the southern states continued to use states rights to continue Jim Crow laws the oppressed blacks. Contrary to popular understandings, the Constitutional rights and protections were meant only to constrain the federal government; the states were empowered to make up any type of government they wanted, using what ever laws they wanted, as long as they acquiesced to the federal government the enumerated powers in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment changed that, saying that the states were also bound to the Constitutional rights and protections. In other words, the equal protection clause guaranteed that no matter which state one was in, they would have the same (or equal) civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Chief Justice Melville Fuller commented on the 14th Amendment said, By the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.

The consequences of the 14th Amendment extended much further than protecting the civil rights of slaves. Many have commented on the convoluted wording of the Bill of Rights. As i said before, the Constitutional rights and protections were meant only to constrain the federal government; it was the states that had the rights and protections not individuals. . Our founders believed that the states were free to have any government they desired as long as they aquisteted to the federal government it's enumerated powers (a list of enumerated powers are found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution). Our founding fathers further believed that if any of these governments became too tyrannical, the citizens could simply move to another state. In actuality, many of the states simply adopted most the rights and protections from the Federal Constitution to their State Constitutions, however with the State Courts having jurisdiction. However, the Federal Court started to incrementally incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. As an example, prior to the 14th Amendment, the states were free to adopt gun control of any kind, including banning them altogether; the reason for the wording of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the Federal Government from disarming state militias. When the Federal Court turned their attention to the second Amendment they determined, the states had to adhere to the rights to bear arms to their citizenry originally written to protect the rights of the states. Where the states had been permitted to strict gun control, the Federal Court is now slowly stripping away this authority. Whether this will continue is unknown as the court was heavily divided on the issue and a change of courts makeup could easily lead to a reverse decision.

Who are these Secular Progressives?

Often when the term Secular Progressives is used the left jumps up and asked, okay who are these secular progressives? Give ma an example of a person or organization. Secular Progressiveism has a two prong definition. First you have the Secular part; secular menas being separated from religion. Secular Progressives do not believe in the "inalienable rights" discussed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, or that God or a creator has any influence on the rights of mankind. SP believe that the rights of man are determined by government, to be given or taken away. Because of this SP believe government is the highest institution known to man.When Elena Kagan was being questioned prior to her appoint as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, she was asked this very question, if there are inalienable rights, not discussed in the Constitution, but endowed by a power greater than man and she said no. Elena Kagan is a SP, certainly Bill Maher is; as far as groups there is the ACLU.

The second part is Progressive; progressive means proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments. Progressives believe that the US Constitution is conceptually flawed, because it does not give the government the responsibility to redistribute wealth and thereby fund the mandate that all citizens will at least have an acceptable minimum standard of living; in other wards it is not a socialist document (Progressives have been incrementally introducing this and other socialists concepts since the time of FDR) .

The best example of SP in government is Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.