We aren’t communist?
When the obvious is obvious, why is it that there are those who can’t seem to see the obvious? Strange metaphor is it not? That we in this nation have those who can’t see this obvious scenario that this nation is as communist as any that has ever been, or will ever be!
Perhaps it’s our identification of what we use as the yard stick to measure what is a communist government?
When we look at the definition of communism, it is obvious that it had never existed, will not ever exist, and cannot exist as it is defined. Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.
Is it not interesting that the failure of communism is defined in the very first identification of this ideology? Why is the word ‘revolutionary’ so prominent?
The answer is simple really—for in fact communism is based on the oldest of human actions—theft. This is the why it must be a revolution of taking that from a society that has productive capacity—as communism is not the ideology of the beginning…for it produces nothing…as the literate history of mankind has proven.
There is no more one need to know of communism. The basis of this dementia and the results are all based in this simple reality.
One thing about communism is that reality is never part of the evaluation. Take a moment to think of this; movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.
We read this presentation using the word classless. What does that mean? Or is it to make some social distinction to create the very ‘revolutionary’ ‘theft’ from those who have produced? What is the difference between the simple philosophical identification of our ‘Declaration of Independence’ where we state ‘All men are created equal!’ Does this not make all men in the same class—are we not all created by our creator with the same foundations of physical structure? Do we not all have a brain, some intellect, and the capacity to observe and make independent decisions? Is not this the whole concept of Christianity—that we have free will—and as such have by our choice the desire to do what we wish?
You see, the philosophy of Christianity, that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights—makes simple fact; it identifies man’s very existence.
A complementary commercial winner-and-loser pair has emerged from the disclosure of the NSA’s domestic data dragnet, one that would surely bring a thin-lipped smile to the face of Eric Arthur Blair, the English Democratic Socialist who wrote as George Orwell: While Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the defense contractor that employed leaker Edward Snowden, has seen its stock plummet since the revelation of its connection to the scandal, Amazon’s (AMZN) sales of “1984,” Orwell’s classic dystopian novel of surveillance and control, have skyrocketed.
The LA Times reports that sales of the book, which concerns a discontented propagandist working for the Ministry of Truth in a time of endless war, are up 5,771 percent as of Tuesday morning. From a sales rank of 12,507 in the days before The Guardian published top-secret government documents provided by Snowden, “1984″ has risen to crack Amazon’s top 200.
In a Gallup tracking poll released Tuesday, former-President George W. Bush currently stands with a favorability rating of 49%, compared to 46% who see the 43rd president unfavorably. Meanwhile, another Gallup poll shows President Obama with only a 47% approval rating, with 44% disapproving.
If you think about it, this makes perfect sense.
After all, Obama fooled everyone when he ran as the anti-Bush in 2008.
Everyone thought Obama meant he would be less hawkish than his predecessor. But as we have seen, Obama apparently has no problem killing American citizens via remote control with drones or greatly expanding upon Bush’s surveillance state. This, even though Obama told us he had pretty much won the War on Terror.
RUSH: Late yesterday afternoon I was sitting in the library at home, and I was just swamped. It seemed like every 90 seconds somebody needed something, or somebody had a question or somebody had a comment, requiring my response. It was during the period of time that I generally devote to reading my tech blogs, you know, where I abandon all of this and get away from it and start spending time on, quote, unquote, my hobby.
But it was one of those days. I’m sure you have them. They may happen every day, but if I had been watching a TV show I would have hit the pause button every minute to deal with something. It would have taken me two hours yesterday to watch a 40 minute program. So in the midst of all of this, I hear about Prism. Not the NSA sweep of telephone records. In fact, let me start before I heard about Prism. Even before I heard about Prism, I am hearing from the intelligentsia in Washington that there’s nothing to be really concerned about here with what we had learned, the NSA demanding and getting every phone record from Verizon. And, by the way, we now know T-Mobile and AT&T have been added to it.
But the intelligent people were saying, “Nothing to see here. The reaction is way overblown.” Those of us who think there’s something worrisome here are overreacting and we’re too oriented in politics. And the mature thinkers that weighed in and sound reason and levelheadedness assured us that there was nothing to fear here because this was just metadata, and in fact this is something we should all be thankful that the government is able to do.
I have to tell you when I’m listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I’m saying, “Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?” We got the IRS starting in 2010 taking action to suppress the political involvement and ultimately votes of Tea Party people and conservative Republicans. This regime, this government, on the orders of the highest level. In fact, that investigation is ongoing. We have Fast and Furious. We have Obamacare. The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day and yet in the midst of this, “Well, don’t go off half cocked on this, Rush. Be very levelheaded. Nothing really to see,” as though there’s no context here.
It made me once again understand, folks, what you and I are up against here. There are just way too many people — and I’m talking about on our side — who do not want to admit what we face, who do not want to engage or admit or whatever what we really face here. It matters. This kind of stuff matters because of who the people doing it happen to be. It’s one thing if Colonel Sanders would be collecting all this data, but it’s not Colonel Sanders. It’s Barack Obama and everybody that works for him, and we know who they are and we know what their goals are. We know what their intentions are.
Folks, here’s the thing, I guess, that gets me. I mentioned Herbert Meyer. We interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter a few short months ago. Herbert Meyer was in the national security apparatus during the Reagan administration. He was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, and was instrumental in establishing Reagan administration policies that brought down the Soviet Union. The big news to him that’s really noteworthy, we talked about it, is that he thinks that the world’s coming out of poverty. And it is a big story, The Economist in London had a big story on it recently. We mentioned it to you, and it’s a great testament to capitalism.
It’s not socialism, it’s not welfare, it’s not compassion and it’s not the redistribution of wealth. It’s not high taxes that are bringing people out of poverty. It’s capitalism, and none other than a leftist publication in London had to admit it. Well, Herb Meyer was the first to sound this notice some months ago. I also mentioned he wrote a piece that currently is in the American Thinker earlier this week, and it had the potential to be controversial because he used Adolf Hitler and Nazism in it, and it was his way of explaining, he made a point in the piece that nowhere, you know, people looking for a smoking gun to nail Obama on all these scandals, Herb says, “Ain’t gonna be one.”
He said whether you believe it or not, there is not one document linking Adolf Hitler to the holocaust. Adolf Hitler never put it on paper what he intended to do. There is no smoking gun. And yet what happened? We know that the Nazis engaged in the Holocaust. Herb Meyer’s point was that the people Hitler hired didn’t have to be told. They didn’t have to be given instructions. All they had to do was listen to what Hitler was saying. All they had to do was listen to what his objectives were. And he said the same thing’s happening here with this administration. He went to great pains to say: I’m not calling this administration a bunch of Nazis. I’m just using this as an illustration. I know people will get my point if I use something this notorious, the Nazi regime.
It’s a point that I’ve made here about the IRS. They say, “Well, you can’t link it in to Obama.” You don’t need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who’s doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There’s not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don’t need a smoking gun to know where this administration’s doing what it’s doing.
The last few weeks have been among the worst of Barack Obama’s time in office, recalling earlier periods of turmoil for the president in 2010 and 2011, when his ratings also plummeted. In 2013, the situation is significantly worse for the White House, with the Obama administration engulfed in a series of major scandals (IRS persecution of conservative groups, the Benghazi debacle, and the Justice Department seizure of journalists’ phone records) that are not only eroding trust in government but also in the office of the president itself. This is undoubtedly a period of steep decline for the Obama presidency, whose imperial-style big government approach is being increasingly questioned not only by American voters, but also by formerly subservient sections of the liberal-dominated mainstream media. In contrast to his first term, Barack Obama is finding himself less and less shielded by the press, and far more vulnerable to public criticism.
With good reason, Americans don’t feel optimistic about their country’s future with President Obama at the helm. According to the RealClear Politics polling average, less than one in three Americans believe the United States is heading in the right direction. A new Economist/YouGov poll has the president’s job approval rating at just 46 percent, with 49 percent of Americans disapproving. Strikingly, 35 percent of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the president’s job performance, 15 points higher than the number who “strongly approve.” A mere 31 percent of Americans surveyed by YouGov believe the United States is “generally headed in the right direction.”
In addition to damaging scandals, which have raised major questions over the integrity and judgment of the Obama administration, there remain deep-seated concerns over the US economy and the enormous national debt, widespread opposition to the president’s health care reforms, and significant fears over national security. Barack Obama’s second term could not have started more badly for the “hope and change” president, who, with three and a half years in office remaining, looks more and more like a lame duck. Here are ten key reasons why the Obama presidency is in trouble, with the outlook exceedingly grim for the White House.
This is a critical time in American history. I think we all know that something big is happening in America. The steady stream of news out of Washington the past couple weeks is just a fresh reminder of this. We are learning more about how far our Department of Justice went in digging through the phone records of members of the press. We are also learning about how our own government targeted conservative groups by delaying or denying their tax-exempt status. And we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop on Obamacare — the rate increases, the religious liberty violations and the bloated government bureaucracy that it will surely bring. This is troubling stuff, but it’s just more evidence of President Obama’s real agenda.
A little more than five years ago, when Barack Obama was running for president, he said something to a private audience about my state of Pennsylvania that foreshadowed this agenda. He told this group in San Francisco that the people of western Pennsylvania “cling to guns or religion.” This quote was a slap of derision to faithful Christians and believers in the Second Amendment. At the time, we all saw it for what it was, but I don’t think we saw it for what he really meant. I think it goes deeper than that. Obama, in this last campaign, said he wanted to “transform America.”
What is really happening now as we hear more about gun control, tax increases, Obamacare and same-sex marriage is a debate about who we are as Americans. America is not like most other countries in the world. Most others countries in the world are based on some sort of ethnicity — France, Italy, Afghanistan, Russia. Not us. For Americans, it is a shared set of values. We are Americans because of what we hold together as a belief structure. So when Barack Obama says he wants to “transform America,” he wants to transform that basic set of core beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence — the words that bring us together which we all know and often hear repeated: “We hold these truths (truths) to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So when Barack Obama says he wants to transform America, what does he mean? There was another revolution that went on, right about the same time as the American Revolution and the signing of the Declaration of Independence — the French Revolution. The French Revolution was eerily similar to the American Revolution, but there was a significant difference. The French Revolution was also to overthrow a king, yes. The revolutionaries’ guiding words were equality (sounds goods), liberty (good) and fraternity or brotherhood — not paternity, fatherhood. That is, in France, the belief was not that rights come from a Creator. Instead, the other revolution was a secular, godless, anti-clerical revolution. Churches were burned; clergy were killed. It was a rejection of God.
Barack Obama’s vision for America is the same vision that has been running wild for two centuries in Europe. All of Western Europe is now a descendent of the French Revolution. Churches there are empty. It is a secular culture and a dying culture. Europeans don’t have rights, other than the rights the government decides to give and occasionally take away. American liberals like to look to Europe and say, “Look at the gun-control laws there.” Well, how about looking at the free speech laws there, or the other freedoms? They don’t have the freedoms we do, because they don’t have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution we have. So when Barack Obama says he wants to transform America, and he looks down his nose at people who “cling” to their guns and their Bible, he understands that the critical transition America has to make is to reject the Declaration, to reject that living, breathing document of the Constitution.
We are at a critical time in America because the transformation that Barack Obama has talked about is actually happening. Those on the left live this battle every minute of the day. They do it in their schools, in their homes, in their church, at work. They are constantly pushing their agenda, and they are marginalizing anybody and everybody who disagrees with them. And now it turns out many in the federal government are doing it, as well. Positions that have been the bulwark of American civilization are now the “fringe.” You must, in every aspect of your life, understand the battle that is before us — because they do. You ask what you can do? Be as passionate as they are about what you love about this country.
Barack Obama’s approval ratings are finally higher than Richard Nixon’s. But this is only because forty years ago Nixon was in the midst of a dramatic collapse in public support from which he would not recover.
Obama’s Gallup approval rating is holding just under 50%. It does not yet show signs of damage from the trifecta of scandals (the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department targeting the press, and the Benghazi leadership failure and cover-up) plaguing the administration. Forty years ago Nixon’s approval was five points lower, but this was a record low for the well-liked 37th president.
As previously noted, Nixon was a much more popular president than Obama. In his first term Nixon’s Gallup approval levels averaged around six points above Obama, and were generally above the long term historical average. Obama by contrast has had below-average approval for almost his entire presidency. Nixon’s re-election was the strongest in contemporary history up to that time, winning 49 states and over 60% of the vote. Obama’s was arguably the weakest re-election ever, shedding both popular and electoral votes from his 2008 total. At the time of his re-inauguration in January 1973, Mr. Nixon’s approval rating was at a career-high 67%, fifteen points above where Mr. Obama was last January.
But even as Nixon soared back into office there were straws in the wind. Ten days after his second term began, former aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping related to the Watergate break-in. On April 30, in a damage-control move to insulate Nixon, chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic advisor John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned. White House Counsel John Dean, who had been cooperating with Watergate investigators, was fired. We have seen no comparable shakeups at the lockstep Obama White House, which has made the Nixon team’s stonewalling look quaint by comparison.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was the only featured guest at a New York Republican Party dinner Wednesday night, which a spokesman said raised nearly $750,000.
During his 35-minute speech that roused a crowd of high-profile New York Republicans, it couldn’t have been clearer where the GOP’s rising star from Texas wanted to move — away from the divisive rhetoric of a failed 2012 for Republicans and onto a path that could set them up for success in 2014 and 2016.
His speech served as a direct rebuke to the campaign of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. It will only further chatter about his future ambitions, including a potential 2016 run for president.
“I am going to suggest that the last election can be explained in two words: 47 percent,” Cruz said, referencing Romney’s infamous speech to donors at a fundraiser last year. At this fundraiser, Cruz took a profound shot at Romney’s narrative.
“I think Mitt Romney’s a good and decent man, and he ran a very hard campaign. But what I mean is the narrative of the last election. The narrative of the last election was, ‘The 47 percent of Americans who are not paying income taxes, who in some way are dependent upon government. We don’t have to worry about them.’ That’s what was communicated in the last election.
“I have to tell you, as a conservative, I cannot think of an idea more opposite to what we believe. I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47 percent.”
Majorities of American voters say their family will be worse off under the Affordable Care Act, and think it would be better to go back to the pre-ObamaCare health care system.
A Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that while 26 percent of voters say their health care situation will be better under the new law, twice as many — 53 percent — say it will be worse. Another 13 percent say it won’t make a difference.
Almost all Republicans (85 percent) and just over half of independents (51 percent) say they will be worse off under ObamaCare. Nearly half of Democrats expect to be better off (48 percent), while about one-quarter believe they will be worse off (24 percent).
Young voters and seniors are pessimistic about ObamaCare. Majorities of those under age 35 and those 65+ think things will be worse under the 2010 health care law.
That helps explains why a 56-percent majority wants to go back to the health care system that was in place in 2009. Some 34 percent would stick with the new law.
After a week of revelations about government spying on reporters and the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, most voters feel “like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.”
At the same time, a new Fox News poll finds disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is above 50 percent for the first time in a year, his honesty rating is at a new low and half of voters already think he’s a lame-duck.
More than two-thirds of voters — 68 percent — feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).
Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties.
While national polls haven’t shown a shift in the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s performance, recent controversies have, in my view, significantly changed the political landscape.
And changes in the landscape have led the Rothenberg Political Report to change its Senate ratings.
For the past few years, the public’s focus has been on Republicans’ opposition to the president’s agenda, their desire to shrink (even cripple) government and their conservatism. But the IRS scandal, along with controversies involving the attack in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s collecting of journalists’ telephone records, has change the political narrative.
While the Oklahoma tornado tragedy will dominate media coverage for the next few days, the new political narrative that will re-emerge when journalists return to politics involves questions about what the administration knew, said and did.
The new focus on the Obama administration puts it on the defensive and should boost enthusiasm on the political right throughout this year.
While we don’t know how long the focus will stay on the administration — or whether Republicans will stumble over the investigations or matters of public policy — between now and the November midterms, it is undeniable that recent events have altered, at least for now, the trajectory of the 2014 elections.
Given the different natures of midterm electorates, the new political narrative increases the risk for Democratic candidates in red states, where Democrats must win independent and, in many cases, Republican voters to be successful.
The Democratic Party’s edge over the GOP on who the public trusts more on ethics and corruption issues has flipped in the wake of the IRS and Benghazi scandals, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Not only do voters trust Republicans more now, they have their highest level of confidence in the GOP and the lowest level in Democrats in seven months.
While the Democrats had an eight-point “trust advantage” over Republicans a month ago, Rasmussen’s latest poll said that edge has disappeared and now the GOP has a two-point advantage.
“With growing questions about Benghazi and actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department, Democrats’ noticeable edge over Republicans in voter trust in the area of government ethics and corruption has disappeared,” said Rasmussen.
With new reports today that the Obama Department of Justice leaked documents intended to smear a whistleblower in the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, it is now more obvious than ever that this administration has, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) created a “culture of intimidation” that stretches from the White House down to myriad agencies of the executive branch.
President Obama: From his language suggesting targeting of enemies to his officials’ attempts to castigate Tea Partiers as economic terrorists, President Obama has presided over an administration that sees his political opponents as unworthy and nasty. Early in his administration, Obama threatened CEOs of banks, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Whether he’s urging supporters to bring guns to a fight or suggesting that his enemies are in thrall to the gun lobby at the expense of children, President Obama’s tactics of intimidation have become commonplace. The Obama campaign singled out Mitt Romney donors for special censure, suggesting that they were lawbreakers. Not coincidentally, many of those donors ended up on the wrong end of Obama administration legal scrutiny, including megadonors like Frank Vandersloot.
Department of Justice: Today’s report from the Department of Justice Inspector General, showing that former US Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked documents intended to smear a whistleblower in Fast and Furious, are only the latest revelation on misconduct from DOJ. The DOJ has also targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen over leaks from State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim; according to Megyn Kelly, two other Fox News staffers; the Associated Press, over a story regarding CIA investigations into al-Qaeda; Gallup, shortly after the polling firm showed Mitt Romney with a substantial lead over Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race; and True the Vote, an organization dedicated to stopping voter fraud. The Eric Holder Department of Justice has been the lead enforcement arm of the Obama agenda, going after Arizona’s immigration law and refusing to go after New Black Panther voter intimidation. The DOJ reportedly uses the non-profit group Media Matters to disseminate its talking points.