THE TRUE HEART OF LIBERALISM

PHOTO by Reuters

When words are closely examined, especially those uttered in “private” situations, they often reveal the underlying beliefs of the speaker.  All of us, to some extent, instinctively know that this is true.  It is what caused all the turmoil over the “bitter clinger” remarks made by Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign.  His words reflected a particular belief about specific people whom Mr. Obama had obviously labeled.  And, the labels were not very attractive—unintelligent, ignorant, irrational, uncivilized.  It becomes easy to discount and minimize those so identified.  They become stereotyped caricatures not deserving consideration.

In the same way, the utterance of Joe Biden, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”  As well as that of Harry Reid, with respect to Obama being a good Presidential candidate because he is “light-skinned … with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”, give insight into their beliefs about specific people.  (Oops, almost forgot about the Clinton “coffee” comment.  It is informative in an of itself).  Perhaps, the argument could even be made that these liberal Democrats, to some extent, represent the beliefs held by other liberal Democrats.  Generalizations can be slippery things, but in this case, knowing how liberal Democrats have treated, and continue to treat, the black community, they might be right on target.  Think about it.  What do these remarks by these powerful Democrats say about black people as individuals?  As a group?  Furthermore, what do they say about white people as individuals and as a group?  Nothing good.  However, they do reveal the heart of these people.

As Rush Limbaugh said yesterday during his program, “the Democrats are now running naked through the streets.  There’s no cover.  Everybody sees them for who they are…”  Indeed, we do.

Filed under: language, Barak Obama, democrats, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, liberals, racism, Rush Limbaugh

THE OBAMA ALPHABET

Now that it is post-Thanksgiving and pre-Christmas season,  it might be time for a bit of light-hearted fare.  After all, “’tis the season to be jolly”.  The following is the “Obama Alphabet” as it has been taught over the past year.  Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list, so feel free to add to it.  Above all,  have some fun–fa la la la la.

A is for:

ACORN, Afghanistan and Arts Propaganda

B is for:

Banking regulation, Beer Summit, Blame Bush and Blue Dogs

C is for:

Cap and Trade, Card Check, the Chicago Way, China, Climategate, Civility, Congress and Czars

D is for:

Date Night, Democrats, Distraction and Diversity

E is for:

Educational indoctrination and also for Energy Policy

F is for:

Failed policies, the FED and Foreign Policy

G is for:

Gitmo, Global ___(fill in the blank) and Government

H is for:

Healthcare Reform and also for Hidden Agenda

I is for:

Immigration, International Community, Insurance Companies, I raq and Iran

J is for:

Job Summit, Joker and Judiciary

K is for:

Kangaroo Court, Kool-aid and Korea

L is for:

Lawyer, Leftist, Lie and Limbaugh

M is for:

Mainstream Media, Mandates, Man-made Disasters and Military

N is for:

National Security, Nuclear Weapons and NYC Terrorists’ Trials

O is for:

Obama, Obamacare, Obamanomics, Obamaton, One World Government and Overseas Contingency Plan

P is for:

Post-partisan, Pelosi and Political Correctness

Q is for:

Quackery, Qualifications, Queen Elizabeth and Questionable

R is for:

Racist, Radical, Reactionary and Rule of Law

S is for:

Sacrifice, Science, SEIU, Slush Fund and Stimulus

T is for:

Tariffs, Taxes, Tea Baggers, Terrorism, Town Halls and Trips

U is for:

Unaccountable, Unconstitutional, Unemployed, Unions and Unprecedented

V is for:

Verbose, Victim, Victory Vicissitude and Vote

W is for:

War, Waterboard, Weakness, Whine

X is for:

eXit Strategy and also for (over) eXposure

Y is for:

Youth Corps

Z is for:

Zealot and also for Zigzags

So much to learn, so little time.  Go forth and become sapient!

Filed under: brainwashing, climate change, indoctrination, language, ACORN, Afghanistan War, cap & trade, China, chuckles, climate change, Climategate, indoctrination, media, Obama

OBAMA ADDRESSES CENSORSHIP IN CHINA WHILE GAGGING THE EPA AT HOME

(Photo by Stephen Crowley/NYT)

President Obama answered questions during a town hall meeting with future Chinese leaders at the Museum of Science and Technology in Shanghai on Monday.

 

SHANGHAI, CHINA — Mr. Obama addressed an audience of more than 400 Chinese university students from eight different Chinene universities at the Museum of Science and Technology yesterday.

At one point, Obama stated, in part,
“…I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity.”

The president said that he has “always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I’m a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have…unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.”

In a jocular manner, President Obama then observed,
“I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.”

He then stated on a serious note,
“I think people naturally,…when they’re in positions of power sometimes think, ‘Oh, how could that person say that about me,’ or ‘That’s irresponsible.’…But the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear. It forces me to examine what I’m doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.”

Contrast these words, that purportedly express the beliefs, values and opinion of the POTUS, with what is happening to two EPA attorneys who are opposing the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” legislation.

Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in the Washington Post on October 31, 2009.   At the end of the article, there is a link to their site.  On their site is a discussion paper, as well as a video that is criticizes the “Cap and Trade” legislation now in the Senate.  However, the video is no longer accessible on their site, because the EPA demanded that they take it down, even AFTER they approved it.  It is still available here.

This latest move by the EPA is reminiscent of their action to muzzle another EPA employee, Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst several months ago when he questioned “climate change” from a scientific standpoint.  (To refresh your memory on that instance of EPA censorship see Michelle Malkin’s blog here.)

Now,  re-read the remarks of the POTUS.  What are his real beliefs about free information flow and censorship?  To me, his “joking” remark is what rings true, i.e., he wishes that information was harder to access because then he would not be criticized “all the time”.  Well, Mr. President, it does seem that your EPA is definitely working hard to ensure that this desire becomes reality.  Our lesson?  Pay no attention to what Obama says.  Pay attention to what he does.

Filed under: cap & trade, censorship, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE, language, POTUS, cap & trade, censorship, China, EPA, international felicitations, POTUS

Investors.com – Service.gov And Its Soviet Similarities

Kunin, a former citizen of the U.S.S.R. draws chilling comparisons between the homeland of her childhood and her U.S. homeland today.

Filed under: brainwashing, education, indoctrination, language, LEGISLATION, media, U.S. GOVERNMENT, education, indoctrination, leftwork, media, obamaspeak, statism

LIBERAL FASCISM

“Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all these aspects of fascism.”
From introduction to Liberal Fascism byJonah Goldberg

I read (waded through) this book earlier this year.  Not for the fainthearted, it is an educational project to be sure, however, it is well worth the effort.  If you are concerned about the direction of the present Administration, this book will not only confirm this concern, it will also tell you why these concerns are real.  I welcome comments from any of you who have read Liberal Fascism, and for those of you who haven’t, I highly recommend it.

Filed under: brainwashing, indoctrination, language, liberal activism, U.S. GOVERNMENT, constitution, indoctrination, leftworks, obamaspeak, statism

JEOPARDY CATEGORY: Broadcast News

Are you ready for a new “Jeopardy: Alinksy-style” category?  How about the White House treatment of Fox News?  Answers are still worth 10 points.  Creativity earns an additional 10 point bonus!

Below is the original video of Anita Dunn speaking to CNN about Fox News:

Then here is a link to the latest attacks on Fox News by the White House in an attempt to reduce their viewership.

After you have watched the video and read the article, the same rules apply as before.  Articulate which “Rules for Radicals” are being employed, in the form of a question, of course.  Have fun!

Filed under: indoctrination, language, media, POTUS, chuckles, indoctrination, leftwork, media, obamaspeak, statism

JEOPARDY: ALINKSY-STYLE

Ever wonder whether Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” could form the basis of a new quiz game?  It could look something like this:
1) give the contestants the 13 “Rules For Radicals,
2) have the contestants read, study and memorize them,
3) present various statements and strategies publicized by the Obama Administration,
4) the object of the game is to name the rule that best illustrates the statement/strategy.
5) answers must be phrased in the form of a question.

Ready to play?  Here are the 13 rules followed by the YouTube video of the Saturday, October 17, 2009 POTUS address.  It is all up to you to apply the rules correctly.  Decision of the judge, (me), is final.  Good luck!

Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals” (Summary)

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy things you have.”
(Power is derived from two main sources-money & people.  Those without money must build a power base from people.  Government & Corporations, both which have a difficult time appealing to people, usually must derive their power from economic arguments.)
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
(Confusion, fear and retreat results from not having a ready answer to probable objections and questions.  It is important to have slogans, talking points and pat answers that “radicals” can use to counter facts and logical arguments.)
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
(In this way insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty is increased.  It is important to develop red-herrings, conflate situations and blind-side opponents with irrelevant or fictitious anecdotes and statistics.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
(Question the values, beliefs, motives and morals of an entire group based on the actions of anyone who does not absolutely and in all cases strictly adhere to these.  In this way the credibility and reputation of the entire group can be ridiculed, damaged and, ultimately, dismissed.)
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
(There is no defense against ridicule, because it is irrational.  It often pushes the opponent into either concessions or looking foolish by irrationally lashing out.)
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
(Receiving rewarding exposure on the media, being given the freedom to say things in a group that would be otherwise forbidden, disruptions that cause discomfort, dressing up in outrageous costumes, playing public “pranks”, missing work to attend a “party-atmosphere” protest, etc. can all be fun ways to motivate “radicals” to participate in a cause.)
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
(Variety is the spice of life.  Keep changing tactics to keep things fresh and interesting.  It keeps people active and involved for organizers to constantly create new tactics.)
8. “Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.”
(The opposition needs to be kept off-balance.  When one approach is overcome, hit them with something new.  Attack from all sides.  Cover all angles.  Never let the enemy catch its breath, regroup, recover or re-strategize.)
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
(Perception is reality.  Be vague enough for the enemy to fill in the blanks.  Often it will expend time and effort trying to prepare for a “worst case scenario”, thus using up resources and demoralizing the opposition.)
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition.”
(When there is a daily barrage of changing messages and demands, it is extremely difficult to keep up with them.  Keeping the enemy in “fire-fighting” mode makes it less probable that the opposition will be able to generate options and solutions.  Opposition tends to erode under relentless assault and often leads to surrender.)
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
(Many times, inflammatory language and behavior will provoke a reaction that will engender sympathy for the “radical”.  The masses love to support an underdog.)
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
(Never let the enemy score points due to lack of a solution to the problem.  The goal is to be given a “place at the table” in order to wield power.  Be prepared with compromise solutions.)
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
(Cut the weakest, or the most vocal out of the group.  Isolate the target from support and sympathy.  Go after individuals, not institutions; people hurt faster.  Use direct, personalized criticism and ridicule.  It works.)

Now, take some time and study these rules to really get a feel for them.  Then, watch the following video of the Saturday internet address by the POTUS from October 17th.  Apply those rules and send in your answers, (phrased in the form of a question, of course).  Ten points will be awarded for each appropriate use of a rule.  (An additional ten points can be earned for sheer creativity.)  Who will win the “radical title” of the week?  If you don’t play, you can’t win!  Have fun.

Filed under: healthcare, indoctrination, language, liberal activism, media, POTUS, chuckles, healthcare, indoctrination, leftwork, media, obamaspeak, POTUS, statism

BROWSING BARAK’S BOOKSHELF

Ever wonder how the POTUS developed his unorthodox beliefs about America?  His book, “Dreams From My Father”, suggests that the books he chose to read as a young man planted the seeds.  The seeds were cultivated by his mentor, Frank Marshall.  Later associations in Chicago nurtured his growing ideology into full flower.

Now, we are seeing the fruits of all of these labors and who is benefiting from them.  Just as an acorn will never change itself into a pecan, Obama will never be anything other than an extreme left ideologue.  Notwithstanding the fact that some of the Left’s most radical agenda items have yet to be implemented, Obama has not given up on these.  They have simply been moved to a back burner.

The prevailing opinion seems to be that currently Obama is trying to hold together the center of his party in order to pass the defining legislation of his presidency, Health Care Reform.  After some form of Health Care Reform is passed, as it surely will be, he will be free to pursue the extreme leftist policies that are not only near and dear to his heart, they are his heart.  The following biographical sketches elucidate why this is true.

Chronology is a constant difficulty when speaking of Obama’s early years, so it is not clear whether his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, supplied the reading list, or whether Obama’s reading led him to seek out Davis.  Either is possible since Davis, when he was in Chicago, was a contemporary of two of the authors that Obama read, Langston Hughs and Richard Wright.  It is also known that Davis, a poet, was a close fellow traveler, if not a full member, of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.  Furthermore, during the House on Un-American Activities Committee hearings, Davis was accused of involvement in several Communist front organizations, including the John Reed Club.  He was also an editor for Left Front, a Communist Party magazine.  Davis was a labor activist and helped with fundraisers for progressive events in Chicago.  When he was working for the Associated Negro Press, he worked with Vernon Jarrett, the father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, Senior Obama Advisor.

Davis’ résumé has many elements in common with those of the authors discussed below.  As you read through these, notice the patterns and themes that recur.

James Baldwin was a devoted fellow traveler of the Communist Party during his high school years.  Richard Wright (see below) helped to launch his writing career by introducing and recommending him for writing assignments with The New Leader, The Nation, and Partisan Review.  Baldwin wrote book reviews and essays for these leftist publications.  Themes he pursued in the books he authored included ones of victimization, racial and class conflict and the corruptive evils in the United States.  Baldwin also wrote about the chasm of the racial divide.

W.E.B. DuBois, until the turn of the 20th century, had been a supporter of black capitalism.  By 1905, however, he had been attracted by Marxist/socialist ideas and moved further left throughout his life.  DuBois shared in the establishment of the NAACP in 1909.  He attended Pan-African conferences and was later involved in pacifist, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial pan-African movements.  He ran for U.S. Senate on the American Labor Party ticket.  His engagement with socialist ideas is apparent from his participation in organizing a “consumer co-op” which was a step toward the realization of an integral collectivist society.  Eventually, DuBois became so disillusioned with the U.S., that in 1961 he joined the Communist Party, renounced his citizenship and relocated to Ghana.  He became a citizen of that country, where he died two years later.  His writings reflected a collectivist perspective.  He believed that collectivism was the proper goal of the rational movement of historical forces along a continuum of progress.  He believed that the better classes should recognize their duty toward the masses.

Ralph Ellison probably joined the Communist Party in the late 1930’s, although later, after breaking with Communism, he denied ever having been a member.  In fact much of his later life was spent in minimizing his Marxist leanings and expunging his history.  He was a member of the John Reed Club concurrently with Langston Hughs (see below) and Richard Wright (see below).  As a writer of the Federal Writers Project, he authored pieces that were sympathetic and supportive of Marxism ideology.  The essays and book reviews that Ellison wrote for New Masses also have a decidedly Communistic bend.  During WWII, Ellison displayed a seemingly untroubled willingness to support the Communist Party, even when it shifted dramatically.  Nevertheless, by the late 1940’s, Ellison seems to have become totally disillusioned with the Party and broke with it.  The themes in Ellison’s works are various.  They include Blacks being for blacks, the white “power structure” as the enemy, America’s distorted value system, victimization, America’s refusal to accept diversity, blacks selling out by working for the system, emphasizing group over individual rights.

Langston Hughes journeyed to the U.S.S.R. to work on a film project there.  He concluded that Communism held the solution to racial equality.  It is unclear whether he actually joined the Communist Party, but certainly was a close fellow traveler.  He, too, was a member of the John Reed Club in the early 1930’s.  This group was established by the Communist Party and supported leftist and Marxist artists and writers.  Hughs came before the McCarthy Committee in 1953.  At that time he renounced his earlier associations with the Left.  However, he continued to praise Communism’s apparent racial egalitarianism and favorably depicted the U.S.S.R. even after renouncing his ties to the Left.

Richard Wright began his association with socialism in ~1931.  By 1933 he had joined the Communist Party after first joining the John Reed Club in 1932.  He worked for the Daily Worker in 1936 and wrote over 200 articles for that Communist organ.  His writings reflect his belief in the promise of socialism to bring about racial equality, and his belief in the working class to bring about social change.   However, Wright became disillusioned with the Communist Party during WWII.  At that time he began to believe that the Communists were abandoning the fight against racism.  He officially broke with the Party in 1944.  During the Cold War, Wright continued to believe that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were twin monsters of imperialism.  In the 1950’s, Wright began to believe that the real conflict was not between classes but one of the individual vs. the society and the intellectual vs. totalitarianism.  Wright sided whole-heartedly with the anti-colonial revolutions taking place across Africa.

What do we think the chances are of Obama renouncing his Leftist views?  Slim, or none?

Filed under: indoctrination, language, liberal activism, indoctrination, leftworks, obamaspeak, statism

Ministry of Truth, Obama-style

Ministry of Truth, Obama-style

Shared via AddThis

Filed under: brainwashing, indoctrination, language, media, POTUS, U.S. GOVERNMENT, indoctrination, media, POTUS, statism

America: a dark city in a valley

Jean Kaufman at the Weekly Standard has written an article that compares and contrasts the language of Reagan with the language of Obama. As stated in my previous post on “words”, one can clearly see how inextricably language is woven into worldview and subsequent policies. This one is a must read.

Filed under: language, media, POTUS, media, obamaspeak, POTUS