Monday, August 31, 2009

Obama: Communist or Not?

Recent discussion in my comment sections argues whether our current President is a Communist (disguised as a Democrat, of course).

It has been interesting, but relatively brief (IMO, because the argument/evidence supporting the assertion overwhelms the any anemic argument refuting it). I, along w/ those such as esteemed Dr. Alan Keyes, charge that Mr. Obama's affinities, his sympathies & his behavior indicate that he is, indeed, communist in his heart of hearts.

So friends, I ask this question: What do you think Mr. Obama's heart & soul response would be (i.e., not what he'd actually say) if someone said to him, "Sir, it's clear you're a Communist."

Would Mr. O think,

"Yes, I'm so glad someone finally noticed!"
or,
"Oh, no! You've got me all wrong! I'll do all in my power to prove I'm not!"

Our friend, Jim says (re: Alan Keyes, 2 posts ago),
"Alan Keyes claiming Obama is a socialist/communist does not make it so. You have no evidence that 'he wants United States of America to become socialist/communist'. Only the rantings of people who hate him."

Only those who hate him? Really Jim? Yes. And we're all racists who just want the man to fail because he's black, right? (So says Ms. Diane Watson, Congresswoman from Los Angeles. )

WRONG! I said to my friend Jim:
"Obama is a socialist...who wants our government to become Communist. He is thus, not because Alan Keyes said so, but because he said so himself, & b/c of the things he has promoted, orchestrated & 'accomplished' in less than 9 months.

I, in fact, believe that Dr. Keyes was too magnanimous in stating simply that Obama is only communist. From what I see, Mr. Obama appears to have fascist desires & drives."

Folks. Do we even know what Communism is? How it puts ultimate power in the hands of the State? How it destroys human ingenuity, drive toward a better life???

Oxford Amer. Dictionary-- Communism: 1) a social system in which property is owned by the community [i.e., the STATE] & each member works for the common benefit. 2) a political doctrine seeking to overthrow capitalism...

Honestly, all I needed to hear was, "I think when you spread the wealth around, everybody's better off..." Wrote a post about it; & it has been downhill ever since.

My new friend, Buck summarizes the revelation of Mr. O's proclivities nicely. Allow me to share:

Buck Ofama said... [all emphases mine]
Jim, you are right that some of us fear what Obama & the Democratic party are doing to America. But you are dead wrong in your assertions that (1) we are ignorant of & mistrust America's great traditions and institutions [democracy] & (2) that there is no evidence that Obama wants the country to be socialist/communist.

It is exactly our understanding of the great history of America that allows us to realize that when the President of the United States (one whose mentor in his youth was a hard line Communist, has been drawn to & closely associated with radical, even terroristic individuals his entire life, who openly supports Socialist policies such as a single payer health care system & a civilian defense force stronger than the military, & who doesn't object to outlandish things like slavery reparations & massive income redistribution),

...when this man appoints cabinet members, czars, & policy consultants who are also avowed communists/radicals (Van Jones, Mark Loyd, Susstein, E. Emmanuel, Holdren, etc.) who openly espouse views such as fundamental opposition of a privately owned media, forced sterilization, admiration of dictators such as Chavez, & numerous other anti-Capitalist & revolutionary Marxist policies - That is what we are righteously afraid of.

These people actually call themselves "community organizers within the federal context". That is not what America is all about. Read the Constitution. Our government should merely be representative of what the people want & believe. It should not be a conduit for one man, even if he's the President, to appoint radicals who use their power & position to agitate & organize people for the furtherance of their own personal beliefs (and get paid my tax dollars to do so).

But it appears to me that you are more angry at our opposition than we are afraid of your man in the White House. Perhaps it is because you subconsciously realize that you & most of the Democratic party have been duped by the Communists. You finally win an election (how could you lose? when the outgoing guy was a disaster, the economy is in shambles, & you have the uber-candidate: a well-spoken, charismatic, half black man that 30% of the electorate has been waiting their whole lives just to cast their vote for along racial lines?) Too bad he just happens to be a Communist.

If he's not, he needs to prove it by reeling in the other Commies in the party that are trying to use this alignment of the stars (control of both chambers and the white house) to push their anti-American agenda. And if he is, well we'll keep trying to stop him until he proves that he's not ---because the evidence says that he is.

But hey, don't take it from me, Buck or even Dr. Alan Keyes.

Do some research. Watch the man. Study not only his words, but the inferences. Read, learn, investigate this President. It hasn't been done so far, but somebody should do it.

It may as well be you.

~~~

39 comments:

Right-Wing Libertarian said...

Great post yet again, Suz. Of COURSE oblama is a communist. You brought up his mentors during his formative years. Ayers and his ilk are no-apologies terrorists from the extreme left. These people got their "ideas" when they were originally stirred up by the real Soviet KGB ... in the 1950s.

Sure, the knee-jerks will say everybody hates poor old Obama and if we just gave him a chance .... He had his chance. Americans are simply too freedom-minded to allow themselves to be enslaved just yet.

Oblama's dream ... Socialist wealth redistribution, workers united in a great "union" served and controlled by a central politburo is .... communism, pure and simple. People are able to see the writing on the wall for themselves, regardless what pundits say. In fact, I daresay these pundits are more likely just sticking a finger into the breeze ... and the breeze is pretty strong. When the dog wags the tail it really begins to agitate the liberals. It looks to me like the liberal-socialists get really touchy over semantics. They are what they are and people see it. One would think they'd be happy to be called communists. I mean, it's not like it's a derogatory term or anything :)

IMHO, oblama is failing because he tried too much too soon. There are far too many of us still alive who were raised in the "duck and cover" era. Put simply, communism = bad, capitalism = good. He should come back in a coupla generations and try it again. People just aren't watered down enough yet.

BetteJo said...

Obama has let little bits slip out, as with the spread the wealth around to Joe the plumber. Every once in a while his true beliefs show through and he tries to cover them up because he KNOWS most Americans do not want a socialist/communist country. As long as he denies it there will always be some still drinking the kool-aid. Thank goodness a lot of people are waking up!

Joe said...

President BO has used his very own mouth to tell us that the Constitution is flawed, telling us what the government CAN'T do without what it MUST do.

He has spoken more than once about the unfairness of some people being too much richer than others.

He has told us of "spreading the wealth around," a socialist ideal.

He has spearheaded the effort to take over financial institutions under the guise of "doig what's good for the country."

He has led the drive to "rescue" Chrysler and General Motors by turning them over to the feds to run. That is a part of the definition of socialism.

Is he a communist? Very, very possibly.

Is he a socialist: Absolutely, positively by definition.

Jim said...

Well, let's start with this question: Which is Obama, fascist or communist? They are two different things, you know. Or do you?

Ever hear of the phrase "a rising tide floats all boats"? How about "trickle-down economics"? What do you thing the meaning and objectives of these two concepts are?

By the way, did you know that Buck's mother was a well-known prostitute, and that Buck, who was home schooled by his mother, is an avid proponent of legalized prostitution.

It's true, and I challenge you to prove that it's not.

Britain has a single payer health care system. Ask any Brit if his country is socialist. How about Canada? Socialist country? Japan has a single payer system and voluntary private insurance. Japan socialist? Seems almost every industrialized country in the world is socialist because it has a single payer health care option. Heck, WE have a single payer health care option, only you have to be 65 to get it.

Van Jones once declared himself a communist. He has since repudiated that statement and supports capitalism.

I had several extremely right wing professors in college. I learned a lot from them that I still find valuable today, yet I'm quite liberal. My teachers and mentors don't make me what I am today.

I could go on for hours about the hysterical absurdity of most of your assertions, but there is an end to the day.

"But it appears to me that you are more angry at our opposition than we are afraid of your man in the White House." I don't think that's possible. And I'm only disappointed that Obama doesn't drop the bipartisan crap and get done what he was elected to do. Health care, energy, education.

So don't try to tell me how angry I am. You haven't a clue. I'm certainly not angry that Obama is a so-called Communist, because if he is and he tries anything I don't like, I can vote against him in 2012 (unless you guys run Sarah).

By the way, you do realize that Ezekial Emanuel is against euthanasia and assisted suicide don't you? Or have you fallen for that load of crap, too?

Buck Ofama said...

Bless your heart Jim.

We are using the definition of fascist that Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines as "anyone who is dictatorial". (Hint: most words have more than one meaning). So yeah, we know that fascism and communism CAN be two different things, but WE also know in the fullness of the English language that one can absolutely be a fascist Communist.

You're disappointing your liberal mentors - you're supposed to start insulting my mother right off the bat and not wait until paragraph three. Anyway, thanks for the laugh. I haven't heard any good "your mother ..." jeers since about the sixth grade.

There are millions in Britain and Canada who realize they are wallowing in a Socialist sewer but can't get out. They are sending us their direst warnings to not go that route.

You're right - we do have largely a single payer health care system for the elderly. And it is broke. So why would we want that to be the model for the rest of the system? Because Obama wants control of it all. He wants to ration care to the elders who are going to die soon anyway and invest that capital instead into the young - hopefully buying their votes for a lifetime. Personally, if I could opt out of paying the Medicare tax in exchange for agreeing never to use its benefits, I'd sign up in a heartbeat. But I don't have that FREEDOM do I? Which makes my point that the more you socialize, the more freedoms you take away from the populace.

Van Jones says he is a Capitalist not a Communist? Oh my side (it aches from my roll in the floor laughing)! I guess he said that sometime after 2005 when he was still calling himself a communist. And I forgot I'm always supposed to just listen to liberal double speak and completely ignore how they actually behave.

I totally agree with you that teachers and mentors don't make us who we are - thank God. We would all be liberal loonies if they did.

So, why don't you tell us why our assertions are so absurd? You say you could go on for hours but so far you haven't successfully argued a single point.

Bipartisanship is not holding back Obama. The will of the people is holding back his agenda - that's how it's supposed to work in a free republic. Obama and his Congresss force through more far left policies against the will of the people at their political peril.

Never heard that about E.E. Is there a point in there somewhere?

You still sound angry. Last time I checked I still have the constitutional right in a public forum to express that opinion. But hey, if you don't like it, call Mark Lloyd, Obama's Chief Diversity Officer - he's looking into how freedoms of speech and the press detract focus from issues that Obama deems more important.

Right-Wing Libertarian said...

Couldn't help it, Suz ....

"By the way, did you know that Buck's mother was a well-known prostitute, and that Buck, who was home schooled by his mother, is an avid proponent of legalized prostitution."

And this has *what* to do with the topic? You see? Name-calling, focus-changing frustration. Socialized medicine, or what they've re-named "single-payer" (read: gummit) programs might work well in the U.K. or Japan. Fine. And the point? Our point is clear. We're not the U.K. and we're not Japan. Our constitutions are vastly different, and people in the U.S. value freedoms that these countries' populations have never been exposed to. Apples and oranges at best.

And then there's this one:
"My teachers and mentors don't make me what I am today."

Speaking of absurdity, who or what then *does* make one what he/she is, if it's not teachers and mentors?

And lastly, there is:
"I had several extremely right wing professors in college."

Yeah. Right. This is one of the corollaries to "Some of my best friends are _____ ." (fill the blank). Unless you're a graduate of Liberty U., Hillsdale, or one of the scant few other conservative-based schools, this is likely untrue, using only anecdotal evidence provided by the liberals' own media.

Liberals are pushing an increasingly unpopular form of socialist doctrine upon a people who do not care to lose any more freedoms to a government already proven to be substantially less responsible than the people themselves. It is a very tough sell, and we are beginning to see the growing frustration within the liberal camp because of it. To wit, the above.

Z said...

seems to me that when a president's got many constituents who believe he's a socialist OR communist, he might stop appointing people whose positions have the name CZAR, ya know?

Sandy said...

"I'm certainly not angry that Obama is a so-called Communist, because if he is and he tries anything I don't like, I can vote against him in 2012 (unless you guys run Sarah)."

A very salient point by Jim. We all must maintain faith in the civil rule of law in America. If it fails, we all get sucked right down the toilet too.

Conservatives love to say the horrors of Carter paved the way for Reagan. Well the horrors of Bush paved the way for Obama and unfortunately, the horrors of Obama could very well pave the way for Palin.

We've got to stop swinging so far to the left then back to the right or we'll hit a tipping point. I fear that we're close.

No one should stand behind anything and everything that Obama (or any President) does just because they voted for him or they hate the opposing party or whatever. That's how despots are born. There has to be some line that if a President, or any lawmaker crosses it, they know that Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution will be invoked - "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

I'm not saying we're to that point with Obama. And I honestly hope we would never get there. But it is a dangerous thing for any of us to have such devotion to the man that we'd be willing to wait until 2012 to vote him out no matter what he does. That line of thinking completely negates one of the most important Constitutional controls against fascism.

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW said...

"Obama: Communist or Not?"

Does a Bear do it in the Woods?

James' Muse said...

Susanna: I beg to differ.

There are many policies of Obama's that I disagree with, and others still that I am vehemetly opposed to.

But he is still not a communist. He does, however, show some socialistic tendancies, but our system is a capitalistic one that has aspects of socialism built in. We have not been a true capitalistic system since the 1800s, if we ever were.

Recently and historically, the Republican Party has shown less interest in entitlements whereas the Democratic party has shown more interest. That is one socialistic aspect. Obama is no different.

But on the other hand, Republicans tend to show favor to other socialistic programs such as VA benefits and Medicare, as well as subsidized agriculture. Recently, the bailouts were started by a Republican president.

Obama just continued them.

Both sides favor other socialistic programs: state ownership of the military, post office, and state-controlled infrastructure.

The point is, both sides are equally as guilty here, if socialism were evil. But it isn't.

Capitalism is complete free market. Socialism is rewarding not on supply-and-demand, but also on value to the society. We have both; our current system is a mix of capitalism and market-socialism.

Communism is much different, yet related, to socialism. Communism is from Marxist-Socialism, and advocates state-run everything, which I haven't seen under Obama. As stated, he continued the Republican started bailouts. I didn't like them, but they haven't become state-run either.

There really isn't true evidence of "communism" in Obama whatsoever, Susannah. No evidence of changing all salaries to be the same, regardless of occupation. No evidence of state-enforced abolition of private property, rationed food, rationed industry, and a one party system.

I think the verdict here is that Obama is a democrat; democrats tend to introduce socialistic tendencies into social services.

When the next Republican president is in office, he/she will no doubt employ other aspects of socialism.

Susannah said...

RWL~ Changed your pic! I hardly recognized you!! Excellent comment, friend. What you said here, "Americans are simply too freedom-minded to allow themselves to be enslaved just yet" is especially fitting b/c just today I heard a fantastic author/speaker (Mason Weaver). He asked provocative questions: 1) are you frightened or motivated? 2) are you free or a slave? 3) Are you going to be the master of your own life, or are you going to be a slave of the government?

BetteJo~ Glad to see you again, gal! Mason Weaver also said, "We are Americans, we have awoken. We are Americans & we want our country back!"

Joe~ "President BO has used his very own mouth to tell us that the Constitution is flawed" Yes, & in his speech today (same event as Mason Weaver), Dick Armey extolled the pristine "brilliance & forethought of the Founding Fathers" upon writing the Constitution. Even Winston Churchill said so! How DARE Mr. Communist Obama come along & say it is 'flawed.' How DARE HE??

Jim~ Thanks for coming back. Let's start w/ your first paragraph. I know the meanings of the words, & used them appropriately. Re: fascism, let's see who Obama's recent affinities have included: Cuban gov't officials if not Castro himself ('normalize relations' mean anything to you?), Ahmadinejad - meet 'w/o preconditions,' & let's not forget his hommie Hugo Chavez...

Your next 5-6 paragraphs are a good example of an "anemic argument refuting" the vivid evidence of Obama's communist leanings, including a rather bizaare reference to one of my reader's mother. Also, other countries' 'single-payer health care options' had nothing to do w/ my assertions.

Jim, you're smarter than this, & your frustration shows. Our past discussions gave me a run for my $$. Maybe I'm just on the winning side of this one, friend. And honestly, there's no joy in winning this one. It doesn't mean victory; it means that our country is in serious, grave, mortal danger.)

Buck~ "You're right - we do have largely a single payer health care system for the elderly. And it is broke." Bingo!

"Bipartisanship is not holding back Obama. The will of the people is holding back his agenda - that's how it's supposed to work in a free republic." Bingo, again! Mason Weaver said today, "We have said NO!" He also said, "What we have in Washington is a listening problem." And "We the people put pressure on the gov't to CHANGE, NOT the other way around." And we have spoken.

RWL~ ...by all means...PLEASE! "It is a very tough sell" Indeed, & we ain't buying.

Z~ Yes, the irony is sweet, isn't it?

Sandy~ Thanks for coming back. I'm w/ you...2012 is too long to wait, if things continue down the current path. This crowd we've got in 'charge' right now have been waiting years for their chance. They're not going away after the first swipe. We have to be in this for the LONG HAUL.

Inq.Mds.~ 'Nuf said.

Susannah said...

James~ Good to see you. It has been a while. Thanks for your commentary. Interesting.

"Communism is from Marxist-Socialism, and advocates state-run everything, which I haven't seen under Obama." Really? I'm seeing it daily. Is he currently running a pure socialist state? (God forbid it!) No. Are we a purely capitalist one? No; didn't say we were. Is Obama the most leftist socialist person to EVER hold high office in the history of our country? Does he advocate vast redistribution of wealth? capping of wages (think 'highly paid executives' that he likes to use as his class warfare fodder)? State controlled health care? media (you betcha, though currently it's only euphemistic)? Yes, yes, yes, yes, & yes. Is he PURELY communist? No, he can't be. As you rightly point out, he is in a system that doesn't promote such. But he's "rebuilding it brick by brick" as fast as he can slap on mortar.

Heaven help us.

A Guy From Brooklyn said...

Liberal = A nice word for socialist! We all know this, For those that don't know here's a definition. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.. the fed state owns over45% stake of AIG, the banks,... 35% of GM, Healthcare is being enacted right now... & general people are stating they want the government to fix this private enterprise problem.. & gov handouts.. Fed gov is collectively gathering tax to redistribute wealth to others that do not pay into it! The federal government has how much control of the market now?
Sound familiar?

A Guy From Brooklyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW said...

"Obama: Communist or Not?"

It's very clear that his policies are very socialistic and communistic, and the reason the American people are speaking out. Even those in his own party are leaving him and regretting vote for this man. Many have realized that he can not tell the truth and they are also sick of his changing and changing again and again.

James' Muse said...

"Communism is from Marxist-Socialism, and advocates state-run everything, which I haven't seen under Obama." Really? I'm seeing it daily.

I highly doubt that. There have only been a few new state run entities, but all of those (except healthcare) were started by Bush. So the blame cannot be laid at Obama's feet, except for continuing those. Plus, they asked for state aid. With bailout money comes a price. The US govnmt is essentially the biggest stockholder in those companies now, it only makes sense that they would make a lot of big decisions to get their investment returned.

Does he advocate vast redistribution of wealth? Not really, actually. He gave a big tax cut to the middle class. He isn't raising taxes (at leaset not yet) on the most wealthy. Not renewing something isn't the same as raising taxes; it is merely returning the tax rates to normalcy (which actually are still lower than under Reagan, btw).

capping of wages (think 'highly paid executives' that he likes to use as his class warfare fodder)?

Only for those companies that were bailed out. And I actually agree with this. Capping them at half a million a year isn't bad if they are living off of tax-payer money. When the biggest stockholder (US Government) demands that the executives get paid less until the company turns around, I don't see a problem with that. There hasn't been anything whatsoever about capping salaries for non-government owned entities. If he did that, you might have a case :).

State controlled health care? Here is the only one. But we've had portions of this for years...the VA, Medicare, etc. This is just making it widespread.

media (you betcha, though currently it's only euphemistic)? Not true. Some of the MSM loves him, yes. But there are others that do not (FoxNews).

So really, he isn't communistic AT ALL. Does he have socialistic tendancies? Some, yes. But communistic? Nope.

Sandy said...

James is technically correct that we currently have mix of Cap/Soc and that Obama is definitely a Democrat. But he's no mainstream Dem. He's far to the left - has a lifetime right up through today of close associations and relationships with communists. Of course, he hasn't changed the country overnight into a communist state or even a fully socialist one. It takes time - but Obama is trying to move us HARD and FAR to the left. How can this be happening in a country where poll after poll shows an overall center-RIGHT citizenry?

Seriously James, no disrespect intended, do you yet regret that you voted for this guy? If not, what's it gonna take? The shutting down of the internet or your blog? B/C Mark Loyd (Obama's appointee at the FCC) believes that ALL media should be owned and controlled by the government. Or the confiscation of any IRA and 401-K savings you may have? Because our lovely Democratic Congress has actually asked professor Ghilarducci for advice on "proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401Ks and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration."

I'm not trying to beat you down. Just want to understand. Cuz I just don't get it. Both the major parties have let us all down. They've both moved so far to the right and left that millions of us, I'd venture to say MOST of us, are largely disenfranchised from our government. But no one has EVER ventured as far from the center as the current Congress and administration. It's an outrage.

Susannah said...

James~ "So really, he isn't communistic AT ALL. Does he have socialistic tendancies? Some, yes. But communistic? Nope." Friend, I say this with all respect: You are deluding yourself. PLEASE open your eyes to the dangers in front of us. Please. Jim, you too.

If the words I managed to cobble together were not convincing (apparently not - my bad) enough, please re-read the other commenters here. This is NOT hysteria, it is NOT our imagination.

For another take on the fascist flavor of the Obama Admin. PLEASE see Leslie's post: http://bluntpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/08/ghosts-that-haunt-obama.html

Sandy~ Nicely stated. Very respectful, thank you. I ask the same question, "If people can't see it NOW, then what's it gonna take?" Please people, put pride aside & wake up.

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW said...

James, james, james, please thake off your Red hat and come clean with us.

Red said...

I don't need to take anyone's word for it. Just watch his actions. And how is he able to accomplish so much of this? Is it because he alone is so powerful? Or is it people backing him who have had this agenda all along?

Just a conservative girl said...

I don't think that the president is a communist. I do think that he believes in an European style of socialism. The government can make the world more fair.

Which is utterly untrue. Life is not fair. Anyone who told you it is, lied to you.

No government nor human can make it so. If it were, every parent would bend over backwards to make life more fair for thier children. It just doesn't work that way.

I recently did a post on the M3 value. If we split that evenly among every person in the world we would only get $9,000 each. American's would get the short end of the stick wouldn't they?

Joe said...

Communism: A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.
A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.

Socialism:a political theory advocating state ownership of industry. An economic system based on state ownership of capital.

Fascism: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government.

President BO exhibits characteristics of all three.

James' Muse said...

Susannah, sorry I haven't responded sooner. I had a death in the family yesterday, and was away from a computer.
-I still think that historically you are missing what communism is. I think Obama has socialistic tendancies that do need to be watched...but communistic? Doubt it.

Inquiring minds: After you take off your tinfoil hat keeping the aliens away. Not everyone is a commie just because they disagree with you.

I think Conservative Girl hit the nail on the head: not communistic (i.e USSR/China/Cuba) but European Socialism (Switzerland). Which still needs to be watched vigilantly.

Joe is right, too, but you could make that same argument about our last President.

Cristina M. said...

He passed the communist/socialist/fascist test. Now he's working on his statist one.

Jim said...

"Congress has actually asked professor Ghilarducci for advice on "proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401Ks and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.""

Sandy, this is false. Congress got testimony from a number of people, testimony that included Ghilarducci's proposal that people have the OPTION to trade their 401(k)s for Guaranteed Retirement Accounts with guaranteed 3% return over inflation. Totally voluntary, not a confiscation. Your source is incorrect.

"Mark Loyd (Obama's appointee at the FCC) believes that ALL media should be owned and controlled by the government."

I think this is a mid-reading of Lloyd's position. What he advocates is that the government take a stronger position in reigning in the power of international media conglomerates and returning it to local communities.

Sandy said...

Ghilarducci's testimony did not include the "confiscation" comment - that characterization did indeed come from a partisan source, probably Free Republic. Sorry if my comment implied that those were her words.

But I did hear an interview with her right after her testimony where she said that she believes in the reduction and/or elimination of 401(k) tax breaks, mandatory 5% of pay contributions by all worker's into an account where 50% of the balance would automatically go to the government if an individual dies prior to utilizing them, i.e. 50% of your savings are no longer inheritable by your children.

After hearing the interview, I researched her, read a lot about her including excerpts from her book and also listened to Mark Levin's interview of her (this is the only Mark Levin interview I have ever heard by the way). It was disturbing at best. Downright frightening at most. Just an example:

Levin: These 401(k), why don't we just nationalize the damn things?"

Ghilarducci: Well, that's my proposal.

Personally, I think it's outrageous that that this radical woman was invited and allowed to address a working committe of the United States Congress.

Same general scenario with Lloyd. You can read his book. I've read enough to make me want to puke. He wants to punish yet another successful business, commercial radio, because its predominant programming is counter to his personal beliefs. He wants to take their profits and redistribute to public broadcasters (who just happen to subscribe to his personal social values). We already have public radio. Anyone who wants to listen to it is free to do so. Why did our President have to appoint yet another czar who is against capitalism in the area he is charged to run? Why? Why? Why?

The left loves to say that the Republican party is lost to far right radicals. Maybe so. The sad thing is that both parties are equally lost to the fringe. But I would have to say that with Obama and the current Congress - the Democrats have pulled ahead.

Instead of yelling at each other, we all should really try and reclaim both parties and pull them back to the center where most of our sensibilities hover, whether they be slightly to the right or left.

Jim said...

"Why did our President have to appoint yet another czar who is against capitalism in the area he is charged to run? Why? Why? Why?"

I think you should get your facts straight. Mark Lloyd is Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC. I don't think this makes him the person who runs the FCC.

Sandy said...

Jim, What's your problem? I never said anything about Lloyd running the FCC. I know darn well what the facts are and it appears that I've done a heck of a lot more research than you. If you're ok with Lloyd's far left positions just say so. That's your right as an American. And it's my right to voice concern. You voted for a President that is far, far, far left of center. You're either ok with it - or you were duped. I tried to open a civil course of debate with you and either you were too intellectually lazy to attempt it or your can't possibly argue the merits of what you defend. Instead you tell me that I need to get my facts straight. Pitiful.

Jim said...

Sandy said "Why did our President have to appoint yet another czar who is against capitalism in the area he is charged to run?"

Sandy said "I never said anything about Lloyd running the FCC."

Jim did RESEARCH and said "Lloyd is Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC."

I have no "problem". You may have done more research, but your sources appear suspect.

I don't regard Lloyd's positions as "far left." They're left of center. I'm not even sure they are positions more than they are ideas or alternatives.

I'm not afraid of who Obama listens to. I'm not afraid of who's ideas he hears or reads. I think Obama is a pretty smart guy who can listen to all kinds of ideas and make the best decisions for the future of America. I voted for him because I think he is smarter and wiser than John McCain. I'm not happy with everything he's done, and I think he's made mistakes politically.

But I think there are lot of problems in this country and they're not all caused by welfare mommas, "trial lawyers", and taxes. There's got to be a better way than there has been in the past. I think Obama has the curiosity and drive to find a better way.

And if he doesn't, and a better candidate runs in 2012, I can vote for him or her and you can do the same. That's why we have elections. That's what democracy is about. When people win elections, THEY set policy. If you don't like the winner's policies, vote for someone else next time. They might win.

Bob said...

Bravo on this blog Suz, great Job.

Susannah said...

Guy~ Yep. We see is (most of us, anyway), & we're not having it...

Inquirer~ Ditto to that above... Thanks for the comments, gentlemen.

Red~ "Just watch his actions...Or is it people backing him who have had this agenda all along?" Bingo...they've been waiting/planning for decades (that's why they're "trying too much too soon;" in their minds, it's almost too late!), & 'we the people' have been asleep.

Cons.Grl~ "I don't think that the president is a communist. I do think that he believes in an European style of socialism." Okay. You can certainly make a case for that...So, why is it that so many around this man ARE communist, or at best, they're militant, radical Socialists? Birds of a feather...

But you're right. "Life ain't fair." It's not fair for me & my family to bust our a@#$, only for the gov't to confiscate it & give it to somebody who hasn't hit a lick at a snake...

Joe~ "Communism. Socialism. Fascism. President BO exhibits characteristics of all three." Simple. Anyone disagree?

James~ I'm very sorry about the death in your family last week. We were @ an extended-family reunion all weekend. Fantastic time - & quite an important reminder that no matter what, family is so very, very important. You have my sympathies & are in my prayers.

Cris~ Glad to see you here. You should know all about this...Care to tell these folks what it's like living under Communism?

...meanwhile back @ the Jim/Sandy Ranch:
S-"...we all should really reclaim both parties and pull them back to the center where most of our sensibilities hover." Isn't this the old 'pendulum rule?'

J-"I think Obama is a pretty smart guy who can listen to all kinds of ideas and make the best decisions for the future of America." Trouble is Jim, he's NOT LISTENING to "all kinds of ideas," nor is he even listening to the people who put him in office, instead, castigating them for speaking out.
J- "I think Obama has the curiosity and drive to find a better way." Drive? Yes. Curiousity? No. I believe his mind was made up LONG AGO, as to his 'vision' for America; and it had little to do w/ a democratic, free republic such as we're trying to save now.

Agree/disagree if you like. Thanks for the comments, all.

Susannah said...

Bob~ Great to see you! And thanks. Did you change your picture?

Jim said...

"castigating them for speaking out."

Not once has he done that. He is "castigating" them for lying. "Death panels" is lying. "Euthanasia" is lying. "Reducing benefits" to seniors is lying. "Incenting doctors to deny treatment" is lying.

Oppose all you want. Lie and you'll be called out. That's what he said.

Susannah said...

I. Beg. To. Differ.
By "castigating them for speaking out," I meant Town Hall meetings - whose participants have been called everything from 'angry mobs' to 'silly,' to thuggish, etc.
The Pres. & his own mob have done EVERYTHING they could to villify, shame & silence ordinary citizens for exercising their right to speak. Castigating them - absolutely.

But since you bring it up...
Does the bill say "death panel?" No.

Will it, in effect, put such things into practice?
Yes.

Euthanasia? I've not heard this used...but if this monstrosity passes, it's only just around the corner.

Reducing benefits to Srs.?
Yes.
How could a system - which is already in trouble - POSSIBLY absorb ALL that they're trying to, and NOT? It defies logic & common sense, & we all know it. (If you don't Jim, you're fooling yourself.)

Incentivizing denial of tx? I haven't heard this one either, but I'm sure one could make a case for it, given the structure of the behemoth. How else are MD's going to make $$? What ELSE is their incentive, except to streamline care?

Yes. I oppose. And so does the Gentleman from South Carolina. Thank Heaven above he had the guts to SHOUT it!

"Lie & you'll be called out." If the shoe fits, Mr. Obama...

Jim said...

"I meant Town Hall meetings - whose participants have been called everything from 'angry mobs' to 'silly,' to thuggish, etc."

You said HE was castigating town hall participants. He has NEVER done any such thing. People who support health care are appalled at the rudeness of people at these meetings and understand that the tactics are meant to disrupt the meetings and get on TV. But Obama hasn't said a thing about them.

"The Pres. & his own mob have done EVERYTHING they could to villify, shame & silence ordinary citizens for exercising their right to speak. Castigating them - absolutely."

BALONEY. It's not exercising their right to speak, it's disrupting meetings by design. And HE and his imaginary mob has not castigated anyone speaking out at town hall meetings, only the anti-health care leaders who are lying to them.

"Will it, in effect, put such things into practice?
Yes." Your fantasy. Any such imaginary "practice" would be no worse than what insurance companies do today. What? Do you think insurance companies pay every claim? No, they deny 20-30% of all claims.

"How could a system - which is already in trouble - POSSIBLY absorb ALL that they're trying to, and NOT?" By charging premiums to the additional qualified users of Medicare. What? You think a public option is free to everyone qualified? No, they pay premiums.

Betsy McCaughy claims doctors will be incented to deny care to terminal patients who previously signed living wills. "How else are MD's going to make $$? What ELSE is their incentive, except to streamline care?" As Obama has said, Drs will be incented based on the success of their treatment and the quality of their care, not solely on the amount of services they provide.

It wasn't guts. It was ignorance.

Mark said...

I think it runs like this socialism is a means to move towards communism. Then because BHO is a narcissist; once communism is achieved it would move into despotism. Of course none of us want thing to even start to get that far along; so we march on 912.

Alisa Rosenbaum said...

"The socialists have a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this idea in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism could not and would not work, did not stop them..."

D.J. said...

Obama is NOT a Communist, and he certainly is NOT a Socialist. He is a capitalist. His policies have the ultimate goal of creating more capital. If this was a Socialist nation, there would be no place for creating more capital, but instead the people control the means of production for use not profit...

Susannah said...

D.J.~ Welcome; glad you came.

You make me snicker this morning, esp. after Sunday's bolshevik uprising. I'll spare quoting the Ox Am dict: but fyi, socialism is property, chief industries, nat. resources owned by the 'community' (the 'public' - aka the gov.t).

Communism, same thing, but dicatates members 'work' for the "common good" (i.e., SLAVES of the STATE).

Entities owned by the 'public' @ Hussein's insistence: Banks, auto industry, healthcare system - for which everyone (except those who won't get off their butts & get a job) 'works' for the 'common good.' We are all now SLAVES to the STATE w/ regard to 1/6 of our economy.

(Anyone but me notice Hussein's language? He replaces 'employees' with "WORKERS," as if we're not individuals pursuing our independent goals, but MISERABLE DRONES TOILING W/ NO HOPE. Just curious...)

"He is a capitalist. His policies have the ultimate goal of creating more capital."

(...pulling myself off the floor, weeping with hysteria...)

Ahem.

Ya, DJ. Go right ahead & believe that. The CAPITAL Hussein wants to rape, I'm sorry, 'create' is coming out of ME, YOU, INDIVIDUALS/BUSINESSES who've worked their @$$es off to get where they are. He wants to confiscate, I'm sorry, 'create' it (through 'healthcare premiums,' taxation on energy, etc.) & give away - thru the gov't - to the COMMUNITY, the PULBIC, for the 'common good.' (stop here & review above definitions, if you haven't drawn the connection...)

His ultimate goal is destroying incentive for individuals to pursue their own goals, for businesses to make PROFITS that create more JOBS, products, services, provide incentives for people to better their lives... THAT's capitalism - trade/industry controlled by PRIVATE owners, for the pursuit of personal/individual goals. (Hint: for business to reach goals, they PROFIT so they can GROW & hire people, so they can make more PROFIT, so they can grow more & HIRE EVEN MORE PEOPLE...)

Hussein's "goal" is for the STATE to be the sole proprietor of CAPITAL through taxation, profit punishing regulation, & for all of us to be working toward the 'common good,' thus slaves of the STATE.

DJ, friend, you are a brainwashed Bolshevik circa 1915.

This time, we know what's coming & we're not gonna let you get away with it.

God help us.