Socialism and Communism: Different Means to the Same End

Socialism is merely the gateway drug to communism. They both want the same thing, which is government control of everything, and everyone. The socialists (Mensheviks) think they can convince you to submit willingly. The communists (Bolsheviks) use force to gain your submission when the promises of socialism fail. Continue reading

Advertisements

The Failure of Liberal/Progressive Education (a.k.a. Indoctrination)

Socialism at its core is diametrically opposed to everything our Constitution stands for.  So how is an avowed socialist now holding an office that requires swearing an oath to protect and defend our Constitution?  How is he being allowed to run for President of the United States when everything he openly promises to do will further erode or even finish the destruction of our Constitution?  For the first 30 years of his tenure in public office, you can blame the idiots in Vermont.  For the fact that he is a NATIONAL contender for the office of POTUS, you can blame our education system which has been steadily destroyed over the last 75 years or so by liberal-progressives to the point that we have now turned out two generations of students who are barely literate, and have been indoctrinated instead of educated on civics.  When you ask the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters what socialism is, they have no idea.  They hear the platitudes and promises that everything will be free and equal, but haven’t been taught the history that every single time this ideology has been followed, it leads eventually to totalitarianism, shortage, suffering, and death.  Russian and the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea are classic examples.
Continue reading

Barack HugObama Chavez completing transformation of the press into ‘State-Run Media’

If you’re not already awake to the fact that Barack Obama is a tyrant who, along with his progressive minions, wish to rule and oppress us, what else will it take to convince you?  ALL dissent to this president and administration is being punished, and that punishment is being used to intimidate anyone else who might speak out against their tyranny.  The IRS is being used to financially intimidate political opponents.  The NSA is monitoring and collecting data from everyone that could be used against them for blackmail or other purposes.  The police forces are being militarized along with the Dept. of Homeland (in)Security to act as a force not to PROTECT us, but to CONTROL us.  The military is being purged of any senior leader who shows a willingness to honor his oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, and/or who has any real leadership ability and charisma.  And now Obama is moving to ensure that an already largely compliant and subservient media is brought completely under his control, and all unfavorable reporting on him, his administration, or the agenda he is pushing is crushed.  We are one step away from Pravda, state-run media, here in America.  This is the kind of thing that was done by Hugo Chavez, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and every other dictator who has risen to power.

With all of the MYRIAD violations of the law and the Constitution by this president and his administration, WHAT FURTHER PROOF DO YOU NEED that he is an ENEMY OF OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR CONSTITUTION?!?!?!?!

This usurper MUST be removed from office, tried, impeached, and jailed.  He has gone FAR beyond the transgressions that any previous president has EVER been impeached for, and he’s NOT SLOWING DOWN.  In fact, he is becoming more bold in his willingness to ignore the law and Constitution with each passing day, and these transgressions are right out in public for all to see.

Congress won’t act, the ballot box has already been corrupted, and the law means nothing to this president.  What avenue of redress are we left with to remove this usurping tyrant?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  –Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The only difference between the 1st American Revolution and the one we need now is that the despotic “King” is not an ocean away.
+


Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?

President Barack Obama

By Matthew Clark Filed in: Free Speech
4:44 PM Feb. 18, 2014
The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Continue reading

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality

This is an OUTSTANDING post on the subject of “Net Neutrality,” which is anything but, and the growing tyrannical government intrusion into what has been up until now a largely free and unrestricted (i.e. NEUTRAL) medium of information exchange. I won’t be repetitive. Just read the entire post.


http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/

Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality

Posted by Judd Weiss on January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm, filed in Politics

1542Share

FCC Boot - With A Light Touch

Let’s bring some perspective here. People have become hysterical. They are DEMANDING Net Neutrality. Now. Right NOW. But, wait a second… they already have it. Right now, we all enjoy a neutral net. It’s here. It exists. It’s alive. And it’s fucking fantastic.

Bless their hearts. Net Neutrality advocates have good intentions. They are typically very intelligent, sophisticated, and they obviously care enough to get involved in bringing about a better world. I hope that this article will help some of them realize that they are fighting to destroy their own goal. They are fighting for their enemy.

Our Enemy. We all have a common enemy here, because we all have a common goal. Everyone on all sides of this debate wants the same thing, an open and free Internet.
Continue reading

Net Neutrality is THEFT

This amounts to an unlawful, unconstitutional nationalization of the internet, ala Hugo Chavez. To carry the author’s FedEx example further, imagine the government telling FedEx that they must allow ACME Inc. more access to FedEx trucks to ship their goods without paying for it like normal paying customers. Those trucks are the same as internet bandwidth, and ACME is the equivalent of companies like Netflix and YouTube who wish to benefit unequally from the investment of the cable companies without having to pay for it. The government is forcing cable providers to give EQUAL access to their bandwidth to companies who benefit from that access without having to risk invest in the infrastructure to produce it.

The courts have already said that the government doesn’t have the right to impose this type of regulation. (Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission)

This is nationalization, theft, and a “slow motion coup.”


http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/29/net-neutrality-is-theft

Net Neutrality Is Theft

By on 12.29.10 @ 6:09AM

The Internet is not a natural resource. It does not grow on trees, or appear on the ground like dew on a spring morning. Nor does it operate by magic. The Internet exists only to the extent it is built, and then maintained and operated.

That requires big bucks, especially for broadband access. Broadband requires hundreds of billions if not trillions in investment to lay cables under streets, or to build and then launch satellites into orbit.

Where does that money come from? It comes from private investors. And when they put their money into the ground, or in orbit, to deliver to the people the new world of Cyberspace, those delivery vehicles are their property, just like the FedEx delivery trucks and planes that deliver your packages overnight are the property of FedEx.

Just as the government is not needed to tell FedEx what delivery routes to use, or how to get the packages to their destination overnight, it is not needed to tell Internet Service Providers and broadband operators how to deliver their access to Cyberspace. Those ISPs and broadband operators are subject to fierce market competition, and are driven by market incentives to get a return on all that investment money they put into the ground or into orbit. These factors force them to serve the people, far, far better than politics forces government to serve the people. That is why the Internet works so well.

As the Wall Street Journal explained on December 22, “There is no compelling reason to subject the Internet to more regulation. New devices and applications proliferate. Competition among broadband providers is robust, barriers to market entry low, and evidence of market failure non-existent.”

FCC Pirates Board the Ship

Yet, without compelling reason, law or even politics on their side, on December 21, on a 3-2 party line vote, the FCC voted to impose its “net neutrality” rules on the Internet. What net neutrality means is that the government now has the power to decide how ISPs and broadband operators manage the access they provide to the Internet. It is as if the government decided to regulate how FedEx delivers its overnight mail, and what routes and what vehicles they use.

The FCC starts out by proclaiming that its net neutrality rules are just meant to ensure equal access by all to the Web. But as George Orwell showed us, that is how socialism started out too, until we later discovered that some were more equal than others. Once the founding principle is laid for government regulation and control, then that power can be used to regulate and control access to the Internet “in the public interest.” In English translation, that means in the special interest of the Ruling Class. There are precedents in China and Iran for how that has worked out in practice.

Dissenting FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell explained further in the Wall Street Journal on December 20 why the FCC’s net neutrality regulation makes no sense:

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

But what I have learned in life is that when something doesn’t make sense, that means there is something else behind it that people are trying to hide.

And that is exactly what we have here. For what is behind the FCC’s net neutrality crusade is reflected by an organization calling itself Free Press. That is an Orwellian title in this case, because what Free Press is for is the opposite of a free press. Free Press is one of those pseudo-Marxist front groups that Barack Obama has always traveled with so easily throughout his life. It is a grown-up, slick, sophisticated version of those campus radicals who shout down college speakers with whom they don’t agree.

That is what Free Press is after with its “net neutrality” regulation. It is laying the groundwork for government control of the Internet. Once that it is established, it will be able to shout down websites with which it doesn’t agree, if not shut them out altogether.

The entering wedge for net neutrality so far is not public freedom to access and navigate the Internet, which no one can credibly claim is not currently as free as could be. (here is the curx of the matter) The entering wedge for now is use of Internet access and broadband services by competing commercial concerns like Netflix and YouTube, which consume huge proportions of bandwidth that can consequently interfere with use by consumers and others.

The problem has not become unmanageable yet, but threatens to be. The concern is that broadband operators will limit use of their service by other commercial operations that are effectively bandwidth hogs, to preserve the viability of their service for the general public, which is exactly what they should do. The supposed purpose of net neutrality regulation so far is to prevent broadband operators from doing this.

The solution is for broadband operators to charge heavier commercial users of their service heavier fees to cover the costs. Those heavier fees can then be used to build even bigger and better broadband and Cyberspace access, sufficient to fully accommodate even the heaviest commercial broadband users.

But that doesn’t involve the expanded government power that Obama’s FCC and net neut advocates like Free Press are after. So it is not on the table as the answer. Government takeover is the only answer they will consider, just as in health care. But if the government is going to take control over the big investment bucks broadband providers put in the ground or into orbit, America is not going to get the Internet investment and access it needs. That is why America’s Internet access is already lagging behind other countries.

Democracy and the Rule of Law, or Not?

On April 6, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission that the FCC does not have the power to issue net neutrality regulation. That decision resulted because the FCC already tried to impose an earlier, more limited version of net neutrality regulation through administrative adjudication of a particular case, rather than by broader rulemaking.

The case arose when Comcast responded to commercial users trading large files directly on its broadband service, rather than the users going through a central server. The FCC claimed authority to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers like Comcast based on statutory language which authorizes the Commission to “make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” This is Hugo Chavez style reasoning.

Rejecting that reasoning in an opinion written by one of the Circuit’s more liberal Judges, David Tatel, the Court had to remind the FCC that “administrative agencies may act only pursuant to authority delegated to them by Congress.” The Court said regarding the FCC’s reasoning, “if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.” The Court added that “without reference to the provisions of the [FCC’s governing] Act directly governing broadcasting, the Commission’s ancillary jurisdiction would be unbounded.” Indeed, the FCC’s lawyers suggested to the Court in oral argument that in the agency’s view it already has the power to impose price controls and rate regulation on Internet service providers and broadband operators.

Yet, the FCC just flouts this decision in going ahead and issuing its net neutrality regulations by rulemaking last week. Moreover, McDowell explains in the Wall Street Journal that it also flouts Congress, as before the FCC issued the new net neut regs, “More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.” McDowell adds that this was “a rare event in Washington: a large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something.”

And the FCC’s action also flouts democracy and the American people. In the last election, net neut schemers like Free Press concocted a net neutrality pledge for candidates to run on. They got 65 pledge signers. All 65 lost at the polls. That is because the people are smart enough to recognize that government regulation over the Internet is going to be the opposite of Power to the People.

This FCC episode raises a broader question about the Obama Administration in the next two years. Because what we see here is what we are already seeing elsewhere in the Administration as well, from HHS Secretary Sebelius’s takeover of health insurance, to the EPA’s takeover of the economy based on global warming fantasies. That broader question is: Are we going to be governed by democracy and the rule of law in America, or not? What these opening skirmishes indicate is the Administration will severely test that proposition in the next two years rather than work with the newly Republicanized Congress.

The Republican majority in the House must be equally tough in responding to this fundamental challenge to the governance of America. One of those responses must be to act to remove Administration officials who attempt to flout the courts, the Congress, democracy, and the will of the American people.

The House should open hearings on removing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for failing to abide by the ruling of the Federal appeals court, as well as blowing off Congress, and the American people. Those hearings would be all about stopping the government’s takeover of the Internet, an issue on which the American people overwhelmingly agree with the Republican view. The hearings should focus as well on removing FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who has more openly expressed his opposition to freedom of speech for people with whom he doesn’t agree, a viewpoint America cannot allow to anyone in position of authority.

Let me reiterate that Republicans can never consider impeaching Obama himself, no matter what he does. I have suggested before that one of the reasons to vote Republican for President is that Republican Presidents are subject to the rule of law, a principle established in the early 1970s. But Democrat Presidents are not subject to the rule of law, a principle established in the late 1990s. Democrat Presidents are free in our system of government to flout the law with impunity.

But Republicans can and must send the message that Administration officials perfectly prepared to assist in a slow motion coup against the rule of law and democracy will themselves be removed.

The ultimate solution, however, to protect the Internet, and freedom of speech in America, is to privatize the FCC. That would be accomplished by auctioning off property rights in the airwaves and broadcast spectrums. In the free market, private owners would use those resources to best serve the public, in order to maximize the value of their investment. That would apply to all radio broadcasting and TV broadcasting licenses. The FCC would not be needed then for any purpose, and should be abolished. The spectrum auctions would raise funds to be used to help balance the budget.
+


Proof Obama is a Clear and Present Danger to America

Conclusive proof to all but the mentally deficient among us that Obama is a danger to America.  (Socialist) Economics aside, he is weakening us in reality, and in the eyes of our enemies, which is as bad or worse.  An enemy who views us a weak will be emboldened to strike us.  The vultures are beginning to circle in anticipation of having an American carcass to feast on soon.

Add a few of these things up and tell me that we have no cause for concern, and I’ll tell you that you need to use your Obamacare to reengage the half of your brain that is sitting idle.  China does not like us, and is in a position to destroy us economically today, and will soon be able to do so militarily as well.  Russia never did like us, and they are reemerging as a threat.  Russia is selling arms and technology to EVERYONE who hates us, i.e. Iran, China, Venezuela, and North Korea.  Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, and all Obama can do is complement My-mood I’m-in-a-jihad and talk about sanctions that will never happen, and will not work.  China and Russia are forming “strategic alliances,” as are Russia and Venezuela.  Obama has alienated EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that we have historically called allies, and whom we would rely on if we get into trouble.  Obama has bowed to every tin-pot dictator around the globe, and has now told them that we basically won’t do anything to stop them should they attack us.  The list goes on, and on, and on, and…

Obama apparently can’t destroy America quickly enough for his liking from within, so he is now trying to enlist the help of our enemies around the world.

For the good of America, and dare I say the world, Obama must go.


April 07, 2010

Russia Moving Fast Before ‘Arms Control’ with U.S.

By Jane Jamison

The New York Times says that President Obama’s nuclear arms reduction agreement, to be signed within a few days, will significantly alter U.S. defense policy to “substantially narrow the conditions under which nuclear weapons could be used, even in self-defense.”

Is anyone in the Obama administration paying any attention to Vladimir Putin?

The Russian prime minister has just returned from his first-ever trip to Venezuela, with bear hugs for dictator-“presidente” Hugo Chávez.

Russia and Venezuela signed no fewer than 31 agreements in twelve hours. Russia has already sold Chávez $4 billion in military armaments, and now he has signed on for at least $5 billion more.

RTT NEWS:

The relationship between Moscow and Caracas has strengthened in recent years, with Venezuela buying military equipments worth $4 billion from Russia, including Sukhoi jet fighters, helicopters, tanks and assault rifles, since 2005.

During his latest visit to Venezuela, Putin had personally delivered four Russian Mi-17 helicopters President Chavez, the last of a batch of 38 military helicopters the South American country purchased from Russia in 2006.

Besides weapons, Venezuela wants nuclear power (“just for domestic purposes,” of course). Sadly, due to NASA budget cuts under Obama, it appears that Venezuela may have astronauts before America does in the future. Russia needs oil, and Putin came back with a $20-billion contract to partner with Venezuela in the Orinoco belt. Vladimir and Hugo. It’s all good.

Reuters:

We are not going to build the atomic bomb but we will develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have to prepare for the post-petroleum era,” Chavez said on Thursday.

While Putin was in Venezuela, China was taking delivery of weapons from Russia on Friday.

Russia has delivered 15 batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to China, Interfax news agency reported, under a contract analysts said could be worth as much as $2.25 billion.

China is a major buyer of Russian weapons, and the two countries say they are trying to forge a strategic partnership, though senior Russian officials are privately concerned about an increasingly assertive China.

Russia has been conducting quite a business by selling the same S-300 “Favorit” (“the world’s most powerful and efficient air defense system”) to many countries hostile to the U.S. and Israel: Syria, India, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. Russia is also well underway with even more advanced versions, the S-400 and S-500 series, the latter of which can repel attacks in space. The systems began marketing on YouTube videos and news releases dated in late February of this year.

A nagging concern is the fact that Russia signed a deal in 2005 to deliver anti-aircraft, anti-missile S-300s to Iran…with delivery originally set for 2009. It is not clear if they ever were delivered. Why don’t we know?

Obviously, this has presented a huge security concern to Israel.

Haaretz News:

The S-300 is considered to be one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world, and its capabilities allow it to intercept aircraft flying 30,000 meters up, from 150 kilometers away.

Netanyahu’s government began stepping up its pressure on Putin not to go forward with the arms deliveries to Iran last summer. While Russia was taking meetings with the Israelis, Putin also said that his country’s economic crisis makes the lucrative armaments business very attractive.

A Russian ship, which may have been delivering S-300s to Iran last August, mysteriously “disappeared” between Finland and Algeria. It is believed that the ship was destroyed by the Israeli Mossad security service, which was acting on a tip. There is speculation that the arms deal was brokered with Iran by rogue Russian military “black marketeers” rather than with the Russian government.

Heritage Foundation’s Dr. Ariel Cohen warned last year that the shipments to Iran must be thwarted:

Although the sale of the S-300 to Iran is not prohibited, such a deal would be a game changer in the Middle East. Tehran could threaten U.S. and allied troops’ aerial assets in Afghanistan and Iraq if Iran were to deploy the system along its borders. Furthermore, it would boost the defense of Iran’s Bushehr reactor, which Russia has built. Finally, Tehran could also use S-300s to protect its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Arak heavy water plant, and other components of its sprawling nuclear and missile complex.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the region as Iran uses its nuclear arsenal to foster its hegemony in the Persian Gulf and beyond and would likely trigger a regional nuclear arms race. Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would not sit idly while Tehran is building its nuclear arsenal.

In mid-February this year, after another eyeball-to-eyeball session with Putin in Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that there was an agreement to hold off on the S-300 deliveries to Iran…for now.

The Russians, however say that the delay is due only to “technical difficulties.” It wasn’t made clear when those “difficulties” might be cleared up and the shipments might proceed.

It may not make a whit of difference. While Obama and Secretary of State Clinton dither over sanctions and partnering countries, Iran sneers at the lack of foreign policy fortitude and races to a finish line of its own making.

It appears that while Vladimir Putin is allowing himself “official deniability” of any deal to directly arm Iran, the technology has nonetheless somehow made its way to Tehran. Just a few days ago,  Free Republic’s sources quoted Iranian military officials who say they have developed their own “indigenous” versions of the S-300.

Investor’s Business Daily now calls Secretary of State Clinton the “Bull in the China Shop Diplomat.” She seems overly preoccupied with micro-managing Israel’s apartment-building plans and picking fights with Canada over abortion health care policy, while ignoring such elephants in the room as Iran building nuclear weapons and Russia arming America’s enemies.

The Wall Street Journal opines that “Obama Seems Unserious about a Nuclear Iran.” If the Obama administration has accepted the inevitability of nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why would it cringe at Iran also being militarily able to demolish the Israeli fighter jets which come to destroy the nukes?

Take it a step further, and what assurance does Israel have at all anymore that the United States of Barack Obama will defend her if the worst comes from Iran?

Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch, a Democrat and a Jew who supported Barack Obama’s campaign, recently wrote an editorial in an Israeli newspaper, saying “The Trust is Gone.”

Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.

Vladmir Putin has already proven once to Israel that he cannot be trusted. Kim Zigfeld wrote in American Thinker of Russia’s criss-cross hypocrisies of human rights violations, terrorism, and military aggression, while selling weapons of mass destruction to every enemy of this country.

In the meantime, Iran’s nuclear negotiator has just come back from a meeting on “energy” with China. China still refuses to join the U.S. in sanctions against Iran.

While Russians and Iranians are taking intercontinental flights cementing deals with our enemies, President Obama is rolling Easter eggs and playing baseball. Still feeling a headwind from passage of the health care bill, no doubt.

Obama is scheduled April 8 to sign a treaty with Russian president Medvedev to reduce nuclear weapons of the two countries “by 30 percent.”

Barack Obama presented his tepidly-received nuclear disarmament plan exactly one year ago today in Prague. It would appear, confirming our worst fears, that the only place in the “world with no nuclear weapons” will be the United States if we stay on the bobble-headed foreign policy course of Barack Obama.

Jane Jamison is publisher of the conservative news/commentary blog UNCOVERAGE.net.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/russia_moving_fast_before_arms.html at April 07, 2010 – 01:40:01 PM CDT

+


April 07, 2010

Obama’s Nuclear Poser Review

By Pamela Geller

Barack Obama announced Monday what the New York Times called a “new strategy”: his Nuclear Posture Review. He is narrowing the conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. For the first time since the U.S. became a nuclear power, the president of the United States has explicitly vowed that we will not use nukes even against countries that use chemical or biological weapons against us, or take us down with a massive cyber-attack — as long as those states are obeying the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

He also overruled his own Secretary of Defense and said that no new nuclear weapons would be developed. Our aging, rusting arsenal is enough.

The New York Times lapdog reporting on this was pure Walter Duranty:

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

Obama is effectively saying to our enemies, bring it on, we won’t fight ya — leaving us naked and vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran’s devout mullahcracy is building its nuclear arsenal with the objective of establishing a global Islamic state. And what would Obama do about Iran’s nukes? He came out for a U.N. resolution on sanctions — one “that has bite,” in other words, one that will somehow be different from all the sanctions that are already in place. But he warned that it probably wouldn’t work: “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior…there’s no light switch in this process.”

I am actually embarrassed for my nation.

Obama is leaving America flailing in the hostile wind. Was there ever a more frightful time in American history than the age of Obama? Yes, there were very dangerous periods (the Civil War, World War I, World War II), but during those times of great crisis, the steward of this nation was always a patriot, a freedom-lover — an American. As I explain in my forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon & Schuster), Obama, in contrast, is a socialist internationalist who clearly despises this country and the whole idea of America, the first moral nation built on the principle of freedom itself in human history.

He himself said it in April 2009. During a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20), a reporter asked Obama: “[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?”

Obama offered no avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, America is nothing special. Just another country. Dick Cheney summed it up: “There’s never been a nation like the United States of America in world history, and yet when you have a president who goes around and bows to his hosts and then proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing. That says to me this is a guy who doesn’t fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in.”

Of course, Obama knows what buttons to push. He assured us: “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure.” And now his cover in this subversive new suicide pact is his desire to make the world into a “nuclear free zone.”

Who does he think he’s kidding? What despot will ever freely and willingly give up his power? What evil dictator has ever surrendered that which made him strong? This policy is going to destroy us.

The hustler in the White House is setting us up. This isn’t a new strategy. This is surrender. He is making America into the laughingstock of the civilized world and the bullseye of the Axis of Evil.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obamas_nuclear_poser_review.html at April 07, 2010 – 09:31:45 AM CDT

+


Chavez Builds Model for Obama’s Brown Shirts

Obama said during his July 2, 2008 campaign speech

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

He has attempted to follow the model of Hugo Chavez, and other dictators thus far in his illegitimate, undocumented ‘presidency.’  He has taken over financial institutions, auto manufacturers, and begun the destruction of all private business and industry.  With the aid of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, the Black Panthers, SEIU, ACORN, all of his communist appointees, and other union supporters, Obama has employed his thug, street organizer, Marxist, Saul Alinsky tactics to intimidate Americans and begin building the framework for his communist state.

What you see exemplified by Hugo Chavez, and quietly being put into place by Barack Obama is EXACTLY like the Nazi Brown Shirts who did Hitler’s bidding in the 30’s and 40’s, and what Lenin did in Soviet Russia.  “Oh, but you’re being too extreme and alarmist by using the Hitler analogy,” some of you will say.  If you HONESTLY examine history, there is no way that you can tell me the analogy does not fit.

Chavez is using his ‘militia’ to intimidate people into doing things his way.  Period.  It has nothing to do with the good of the people.  It is about consolidating power.

Now Chairman Maobama is quietly trying to assemble such a force.  The basis for the force is the corrupt unions that got him elected, predominantly the likes of ACORN and SEIU.  The leadership of other unions such as the UAW are also in bed with Obama, but the rank and file may not be so easily swayed.  Regardless, you have already seen his tactics employed at the voting booth intimidating voters to get him elected by either voting for him, or not voting period.  You see a ‘progressive’ congress attempting to pass laws that would essentially force unionization of the labor force.  You see attempts to publicly attack and humiliate ANYONE who disagrees with Obama’s agenda.

The words of soulless attack dog Rahm Emanuel are a perfect example.  He called those balking at Obama’s health care takeover “F—ing retarded.” This is a pretty mild attack from Mr. ‘Dead Fish’ Emanuel, who mailed dead fish to a pollster who ticked him off.  As an aide to Bill Clinton during his first presidential run, Emanuel shook up a dinner party by plunging a knife into the table and screaming “Dead!” while reciting the names of several Democrats he considered disloyal.  If Obama has a ‘Heinrich Himmler,’ Emanuel will be it.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/61004

CNSNews.com

Chavez’s Socialist Worker Militias Swell to 150,000 in Venezuela

Friday, February 05, 2010

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Venezuela’s socialist worker militias have grown to nearly 150,000 members since their formation in 2009. Organized by President Hugo Chavez in May 2009, the “workers’ militias” are intended to allow Chavez’s political party to assert control over key economic sectors.

According to a Jan. 29 report in the Venezuelan El Universal newspaper — translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring – the ranks of Chavez’s workers militias have swelled to around 150,000 members, most of whom work in “strategic” economic sectors, such as oil, electricity, transportation, and “basic companies.”

Orlando Castillo, with the Socialist Workers Front, a Chavez-allied group, was quoted by El Universal as saying that the purpose of the militias was to use the labor troops to “defend the people,” adding that “there need to be many more” troops.  (Obama’s ‘civilian national security force’ anyone?)

“There need to be many more,” he said, “because they represent the idea of the integrated worker who is capable of producing and also of defending the people.”

The workers’ militias are an ideological remnant of the Communist coup d’etat in Russia 1917, whose leaders Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky created the groups and used them to overthrow the Czarist government, eventually turning them into units of the Red Army.

Vladimir Lenin, the Marxist leader who helped establish the Soviet Union, which lasted in Russia from 1917 to 1991

In Venezuela today the militias are made up of individual workers who are armed with guns and trained to ensure that their respective companies comply with the agenda of the ruling United Socialist Party. (As I said, it’s all about CONTROL.)

“With rifles there beside them, in case anybody makes a mistake with us,” Chavez is quoted as saying at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop where he announced the militias’ creation.

So-called socialist patrols are also growing, with an estimated 20,000 separate patrols totaling 300,000 Venezuelans. Each patrol has an average of 15 members. Castillo said the patrols are “forging the party [United Socialist Party] in the middle of the workers [movement].”

Like the militias, these socialist patrols are intended to allow the ruling socialist government to exert greater control over key industries. However, they also operate in Venezuela’s shrinking private sector companies.

The purpose of both is “production control,” according to socialist leader Castillo, allowing members of the ruling party to wield greater influence in economic decisions.

Chavez’s government plans for companies to have a socialist triumvirate of sorts, comprised of socialist patrols, workers’ councils and labor unions. (Do you think Obama’s total support and nurturing of unions in this country is an accident?  Don’t be naive.  It is part of his plan in laying the ground work for his communist state.)


%d bloggers like this: