communism (251)
Socialism?!
$7 out of Every $12
Now Begins in Government Hands
$7 out of Every $12
Now Begins in Government Hands
Are you still denying reality? For those of you who doubt the word “socialism” has any meaning in America today, consider these four no-longer surprising facts:
- Slightly over 58% of all income in the country now comes from government sources at either the local, state or federal level.
- When the financial bill now in congress gets reconciled into law, almost 60% of the U.S. economy will be controlled by the federal government.
- Barack Obama and progressive Democrats are still pushing for Cap and Trade legislation (now called “America’s Power Act”) which would put us very close to a communistic-style near-total domination of the economy by the federal government.
- Obama and his Progressive Democrats are also seeking “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” which means that 13-20 million now illegal immigrants would become eligible for citizenship. Expecting that 75-80% of the newcomers would vote Democratic, the present government-domination of the economy would become locked-in, perhaps for all time.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
ps: Greece just got its socialist union-controlled society bailed out; Spain's had its bond-strength levels dropped twice just this month. Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Portugal are in big trouble. U.S. Taxpayers helped temporarily bail out Greece with $78 Billion and will soon be helping pull Spain out of the abyss (temporarily) via the International Monetary Fund (IMF) . . . all the while Obama is not only socializing the country more and more but accentuating globalization of all aspects of the United States with every breath he takes . . . enough to take the country's breath away, permanently.
Last Rajjpuut Remembers . . . .
Loyal readers will remember that repeatedly Rajjpuut not only excoriated the Congressional Budget Office for their gutless refusal to stand up to the “pie-in-the-sky” assumptions included in the Obamacare budgeting but also assured followers that if made into law, Obamacare would bankrupt the country among other hideous consequences. The process of passing the law particularly the last minute cave-in by Bart Stupak and eleven other so-called “pro-life” Democrats to pass the bill; and the particulars of the bill which NO ONE STILL HAS READ IN ITS ENTIRETY even now; and the irresponsibility of cost estimates; and the moving of 16% of our economy into the government sphere were each of them more than enough to demand a thumbs-down vote. Taken together, they promised a hideous new law sure to wreck the country. Right now 58% of Americans agree the law must be repealed and only 31% think it shouldn’t be repealed. All of that, however, might have just become moot points.
The “Anointed One” himself, Barack H. Obama, Jr. appears ready to exercise the veto pen upon his own foul “reform” of the health care system. You read that correctly. In the train of recent revelations by the CBO that the bill was not going to cut deficits but rather increase them mightily , Obama appears poised to axe parts of his legislation. Rajjpuut has a better idea: sh__can the whole mess and start over with five goals:
A. Real tort reform to make malpractice insurance costs less and excess testing costs much less and health care costs dramatically much less
B. Cutting costs with minimal effect on the present system by eliminating waste and abuse and fraud
C. Insurance sales across state lines allowed
D. Emphasis on prevention and regular physials
E. Less than 200 pages employed in the whole bill.
As Rajjpuut has mentioned often, politicians tend to be slimy individuals when it comes to semantics and use of semantic tricks. While it sounds “bad” to be against “reform” any time; the word-reform, especially from Barack Obama’s tongue, is not the thing-reform. The word “reform,” you’ll note has been attached by Obama and his administration and the Democrats in both chambers of Congress to mean “changing to greater government control” rather than its previous dictionary meaning of “improving something.” Rajjpuut suggests a 100% reform of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama and especially of his administration.
This not-that-surprising turn of events comes after the so-called “surprise-announcement” that congressional budget referees now predict healthcare reform could top $1 trillion as conservatives have said for over a year now. Let Rajjpuut be clear here: Obamacare will eventually come in at $4 TRillion, not in total -- but $4 Trillion per year, the way it is currently written. Government-Freebies, or more accurately “Perceived-Government Freebies” always are in much higher demand than predicted. If, like Rajjpuut you’ve ever seen four or five male bears in the wild (who normally can’t stand each other within 100 yards) five feet apart during berry season as they gorge on nature’s bounty . . . you’ll understand where the 4X factor prediction comes from. And, of course, the law doesn’t really begin to come into play until 2014 . . . so meanwhile it’s killing the economy for four years with nasty taxes.
Those naïve hayseeds among you might consider all this to be an “explosive” revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The laws of economics did NOT go to sleep for a hundred years just because a politician totally ignorant of them moved into the oval office. Oh, a few more details, besides its own internal lack of integrity and fiscal inconsistency: the law still threatens to cut physicians’ income and to raise Medicare costs and to bankrupt each and every one of the states because of new Medicaid requirements. Ain’t that sweet?
House Minority Leader John Boehner, said this new CBO analysis ". . . coming just weeks after the Obama administration itself released an analysis confirming that the new law actually increases Americans’ healthcare costs, this provides ample cause for alarm. The American people wanted one thing above all from healthcare reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver. These revelations widen the serious credibility gap President Obama is facing."
Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News: "If Congress were to approve all of this new discretionary funding authorized in the healthcare bill, almost all of the administration's highly touted savings would be made null and void."
CBO estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers. Costs could go even higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels. Rajjpuut would say, that is virtually always true. Too little study and too much spend-spend-spend and way too little actual understanding make Congress dangerous to the country’s political health and fiscal soundness. NO BILL should ever become law until sufficient time to truly understand all its ramifications has been taken . . . .
In the wake of the obvious example of highly-socialistic Greece’s present demise with fellow European socialistic countries England, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain (more or less in that order) waiting in the wings for their own fiscal comeuppance . . . Rajjpuut suggests it’s high time this country and its leadership got its feet on the ground. Europe is in chaos trying to avoid the utter financial failure of tiny self- indulgent Greece, the European Union (EU) this week pledged $1 trillion to inject green money into the veins of Europe's socialistic vampires. Not to go unmentioned: about $76 Billion coming from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) comes from American taxpayers . . . we’re actually supporting other countries’ failed experiments in socialism, doesn't that make you happy? Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave and the Founding Fathers? Their ghosts are right now discussing reincarnation to ignite a new American Revolution***.
Last Rajjpuut remembers, the Berlin Wall came down . . . a symbol of the differences between capitalism and communism (socialism taken to its logical extreme). Remember . . . they had to pen their people in and even that didn’t work thousands died trying to leave their corrupt stinking corpse of a system. Look at our borders, we’re having huge problems keeping people out. Last Rajjpuut remembers, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST republics (what a laugh, republics!) collapsed freely and voluntarily as her leaders admitted their system didn’t work. Last Rajjpuut remembers, the Warsaw Pact countries joyfully abandoned their own wonderful socialisms. Last Rajjpuut remembers, communist China is now prospering as they’ve adopted a huge level of capitalism upon its own rotten corpse of Marxism. Last Rajjpuut remembers, people still die striving to leave Cuba and make for our shores on inflated truck inner tubes. Last Rajjpuut remembers Adolf Hitler only gets credit for 13 million deaths while Stalin and his commies killed 25 million and Mao, IN PEACETIME, caused the death of almost 57 million Chinese. How difficult is it to reach the conclusion that SOCIALISM SUCKS!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
*** For God’s sake, fellow citizens, IF you have NOT read and understood the following brief words, you are, like Obama, an utterly ignorant fool when it comes to economics, correct that situation immediately:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
and for good measure, more brevities:
http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html
http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html
and the Full Monty:
Obama’s Great Blessing -- Christians Misunderstand
the Doctrine of “Turn the Other Cheek!”
One of the very few places where Rajjpuut agrees with Barack Obama occurred in 2007 when Illinois Senator Obama said, “The United States is NOT a Christian nation.” Some Christians get angry to hear that from Rajjpuut as well as from Obama. Nevertheless, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, both Massachusetts Adamses and virtually the entirety of the founding fathers believed precisely that way, that it was important NOT to be a Christian nation but rather to be a nation where religious tolerance as well as true separation of church and state existed.
Of course, Obama, interprets the statement “ America is NOT (or, no longer) a Christian Nation” in a very negative and controversial manner and Rajjpuut interprets the statement in a very uplifting manner. Obama interprets that statement to mean that he can abuse Christians in this country virtually with impunity as he and his administration feel the need to side with other groups for political gain. More specifics on this will follow in a few paragraphs. Rajjpuut means it this way: the evils done to some adherents of some religions by others (for examples by Catholics and Protestants to each other in Ireland and Northern Ireland, to Non-Anglican Christians such as the Quakers by the Brits, Jews suffering in Russia and Germany, and Muslims in Bosnia, etc.) ; all the evils that have been done in the name of corruptions of Christianity historically to other religious and non-religious people; the evils that state-mandated religions all over the world have done; and all possible evils associated with BIG RELIGION . . . all of this is controlled by the law, by the Constitution, in America. No one in America can be forced to follow a given religion or dissuaded from following their own spiritual leanings in America.
As for Obama’s intolerance toward Christianity, lets examine just three incidents:
#1 After hosting 50,000 Muslims for three hours on Capitol Hill September 25, 2009, at the the National Day of Prayer for Muslims, today, May 7, 2010,Mr. Obama cancelled the 2010 National Day of Prayer Ceremony at the White House saying “ . . . we don’t want to offend anybody.” Apparently Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims are not considered to be “anybody.”
#2 While liberally sprinkling about nasty terms ( racists, haters, stupid, Nazis, extremists, astro-turf, storm-troopers, hood-wearing; etc.) in reference to the TEA Party movement, Obama and his people have made an impossible-to-miss effort at a ridiculously extreme form of political correctness (for example in 70 pages discussing the Ft. Hood shooting, where not once were the words “Jihad,” “Terrorism,” “Islam” or “Muslim” to be found . . . that is, the core motivation for Major Hassan’s attack was literally impossible for them to put into “politically-correct” words while they have no trouble finding insults for the “extreme right,” insults they cannot back up with evidence ever. But who exactly is the “extreme right?” According to Mr. Obama? “…Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with their language of family values and moral responsibility.” In other words Christianity, at least as practiced by conservative individuals is his philosophical enemy.
#3 Back in 2006 while a senator and again when he was already campaigning for president, in 2007, Obama interrupted his activities to visit the homeland of his father, Barak (no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. in Kenya. He went nominally on fact-finding missions on taxpayers’ money but ‘paused’ while there to help the presidential campaign of Raila Odinga (purportedly the then-senator Obama’s cousin for which no verification could be found other than Odinga’s claim). Odinga was university educated in East Berlin some years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and is a non-apologetic communist, just like Barack’s father Barak (no ‘c’) was. Whether or not the two are cousins, both of their fathers were also unapologetic communists. In the top link immediately below, Barack’s birth dad in a well-known African periodical talks about the benefits of “100% taxes on the rich” and also describes his favorite political system as “scientific socialism” which he quickly clears up by saying “communism.”
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html
Socialism and communism are, of course, closely related . . . far more importantly for this blog, in many communist regimes freedom of religion is very problematical if not impossible. Raila Odinga’s character and Obama’s actions are the question here, however . . . .
Obama made at least fifteen campaign stops for Odinga. Purportedly, he donated $950,000 to Odinga’s** campaign, Rajjpuut is still looking for a second confirmation on that one (if true, the next question is where did that money come from?). Mostly Obama wore a dress shirt and tie when campaigning. However, at least twice he dressed in traditional Muslim garb while addressing Muslim groups. Mr. Obama, despite his claim to be a lifelong Christian and to have “never practiced Islam” spent parts of five years of his youth attending a Muslim school^^ in Jakarta, capital of Indonesia and was reportedly a “prize student.” This is at best, a small issue. However, the character of Mr. Odinga is no small issue. Here’s what Rajjpuut means:
As a communist candidate, Mr. Odinga ran under the banner of “change,” but did not ever breach 50% popularity during the campaign. However, it appears he definitely LOST the election because of a secret deal he made with the Muslim community in Kenya that was reportedly leaked by a disenchanted aide.
Christians are the biggest worship group in Kenya, constituting 45% of the nation’s populace. Muslims are just about 11%. Odinga signed a letter of agreement with the Muslims to make Islam the nation’s official religion and institute “sharia” law. Beside instituting the traditional Muslim treatment of women that the two sides agreed upon, the law would have banned other religions’ access to TV or radio broadcasting. All person-to-person missionary work by other religions would have been banned . . . in short, Mr. Odinga would have curtailed religious freedom and freedom of speech while imposing hateful restrictions on women and girls and thus proved himself the lowest of scum and well- prepared to betray his country.
Within days, the content of the letter of agreement was known all over the country and Odinga was lambasted in the press and public opinion. Pretending the copy of the agreement “captured” was bogus propaganda from the incumbent, Odinga produced a much more “reasonable” agreement and said it was the only one ever negotiated between himself and the Muslims. Mr. Obama never commented when asked about Odinga’s shenanigans. Later as defeat loomed unmistakable, an e-mail from Senator Obama before the election purported telling how Mr. Odinga should handle the matter (violently) was published . . . Rajjpuut could NOT find a second source to confirm Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation’s” claim that the copy of an Obama e-mail advising claiming election fraud and stimulating violence was a probably successful course of action for Odinga. In any case, however, when Odinga lost, Muslim violence coincided with his claim of “widespread election fraud.” An outbreak of violence (against Christians mostly but any non-Muslim) at this Odinga announcement against numerous Christians and Christian churches suffering attacks, maiming and death and wanton arson. Rape was one of the favorite expressions of violent disapproval by the Muslim perpetrators. Obama again claimed no connection. Odinga never apologized or showed regret. To quell the violence, Odinga was offered the newly created post of prime minister by the victor and accepted.
OK, Obama is not crazy about Christians, so what? The problem increasingly is that of Christian passivity in the face of clear and aggravated injustice. Rajjpuut’s reading of the Bible is that “turn the other cheek” is actually an act of courage and aggressive Christian expressionism and not merely crawling back toward some corner to hide. The best examples, one from a Christian and one from a Hindu, are the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi which demonstrate non-violent but utterly courageous resistance to unjust behavior by one’s “enemy.” This is one reason that Rajjpuut is so enamored of the TEA (taxed enough already) Party – the fact that active resistance to injustice is adopted at every turn of events.
The evidence (often revealed by Rajjpuut on this blogsite) shows Barack Obama’s mother, grandfather and birth father were all communists (and opposed to Christianity and most religious expression); it also shows that his two longest serving mentors, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and poet Frank Marshall Davis are both communists; and it shows that he attended Muslim school for parts of five years and was highly regarded as a student. So, knowing that Barack Obama is an unjust enemy . . . active resistance by Christians and conservatives is called for every step of the way and non-violent dignified protest is the key.
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Darwin was (Plenty) Wrong, while Lamarck’s now Resurrected,
"Faith Healing" and What that Means to You
It is a well-known LIE common among the simple-minded that so-called "soft sciences" like sociology, psychology, human-goal attainment, etc. are subject to far greater change than that taking place in the hard sciences. The soft-sciences have long been considered ever-shifting ground compared to “hard science” explanations of how the world works. Of course, that's totally bogus, a lot more change takes place in the hard sciences a lot faster.
Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.
Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.
In fact, however, biologic theory has also galloped apace. There came in the late 19th and early 20th century discovery of chromosomes and genes and much later DNA. Today biology is considered a much harder science and genetics (with the publishing of the human genome) is by most of the great unwashed all wrapped up into a neat little package called “bio-tech” which definitely sounds like a hard, hard science to the point of virtually being an industrial art so that the term “designer genes” has become much more than a play on words. Rajjpuut, to that says, slow down, Pilgrim, slow down.
It turns out today, however, that in many respects biology, as a hard science, is going back to the drawing board. For one thing, Charles Darwin in his later writings said that he regretted having given nature (meaning “genetics” -- the word genetics didn’t exist in his time) too much credit and to have sorely underestimated the effects of nurture and the environment in shaping life. Wow, the misnomer term “survival of the fittest” in popular thinking certainly sounds like a “struggle,” a battle just to live and then above that a struggle to ensure survival by living long enough and fighting hard enough to overcome others in unrelenting battle and viola! to mate . . . and yet the great Darwin is saying, "I didn’t give the environment enough credit." Think on that, if you want to disappear down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole . . . the fittest by genetics isn't necessarily the fittest overall and nurturing "group dynamics" and nature itself play a greater role . . . Rajjpuut has often insisted the greater truth might be "Survival of the Luckiest," surely Darwin didn't mean that?
As it turns out from the more recent ideas placed into mathematical form by a scientist named John Nash (Nobel Prize Winner and the subject of the movie “A Beautiful Mind”) now-a-days extrapolated into biology and even evolutionary theory, cooperation (including nurturing) seems to be every bit as important to survival and reproduction of the individual and the group as fierce competition does. Survival of the most blessed? Most beloved?
And then there is the amazing fact that the scientists (virtually all of them men until the last fifty years) did what women are often accusing men of doing: they thought (figuratively) with their gonads and not with their brains. Or, more precisely, they put the center of control (and dare Rajjpuut say, “intelligence”) in a living cell (the smallest indivisible unit of life itself) in the cell nucleus. As it turns out, that idea from our high school biology classes is totally wrong: the center of cell intelligence is their external membranes where they interact with the world and the cell’s nucleic areas are actually predictably enough “the gonads” of the cell.
More importantly, for the thinking populace, knowing about all these recent changes in the field of biology, we can now examine a little idea published in 1867 which was nothing more or less than highly emphasized “survival of the fittest” extrapolated onto the societies of man himself in a poorly conceived book published in 1867 “Das Kapital” subtitled “a critique of political economics” by Karl Marx with large chunks of editing by Friedrich Engels. Marx said specifically, he intended to make a science of understanding human economy as related to politics and to reveal to the world an understanding of the evolution of political-economic life forms. He began at what he called the “cell” level and worked his way continually broader from there until he was talking about the “struggle for existence” between capital and labor (the business owner and the worker). Marx postulated a survival of the fittest occuring between economic-political systems across the broad sweep of history all around the world, never ceasing. He raked capitalism over the coals and talked about the benefits of socialism which would definitely outlast and defeat capitalism and eventually the final triumphant result of all these political-economic systems battling away over time: tah, dah! creation of the communist utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” had replaced the barbaric animal exploitation and battling which Marx claimed was the fundamental fact propping up all capitalism.
Marx, of course, never paused to see all the co-operation necessary for capitalist entities to grow and prosper, the subject of this brief and poignant essay . . . .
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
And the enablers of Marx throughout modern history, the Keynesian economists who advocate inflation as a most useful tool for governments (actually, it turns out, only for totalitatian governments) also have overlooked tranquility and cooperation in their understanding of the world of real micro- and real macro-economics . . . put even more briefly . . . .
http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html
http://jim.com/econ/chap02p1.html
And summed up into a whole consistent theory here:
Returning from Marxism based upon the ill-conceived "survival of the fittest" notions, it now appears that strange Frenchman our high school teachers used as a strawman in postulating the FACT of EVOLUTION based upon Darwin’s work, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was possibly much more right than Darwin was and he was right almost sixty years before Darwin’s book. His speech of May 11, 1800, at the Paris Natural History Museum set forth Lamarck’s theory of evolution which was every bit as systematic as Darwin’s was but earlier and included soft-evolution as part of the process. When we were kids, the biology profs made fun of Lamarck saying that according to him if you cut off the tails of two mice and bred them . . . of course their offspring would NOT be tailless so Lamarck was an utter fool . . . and continuing on with a lot of such nonsense that, naturally, a close reading of Lamarck shows he never said or meant. Lamarck, like Darwin, made mistakes but he was first, and today's up to the minute science may actually be proving, he was actually better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck
Lamarck, coming much earlier than Darwin and living in mostly religiously-orthodox France rather than more worldly Britain as Darwin did, was the object of much hate and derision. Despite all this he stuck by his guns and remained true to evolution. Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological theories. First, it was the environment which gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. Secondly, life is structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals. Thirdly, the whole process is the result most usually of great, great amounts of time. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. He outlined these theories regarding evolution first in his Floreal lecture of 1800, and then in three later published works:
- Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants, 1802.
- Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
- Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (in seven volumes, 1815-1822)
It now appears that Lamarck was largely correct, that the environment (as Darwin said in the last years of his life -- and which obviously includes nurturing) is a much more prominent cause of evolution than recent thinking led us to believe; and that Darwin was wrong about the role of savage competition as the single largest driving force in shaping evolution, to wit cooperation within a group and even cooperation within the environs themselves play a much greater role than Darwin might ever have conceived. And for those of you who read our first link above (the little "I, Pencil" essay) it definitely appears that Marx totally missed the boat, basing his ideas upon Darwin’s faulty model of evolution and the faulty term “survival of the fittest,” he created a winner-take all model in which only the ends mattered, the end totally justified the dialectical-materialism to come. That is the world that Barack Obama was raised in, courtesy of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, and his birth-father Barak without a 'c' Hussein Obama, Sr. and that world view (where the glorious state can seriously consider 100% taxes**) is finally and inalterably proven wrong here and now.
For more on the biological background in a format accessible to the layman: try (Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.’s book “The Biology of Belief” which received “The Best Science Book of 2006” award, one of several stimulating works tying cooperative evolution, quantum-physics and psychology together. In a certain sense, we have returned to square one: “it is done unto us, in accordance with our faith.” Of course, now it’s possible to say that faith has a scientific explanation . . . and that evolution is no longer a theory, but a provable fact and they're both part of God’s Design. And, yes, there is clear scientific evidence of the power of faith healing, placebos, and medical miracles of the sort that certainly until now were not considered "hard science." It's all akin to the History Channel showing from translators that the term "Red Sea" was a mis-translation and that it just meant a big river of the time and then going to the river in question and finding tons of ancient military artifacts such as chariots and shields and swords and finding out about an earthquake that took place at the time. Where does faith leave off and science begin? Why not enjoy both? What an amazing world we live in!
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
** as shown here at the link below, in the words of Barak Obama, Sr. but not mentioned in his son's first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" what the real dreams of his father were . . . .
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
China’s Rise, Episodic Stossel Career
Highlight Free Market’s Resilience and Power
Journalism, skeptical independent journalism, used to be called the fourth estate. The meaning of the phrase in American life was that along with religion, government and business . . . the institution of the free press served as a “watchdog” over our society while keeping a free citizenry informed as they must be in a democratic republic. Today that phrase “fourth estate” has lost all meaning. Some have talked about a “fourth house of government” meaning that as the government itself has become a special interest group whose main purpose is growth and self-perpetuation, the mainstream news media have virtutally become a fourth branch (after the presidency, house of representatives and the senate) whose major purpose is also self-aggrandizement and self-perpetuation based upon their pro-government symbiotic relationship. Certainly today’s journalism as practiced by NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN is incestuous, at best^^^ *** and at worst a relationship contrived to protect the leftwing darlings of the media and their projects.
They apparently have been taken in by revisionist history$$ and intend to propagate the benefits they believe that kind of government brings:
What does Rajjpuut mean? Franklin Delano Roosevelt “transformed” government with his “New Deal.” History tells us he was elected as an overwhelming popular choice to escape the uncaring government of the Hoover years. History, at least the history written in progressive history books (those that want us to progress beyond the Constitution), that history is a record of lies. Hoover was a progressive Republican who had the same dreams as Woodrow Wilson. Hoover departed markedly from the Harding and Coolidge years by creating programs for the unemployed and several government programs for farmers. So, by understanding Hoover we understand that Roosevelt could not have won by campaigning to be like Hoover. In fact, reading the newspapers of 1932 we get a totally different picture.
FDR ran against Hoover campaigning like Reagan and like Obama. He was elected president after promising pretty much what Warren Harding delivered in 1921-22 when the “invisible Depression was cut down to size by cutting taxes 40% and cutting government spending over 49%. To be precise: FDR won the 1932 election on the promise of a 25% reduction in federal spending, a balanced budget, a sound currency based on gold, to end the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs, and to remove government from areas that “belonged more appropriately to private enterprise.” The Progressive Woodrow Wilson had put us into a Depression and Harding’s efforts got us out; and Coolidge’s continuation of Harding’s policies gave us the Roaring Twenties “the single-most economically-positive decade in American history. For the first time in history a large percentage of people owned such devices as radios and refrigerators and their own automobiles and had electricity in their homes. For the first time in history, farm families mostly had both electricity indoor plumbing. So FDR ran on repeating Harding’s and Coolidge’s policies and then GASP kept NONE of his promises.
Now think clearly on this: FDR created 39 new agencies (and several others) concerned just with the three-R’s: relief, reform and recovery in his first eight years in office. Mr. Obama has already created over ten times that amount of new government agencies just as part of his Obamacare health care “reform” bill. One new law and 400 new agencies. Is that socialism?
Year after year, independent media overseers have attributed a pro-left (bigger government advocacy) bias that shows up in the news as a ratio of between 3-1-1 and 4-1-1 in story treatment. That is, for every single actually neutral treatment or every single negative reference to big government in the media, typically three or four stories glorifying Big Guv are printed or broadcast. Big journalism has thus become an advocate of Big Guv. Certainly what’s also been true is that for over 40 consecutive months now, mainstream journalists have also been unabashed supporters of today’s main messenger of the unending benefits that Big Guv can bring to all of us: Barack Hussein Obama.
While examining the role of journalism in our about to become socialist state, a very good place to start is with the career of John Stossell, an important individual in the field for well over thirty consecutive years now. He began as a crusader, a consumer-oriented reporter finding fault in big business and its products and its effect upon the every day lives of American Citizens. Almost immediately Stossel transformed into an advocate of higher taxes and bigger government which would protect the consumer from abuses of the voracious and greedy. Soon he was pro-left government all the way advocating deep government involvement in the marketplace and all sorts of watchdog Big Guv agencies to protect us from corporate greed, malfeasance and dare Rajjpuut say it? He was advocating greater government as a tonic for the evil nature of business itself, the misbegotten spawn of satan that it is . . . . Stossel gained a huge following and his career took of straight to the top at ABC News. But Stossel still retained his basic journalistic objectivity which came out in rare moments in revelations of the huge waste and continued abuses of government against both citizens and businesses. Suddenly, Stossel was seeing the world through different eyes . . . . and he stopped winning Emmy awards (he had won a total of nineteen early in his career. His coverage which used to attack corporations, now increasingly began to attack government.
He had seen in his long career, that increasingly the greater government intervention that he’d been calling for evolve into a greater problem than had existed in the first place. He began to re-examine his stance. “I viewed the marketplace as a dog-eat-dog cruel place. I saw people needing government and lawyers to protect them from business. But once I’d started seeing more and more government regulations at work, I came to believe that markets are ‘magical’ and the best protectors of the consumer.”
The magical link above, Rajjpuut avers, tells the story of the free market better than any other . . . .
Returning to Stossel after viewing up close and personal the costly failed debacles that resulted from virtually all the Big Gub solutions that he, his media friends, and the politicians they were backing had prescribed for society’s ills and watching these programs become expensive millstones around the taxpayers’ necks while making tolerable situations untolerable . . . Stossel changed dramatically. “Solutions invariable wound up creating larger problems at the cost of billions of dollars.” Stossel is now a free-market libertarian and author of two books. In October of 2009, tired of having his anti-big government exposes drowned out at ABC by the crescendo of cheerleading for Barak Obama’s prescription for America Stossel left ABC News after twenty-eight years with them, and took a position with Fox News, the clear and away “most free-market oriented network in America.” The public, by and large agrees with Stossel’s assessment. Survey after survey shows that about 64-67% of all viewers regard the mainstream media as too liberal while only 20-22% of viewers regard the media as too conservative. Those reports from Gallup over the last ten years have come as mainstream media have lost respect from the age 25-54 key demographic of consumers and viewers of news programming and suffered an across the board 40-45% drop in viewers. At Stossel’s new gig, Fox News program after program has soon viewership climb from 30-60% over the last couple years.
Today Fox has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC CONBINED and has been the nation’s top network for well over one hundred consecutive months. Stossel’s own program thrives not on Fox News but on Fox Business Channel but he is a frequent visitor to Fox News where he delights in the fact that he seldom gets “softball questions.”
The mainstream media today is about 90% caught up in advancing Obama’s socialist agenda without ever mentioning the word “socialism.” They have, for example, totally ignored the question of “Climate Gate” giving virtually no coverage at all to the story, which is clearly the single most important “scientific” hoax of the last sixty years. Climate gate is a clearly Socialist attempt to put huge portions of our economy under government’s thumb under the guise of protecting us and protecting the environment . . . so clearly Climate Gate deserves a neutral hearing in the mainstream media, one might guess. Rajjpuut, continuing the theme, asks you the reader the following series of hardball questions that never get broached on the mainstream media even by their comparatively most objective journalists. If you can’t answer these questions logically, but still favor Obama’s agenda, perhaps Stossel might describe you, like Big Guv, as part of the making the problem worse.
1. If leftism (larger government role, more government interference in business and individual lives and much more government spending) is the answer why did communism fail so spectacularly in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (eastern European) countries?
2. If socialism is so great, why was a wall around Berlin built and an “Iron Curtain” necessary to keep people from flooding out of Berlin and the socialist communist countries?
3. Why does the mainstream media never talk about the $108 TRillion boondoggle that the combination of Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid has become? Can they not understand that this is our children AND grandchildren’s future at stake?
4. Why does the mainstream media never remind Americans that while Hitler’s policies killed almost thirteen million CIVILIANS, Stalin’s cost the lives of almost twenty-eight million; and Mao’s policies killed fifty-five million CIVILIANS in PEACE TIME?
5. Why is it that the resurgence of Chinese power, culture and influence in the world juxtaposes with the adoption of capitalism there?
6. Why is it that Barak Obama’s “Dreams from My father” (his first autobiography) was never properly vetted by the mainstream media? . . . it clearly is a glorification of socialism, is it not?
7. Why did the mainstream media never explore Barak Obama’s communistic upbringing? We know fifty times more about the mercurial John-John Kennedy’s homelife than we do about the childhood of our 44th president, wouldn’t you say?
8. Why is Black racism never explored? 96% of Blacks voted for Obama while he received more White votes (almost 48%) than Kerry and Gore did, yet don’t the mainstream media repeat without any investigation every trumped up charge of racism, bigotry and hate-mongering against conservatives, is that neutral media coverage?
9. Why have Barack Obama’s connections to avowed communists; to violent radicals; and to out and out nutcases like the Ehrlichs and Holdren never been brought up, much less explored? Why despite one debacle after another has he had not one week since 2007 where his negative media coverage outnumbered his positive coverage?
10. Why has the mainstream media refused to explore Obama’s campaigning for a communist presidential candidate (Raila Odinga) in his father’s native Kenya? To show pictures of Obama dressed in Muslim garb twice? To explore Odinga’s “memorandum of understanding” (sharia) with the Muslim community in Kenya which in the event of an Odinga victory would have made Kenya a Muslim nation by law; banned missionaries; and banned religious programming other than Muslim on radio and TV. Why was nothing reported about Muslim riots, arson, and rapings and murders against Christian Kenyans? The nature of Obama’s connections to Kenya is a real news story, is it not?
11. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s name has become corrupted to Barack with a ‘C’ and why is it that there is no history of the names of Barack our president by the media? Barak Obama, Jr. , Barak Soetoro (his second father’s last name – at the time Barak was attending Muslim schools in Indonesia), Barry Obama, Barry Soweto and finally Barack Obama are all significant moments in Barack’s young life, no? And why has Barry Soweto’s (his name as an undergraduate during his clearly most communist and radical years) existence been completely covered up? Didn’t President G.W. Bush’s youth receive roughly one-hundred and fifty times as much coverage?
12. Why is it that Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.’s defense of 100% taxes in Kenya not deemed important, his son wrote a whole worshipful book about “Dreams from My Father” and this is an important part of those dreams? In the first paragraph of Obama’s father’s most famous economic monograph (Problems with Our Socialism) he defines the “scientific socialism” he prefers as “communism,” shouldn’t that have been of interest to neutral journalists?
13. Why is it that Stanley Anne Dunham and Stanley Armour Dunham’s unabashed communism, never been explored in the mainstream media? Isn’t the influence of the two most key people in raising our president important?
14. Why have Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Americanism; Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Americanism and anti-semitism; and Al Sharpton’s anti-semitism never been seriously discussed . . . these are three key Obama supporters, no? And why does the media give Obama a free pass on not placing his hand over the heart or repeating the words when the Pledge of Allegiance is given? What is it about this man that encourages the media to look the other way as one red flag after another is revealed to them? Perhaps the question should be re-phrased, what is it about the media that makes them willing overlook serious warning signals that Barak Obama is NOT really good for America?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
*** http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dstanley%2Bann%2BDunhan&w=488&h=641&imgurl=www.judenfrei.org%2Ffiles%2Fobama%2Fobama-mother-stanley-ann-dunham-3.jpg&size=46.8kB&name=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judenfrei.org%2Fobama-at-risk-for-assassination-by-Jews&p=stanley+ann+dunham&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=293&oid=21d2de8c9586d00a&tit=obama+mother+stanley+ann+dunham+3+jpg&sigr=120k2b3sr&sigi=123rns0su&sigb=11sebjmrp&fr=chr-yie8#FCar=0c445d5e120caf6a
$$ One issue often discussed is the difference between socialism and communism: revisionists see NO relationship between the two. However, socialism begins with government interference in markets and progressively in the lives of private individuals; communism begins as government involvement increases and may progress to say, 100% taxes (as advocated by Obama's father) 100% control of the means of production; and even 100% control over or at least dominance of virtually every act of the individual. The United States has had socialistic aspects since Hoover and especially since FDR. Should Obamacare stand we are definitely a socialist country. Socialism is an economic approach that stifles creativity and freedom and does not produce abundance for its citizens . . . the greater the degree of socialism, the less creativity, the less freedom and the less abundance.
Dear Barack Obama,
You once held a job as a senior lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Rajjpuut takes that to mean that the University of Chicago Law School must have the least competent staff in the world because you, Mr. Obama are clearly the greatest Constitution-Trasher and Constitution-Basher in American presidential history. Everything the Constitution is and desires, you are clearly against. You, in fact, clearly despise the very spirit of that document.
Now some of this can be foregiven (the leftists running much of the media would say “can be understood”) merely by calling you a “progressive” which means among other things that you are “someone who believes the Constitution is a very flawed document which you in your far greater wisdom than the founding fathers realize America must clearly ‘progress beyond’ if the country is to be properly served.” You’re the man, Barack! And since “the man” is actually so much wiser than the founding fathers or so much more in tune with the ”Twenty-first Century needs” of the American Republic . . . then, by all means DO transform us. However, do it up front -- like a man -- don’t continually seek to sneak by every contrived change as something done for our own good engineered for our own good by the shadiest of processes. For example, tell us that you, in your greater wisdom, regard a “Republic” as far inferior to a Marxist state. Tell us that you in your greater compassion, realize that the Bill of Rights is totally outdated and you’ve got better stuff to eventually replace it, oh and by the way, you might even tell us what that replacement would be and what pages of “Das Kapital”** it comes from. Tell us, up front, that you regard capitalism as an abomination that enslaves people and exploits them and then describe the full nature of the communistic state you’re planning for us. It’s really the proper and honest thing to do.
You see, Barak, one reason we Americans, silly of us I know, respect the U.S. Constitution, is that the framers of it and the Declaration of Independence were so open in all their actions and all their words . . . so forgive us if, silly us, we’d like you to be 100% open and above board and admit exactly who and what you are and where you plan on dragging us? Your birth-father whatever his other faults might have been, was an open and honest communist. While deploring his beliefs, Rajjpuut admires his integrity. The same canNOT be said for you, Barack.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
** In “Dreams From My Father” our president showed clear reverence for the man (Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.^^) who wrote the 1965 article linked below, “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” The paper extolls, among other communistic virtues, the proper role of “100% taxation.” On the very first page of the essay, Barak, Sr. even lists his own favorite ideology, “scientific socialism” and immediately makes it precisely clear that to him the term scientific socialism means “communism” and nothing else. In the essay, over and over again he makes obvious his preference for 100% public, rather than private, ownership of land, produce and other property saying “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.” Here is the paper in its entirety:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
Notice how often Barak, Sr. openly uses the name “Marx” and the words “tax” and “nationalization” (confiscation of the businesses of foreigners as well as those of non-African Kenyan citizens) in this brief paper. This is the man, his father, whom Barak admired above all others. His hero, instead of George Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman or Kennedy, is this man. And the dreams expressed in this paper and other published works are his dreams . . . dreams from the man (who proved too radical even for a socialist Kenya and was kicked out of his job in the office of Economic Development for “not being able to keep his mouth shut” according to Barak’s half sister in “Dreams From My Father”) he admired most in all the world. For God’s sake, if you wanted to know who Hitler was, read “Mein Kampf,” If you want to know who Barak Obama is, read “Dreams From My Father” (where he deliberately omits the words communist and communism and never tells you about the communist environment he was raised in) and then read Barak H. Obama, Sr.’s dreams in this tiny essay. What he says on page 31 (page 8 of 10 in the article) in particular delineates his dream for Kenya, which is his son’s dream for us. The fact that this dream has not changed, and is NOT likely to change, can be surmised from our president’s twice interrupting his own presidential campaigning to visit Kenya and campaign for the communist candidate for Kenya’s president, his cousin Raila Odinga, and even to twice wearing Muslim attire during that Kenyan campaign as well as ordinary suit and tie at other times.
^^ notice Barak, Sr. spelled his first name without a ‘c’ and apparently never changed his name in any fashion during his life. This Barak without a ‘c’ is how his son’s name was spelled at birth. Barak, Jr., unlike his father, has gone under Barak Obama as well as Barak Sotero (taking on the surname of his mother’s second husband) Barry Sotero, Barry Obama, “Barry Soweto,@” and now Barack with a “c” Obama rather than again being open and honest about who he actually is and what he actually believes in and what he plans for America. Just as Barak, Sr.’s name has now been officially westernized (over about 85% of the internet including Wikipedia) to be the same as his son’s with the “c” changing history . . . Barack Obama believes it is by such little and big changes to transform America into communism: the longheld dream of his father for Kenya.
@ there seems to be nothing beyond sheer whim explaining where the name Barry Soweto came from, but Obama used it exclusively during his undergraduate college years
There was a time in this country (say from about 1885 to 1917) when the communist party and the unions were just about the only ones who gave a damn about the working man in factories, mines, and other dangerous places where a dollar a day was big pay . . . a time when the unions, in particular did a lot of good. And then the unions became politicized, growing large war-chests to influence elections and the once noble, selfless unions became the corrupted mess they are today; making it impossible for American business to compete with China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. Today the largest labor union in the country and the single-most influential union of all is the National Education Association (the teacher's union) because, of course, they're the ones influencing the thinking of our children. The NEA has been guilty of revisionist history for almost four decades now. They will almost never let on that anything undesirable could be associated with unions or socialism or even marxist-communism.
Once upon a time there was a Marxist young fellow who wrote a lot of songs, some of them very good, others not so great. His name was Lennon and he thought there was a lot of wisdom to be found in the words of a political-minded fellow from a few wars earlier and he attributed a lot of karmaic strength to the fact that the guy from the early 20th Century had a name almost exactly like his but spelled “Lenin” instead of “Lennon.”
The young song writer liked to put all sorts of strange stuff in his body and some of it seemed to affect his mind and he began to constantly imagine a Utopian society based upon the words the earlier Lenin had proselytized about this classless, borderless, possessionless, Ideal World where all people lived in harmony, happily ever after. Indeed one of the last of his famous songs was named “Imagine” . . . some of the words were:
. . . . Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world . . . .
In the song, he was, of course, referring to the famous communistic ideal “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.” Unfortunately, all his pot-smoking and LSD use, etc., had blinded him to simple facts like the twenty-five million killed by one Joseph Stalin just to keep his little Soviet Communist Utopia humming along – over twice as many civilian deaths as the Nazis and Hitler brought about . . . and this figure is not including the Ukranian Holocaust called “Holodomor”** in which the grain grown by the “rebellious” Ukrainians was all removed and a carefully orchestrated mass killing by hunger took place. The Soviets deny it happened, the Ukrainians say seven million were starved to death purposely, but for the sake of argument, we’ll take Stalin’s word for it and say those seven million deaths never happened. Apparently, the rest of the Soviet State as personified by Stalin had a greater need for the Ukrainian foodstuffs than the Ukrainians did . . . so spiritually, you can understand that, can’t you, that those deaths just shouldn’t be counted? Well, no one said Utopia was perfect . . . . what’s thirty-two million deaths in a perfect world anyway?
A far greater hero to those socialist sympathizers of John Lennon’s ilk and to today’s Obama administration is Red Communist Chairman Mao Tse Dong. While a great deal of the deaths orchestrated by Stalin did take place during the days before, during and after World War II, the sixty-five million Chinese civilians that died under Mao were all peacetime victims. Almost twenty million peasants died during one “Great Leap Forward” span of fifteen years (three consecutive five-year plans) when Mao refused to believe that his economic policies could possibly be causing starvation on such a mass scale. Ah, well, a few sacrifices for the perfection of mankind in the long run easily worth it when we look back from Utopia, eh?
Che Guevara, of several decades of perpetual t-shirt fame, reportedly was a sadist who personally killed some one-hundred eighty plus people and oversaw the deaths of hundreds more. The rock bands who’ve expressed adoration of Che are countless . . . one problem: Che punished ownership of Rock ‘n Roll records, lyrics and posters with death. Of course he was hard on ownership of forbidden books too. So the only question about Barak Obama’s noble experiment in ridding the United States of capitalism is how much misery will his misguided dreams cost us? And what chance do we have that the teacher's union will help our children see the truth instead of union propaganda bracing up Barak, the annointed?
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
The most incredible thing about Barak Obama is that after three years in the public eye, he is still an absolute unknown to 95% of the American public. Imagine John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1960. Except for his dalliances with women other than Jackie, which the adoring press conveniently didn’t reveal to us until after his death, the man’s life was an open book. This is in 1959 – 1963, the veritable stone ages. Today, half a century later, computers, the internet, genealogy, public records acts, and the multiplication of the press by cable and internet makes it impossible for public people to maintain secret lives, unless their initials are Barak Hussein Obama, Jr., that is.
It's important when making investigations and revelations such as this one to never jump to conclusions but rather to always seek full truth and verfiable truth, for example . . . .
Some of us, all too few, know an awful lot about the man who is Barak Obama, 44th American President, and his Marxist upbringing . . . and even know enough to NOT get excited about the bronze statue of Ho Chi Minh standing at honor at his Hawaiian prep school as its most prestigious graduate (the idiots on the extreme right, learn that and go bonkers, because they've never actually learned anything). We don't get excited because we know that Ho was honest and a Vietnamese patriot and that he came to the west FIRST on at least two occasions in meetings with the OSS (forerunner to the CIA) with two documents resembling, in some cases word for word, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and asking for our help or at least our non-interference with Viet Nam's revolt against French colonialism after World War II. We, of course, did the opposite and supported the French with arms and money, thus denying the people of Viet Nam the very revolution that created our nation and our freedom.
We also know that Ho was a great help to us and our British Allies** in keeping the Japanese at bay in Asia during World War II while the leadership of French Indo-China collaborated with Japan. We know that the OSS did not forward his plea to either FDR or Truman and that our entry into Viet Nam after supporting corrupt dictators there was a huge strategic mistake. Because we have a real rather than a superficial education and understanding of the facts and their significance and we understand that things are not always what they seem we tend to have a charitable heart. As we give Ho Chi Minh the benefit of the doubt and the researchable facts, we do the same for Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. We do not, for example, condemn Barak because of the upbringing his father, mother and grandfather gave him. We did NOT condemn Ho Chi Minh's ideological shift to the communists when the west turned him down, in his place we might have done exactly the same. Communism and Barak Obama were early companions through no fault of his own. We do, however, condemn his actions and words and broken promises since coming into the public eye in February 2007. Some of us are Libertarians (fiscal conservatives, moderate socially) and othes come from other places on the political spectrum, but we want truth and we don’t jump to conclusions in support of the two corrupt major parties. We don't know everything, but we know a lot, in fact an awful lot . . . why the mainstream press doesn't seem to want to let you know this, all of this, that is an awful travesty . . . .
We know that for his grandparents’ sake and to make life in American schools much easier, Barak became Barry, and remained Barry Obama, for much of his young life. We know from his public words and actions and his two autobiographies that Barak believes that he was born to be a leader and that if he merely repeats something often enough people will come to believe it and, indeed, seemingly that his very repeating will make it so. We know that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was an unabashed, unsecretive communist even from prep school days in Seattle. We know that his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a very rich semi-secretive communist. We know that the well-known columnist and communist poet Frank Marshall Davis was a frequent visitor in their home in Hawaii and that he was Barak’s chief mentor about being Black in a White man’s world.
We know that for his grandparents’ sake and to make life in American schools much easier, Barak became Barry, and remained Barry Obama, for much of his young life. We know from his public words and actions and his two autobiographies that Barak believes that he was born to be a leader and that if he merely repeats something often enough people will come to believe it and, indeed, seemingly that his very repeating will make it so. We know that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was an unabashed, unsecretive communist even from prep school days in Seattle. We know that his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a very rich semi-secretive communist. We know that the well-known columnist and communist poet Frank Marshall Davis was a frequent visitor in their home in Hawaii and that he was Barak’s chief mentor about being Black in a White man’s world.
We know that his African father, Barak H. Obama, Sr., was an unapologetic communist who lost his job in the Kenyan Economic Development Office for being not only outspokenly pro-communist but even writing papers against Kenya’s economic direction (not socialistic enough and not fast enough and not explicit enough) in which he twice mentions the possibility and laudability of “100% taxes:” and the necessity of forcing financial equality upon White, Asian, Black and Mixed members of Kenyan society. We know that Barak's first autobiography, "Dreams from My Father" never mentions his father's out and out communism but does show a deep reverence for the man and his politics.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
(one incidence of the “100% tax” thing is on p. 31 of the East Africa Journal magazine, page 8 of 10 of the topmost of these two links)
We also know that Barak Obama spent a lot of time at Muslim schools and that his second father was a Muslim. We know that besides the time he confesses about being involved with alcohol, marijuana and even cocaine . . . he spent even more years as Barry Soweto. We don't know where that particular name came from, but he attended Occidental College and a few other American schools under that name. He came to Occidental as a Fullbright Scholarship recipient under a program aimed strictly at people with dual citizenships. We know that this second identity has partly obscured the trail for many superficial seekers of the Barak Obama past. But mostly we know that although Barak Obama has numerous degrees and a fine academic resume,` he is not a "western man" not an American. We know this from listening to the man talk . . . watching him work as president, one thing is very obvious . . . . Barak Obama is NOT "an educated man" in the American sense of that phrase. He doesn’t know American history or geography or for that matter have a freshman high schooler’s grasp of science. His grasp of both history and psychology, in fact, can best be described as “wishful thinking.” Wishful thinking about “Utopia” to be precise, that is the one subject that Barry Soweto/Barak Obama has mastered perfectly. He has so mastered that version of future history that he is able on demand to create the picture of that Utopia where “saying so, makes it so” into the mind and very soul of gullible Americans who really ought to know better.
Witness his recent State of the Union address. To anyone with a street kid’s knowledge of economics, it was all lies piled upon lies upon more lies: Don Quixote’s impossible dream. But to the faithful, the Barak Obama worshippers, it was manna from heaven. His deep approval numbers with Rasmussen Reports jumped from 24% to 32% and his overall approval leapt from 44% to 51% overnight. Of course two weeks later those numbers have fallen back to where they belong as people start to wake up once again without their Barak Speech Fix and realize Barak Obama is NOT what he seems; as people realize that there is no sincerity about Barak Obama and all his promises are a ruse designed to achieve his version of Utopia, a dream that conflicts 100% with the American Dream.
The Barak Obama version of Utopia is not necessarily Utopia for you and certainly not Utopia for a open-minded, outspoken critic like myself . . . that would be foolish. If there’s one thing Barak Obama is NOT, that is foolish. In his heart of hearts he knows the price to achieve the BHO, Jr. Utopia is paid by never stopping to rest but always pretending to do so, pretending to apologize or reverse direction (think of me as the job’s president, Mortals) as he always takes the most direct approach toward it.
Despite his illiteracy about real economics, Barak even sort of knows real history, he understands that somehow his big Utopian dream failed in the Soviet Union and in the Warsaw Pact countries, but of course that was because of failed men. In Barak Obama’s Utopia a perfect system will be put in place and then mankind under that perfect system will be perfected in turn whatever the cost. The fine dream, this Utopia, of course is a communist state where the resources of society come “from each according to his ability” and are then channeled “to each according to his need.”
Let’s detour from this Dystopian nightmare of Obama’s to Coolidgeville. Coolidgeville is a place that looks a lot like the United States of the Roaring Twenties when a series of Progressive Presidents (Republicans as well as Democrat) leading up to Woodrow Wilson and followed by the out-of-touch Warren G. Harding (not a progressive, just stupid enough to surround himself with crooks) who was replaced after death (from a heart attack while in a closet with a maid? That’s one story) by the great Calvin Coolidge. Under Coolidge’s benign leadership, low taxes and total non-interference the country blossomed as never before. Of course, Silent Cal said, “I do NOT choose to run" in 1928 and Progressive Republican Herbert Hoover took his place to be in turn replaced by twelve years plus of Progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Coolidgeville looks a lot like the Camelot of JFK; and the more recent America during Reaganville years when the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and Berlin Wall all fell. The guiding light in Coolidgeville is NOT “Das Kapital” but the United States Constitution, a document based upon the fact that we humans are imperfect and can presumably never be made perfect, but we are worthy of great government, nevertheless; a document that offered humanity full liberty guaranteed by an incredible “Bill of Rights,” numerous incentive for bringing out their best, and an incredible system of checks and balances to make humanity’s inevitable corruptions quite manageable. No Utopia here, just a hard-nosed realistic plan for a much better life courtesy of a non-interfering, benevolent government limited in scope to doing a very few tasks and then doing them very, very well. Unlike Barak’s static future Utopia where the government does everything and does it so incompetently that we are NOT safe from our enemies and we are NOT free . . . Coolidgeville is a living-breathing dynamic and REAL place available at any time in history including NOW!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
** Compare Paris to other European Capitals. Compare Saigon, the "Pearl of the Pacific," -- these places went unravaged by the war. The French, under Petain, meanwhile were collaborating fully with the Nazis in Europe and Africa; and with the Japanese in French Indo-China . . . that is, they were fighting against us and supporting the Japanese and Nazis who fought against us . . . . Why wasn't Petain taken to Nuremberg, tried and convicted and hung with the ten top Nazi's on October 16, 1946? And why did the Zionists never fully attack Petain's top officials for their collaboration in the Holocaust? The French have lived a charmed life much akin to that lived by Barak Obama, Jr. just because the full extent of their treachery is not openly displayed for all to see and understand.
National Debt Will Grow to 90% of Gross Domestic Project by 2020
You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time and the Congressional Budget Office too much of the time. However, just as it’s not nice to fool Mama Nature, sooner or later the CBO usually does the job they’re paid to do and the fooling around stops. After showing the testicles of an emasculated amoeba and failing to stand up to the Obamacare budget projections last week, this week the CBO finally stopped squeaking liking mice and stood up like men and after projecting Obama’s budgets out into the future said:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/frontmatter.shtml
The CBO's preliminary analysis indicates the following:
If the President’s proposals were enacted, the federal government would record deficits of $1.5 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. Those deficits would amount to 10.3 percent and 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively. By comparison, the deficit in 2009 totaled 9.9 percent of GDP.
Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President’s proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter. Compared with CBO’s baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 2 percentage points of GDP higher in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 1.3 percentage points greater in 2013, and above baseline levels by growing amounts thereafter. By 2020, the deficit would reach 5.6 percent of GDP, compared with 3.0 percent under CBO’s baseline projections.
Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.
The yearly interest on the national debt as a budget entity by 2020 would prohibit virtually any semblance of normalcy. And that's NOT diminishing or paying down the debt, just paying interest upon it. As all truly aware citizens know, the reason for the upcoming drops in deficits shown by the CBO are that a series of new front-loaded taxes are about to be sprung upon the nation (great idea during a recession, eh?) to pay for Obamacare and all the projections for incredible benefits from Obamacare all the while cutting deficits is based upon the most optimistic possible scenarios for economic bounce-back.
Since the “jobs-president” rather than concentrating on jobs has been doing everything possible to annihilate jobs with his jobs-busting economic policies . . . it is very possible that the economic situation come 2020 may be considerably much worse than the CBO projects. Since the president has a whole deskload of initiatives like amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens on his plate that are all very expensive GIBs and GSBs (Government Interference and Government Spending Boondoggles) . . . it is very possible that the economic situation come 2020 may be much, much worse than the CBO projects. Since Obama is looking to make many more “fundamental transformations” to this country . . . it is very possible that the economic situation come 2020 may be much, much, much worse than the CBO projects. It does NOT appear that Obama is through spending this year or ever.
Rajjpuut suggests three new Amendments to the U. S. Constitution (1. Obamacare and all its effects be immediately repealed 2. Federalism Amendment prevents country from passing laws that state governments must pay for such as Medicaid which is set to bankrupt every state by 2020 3. Federal spending be limited to 12.5% of the previous year’s GDP); that come November the voters reject all those who supported Obamacare; and that Obama be voted out for incompetence and operating contrary to his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
Visit these two links. Read the words from Barak Hussein Obama, Sr., our president’s father, as he tells us the benefits of 100% taxes for Kenya. He didn't think mere socialism was good enough for Kenya, but that the country needed 100% taxes a.k.a. communism and his non-ending diatribes got him kicked out of government. His son devoted his first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" to that man but took great pains never to reveal his politics. As said and proven in these pages often before, President Barak Obama is a communist and his birth-father, mother and grandfather were all communists. The man is doing all he hoped to do, he is overthrowing the American way of life.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
