Is He Reagan? Or Is He Gorbachev?
Time magazine informs us that Barack Obama is head over heels in love with Ronald Reagan. And it’s far more than mere love: “Obama ♥ Reagan.” And why not? Reagan, after all, supported all the things that Obama supports: reduced tax rates, reduced regulatory burdens, free trade, military modernization, disinflation, resource allocation by market competition, and limited government. In short: individual freedom and responsibility.
Oops. Mr. Obama in reality has a vision far loftier: He stands foursquare in favor of the things that any Beltway Nostradamus knows are the keys to continued American leadership: greater internet access, one million electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, and more information technology. And the crowning glory: high-speed rail.
And so notwithstanding Time’s silliness, the fundamental difference between Reagan and Obama is obvious: liberty and individual initiative versus top-down coercion. What also is clear is that for Obama, high-speed rail and other such nostrums represent far more than mere sops for the unions, bureaucrats, lawyers, corporate fat cats, and the other interests for whom happiness is a snout deeply embedded in the federal trough. Such central planning is the path toward faster economic and employment growth over the immediate term, and a stronger, more productive U.S. economy in the long run.
And so Obama is no Reagan. Obviously without realizing it, he is instead the American version of Mikhail Gorbachev instituting the Soviet 12th Five-Year Plan (1986-1990).
Let us take a stroll down memory lane. Having assumed the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985, Gorbachev understood clearly that the economy was poor in some respects and a shambles in most others. The basic problem simply couldn’t be the system itself; after all, the White House GosPlan (the Soviet central planning agency) was populated with the best and the brightest. And so perestroika was the new buzz word, and the key to long-term improvement in Soviet economic performance was … machine tools. Machine tools were the key to the future. That was obvious, anyone could see it: The strong world economies had invested vast sums in modern machine tools, and if only the Soviet Union did the same, its economy too would be world class. Presto! The system could be reinvigorated!
I think the debate over Obama’s beliefs ought to center around what kind of Marxist he is: Bolshevik or Menshevik?
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/01/obama-is-not-a-bolshevik-but-is-he-a-menshevik.html
I think Obama would be more than happy to see others initiate Egyptian style riots here in America so he could fully maximize the “crisis” to his advantage.
Try more pusillanimous Maoist than Marxist.
Wow, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone making this comparison. I think you’re dead on correct. Bravo!
He is mixture of a Peron, a Chavez and a Lenin. The only real difference is that he is more of a front man than the central force behind this neo-communist coup. The real actors are offstage. Let us hope he (and they) does not do as much lasting damage as these other vipers who serve as their models.
And it is a “centralization” of power that is their goal; central planning is just a means to and end. The last thing they want is a restoration of American prosperity or power. Like all Leftists, they want the destruction of the USA, staring with the free (and mostly white) middle class. It is so glaringly obvious that one wonders how thy can show their faces in public without having bricks thrown at them.
Means to AN end^
“Work” for whom?
Central planning works very well for the planners. They stint themselves nothing. They hold power beyond that of all the emperors who’ve ever lived. Their subjects are merely the dust beneath their chariot wheels.
Be very careful about judgments based on what “works.” Such evaluations depend wholly on the priorities of the evaluator…and it’s near to certain that Benjamin Zycher’s priorities are a great distance from those of Barack Hussein Obama.
“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.”
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Henry Lee
Except in the twentieth century we have the example described by among others George Orwell. In this instance the “aristocrats” call themselves “democrats”, and the democrats are called by the “aristocrats” astro-turf, nazis, racists, vulgar, gun-happy cowboys, Christians, stupid etc etc.
And how did all of that Socialism/Communism work out for Gorbachev? Right, I remember now, there was that silly little revolution thing where the Russian people brought down the government. I knew there was something that didn’t turn out right for Gorbachev. Is this a preview of things to come for Obama? Not in America. We’ll just vote the bum out of office in 2012. Considering all the damage he did to our economy and all the money he wasted, not to mention Obamacare, I’d rather see this guy impeached than someone like Bill Clinton. But having him leave office and scorned like another failed president, Jimmy Carter, will have to do. When will this nation learn that far-left liberals only cause destruction wherever they go? Maybe this time the American public will learn that lesson.
Reagan was no stranger to statist spending. The military buildup under his administration is a prime example. The budget deficit grew at an unprecedented rate. What we on the left objected to was the way in which military spending grew and social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.
On the other hand, all that statist spending did produce some amazing technology and jobs for engineers. That’s money that did go back into the country and can be considered an investment. But it also created the three thousand dollar toilet seat and some spectacular cost overruns for weapons systems like the B1 bomber.
Are high speed rail and solar power Obama’s Star Wars program? It’s an interesting question.
Of course, Reagan struggled mightily to move total defense spending from 4% to 6% of GDP. Obama’s first stimulus bill alone was 6% of GDP, his deficits are running 10%, and he wants to spend more. By Obama’s standards, spending on Star Wars would be a rounding error.
You’re ommitting that we were at war (cold but war) with the URSS and star wars was a step beyond the Urss capacity of response, thus accelerating their defeat.
Now, solar power and all that is quite unnecessary, we are not saving the planet from any damn thing since there is only pseudo-scientist paranoia behind the rationale of “green jobs”
On the other hand, all that statist spending did produce some amazing technology and jobs for engineers.
At the cost of forgoing other amazing technology and at a loss of jobs for people not involved in military work. Even though it is necessary, military spending is ultimately just a wealth destroying waste. The military does a great job at producing some economic good to offset the inherent economic negatives of devoting enormous resources creating the means of destruction but that is all it is, mitigation.
The cost of WWII and the Cold War made our overall standard of living lower than it would have been without the conflicts.
That’s money that did go back into the country and can be considered an investment.
No, it’s not an investment because: (1) The money that “did go back” comes from the country in the first place. If the money had not been taxed away it would have been in the economy in the first place. (2) Iinvestment only increases net wealth if the investment increases production over what it would have been without the investment. The government can’t increase the overall wealth of society by random spending. It can only move real wealth from one group to another. Military spending doesn’t increase production on net.
What we on the left objected to was the way in which military spending grew and social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.
Well, actually, the Left was upset that Reagan was directing the violent power of the state against anti-democratic foreigners instead of directing the violent power of state against Americans the Left views as social and political competitors. The Left doesn’t like military spending because military spending is about threatening and controlling violent foreigners. The Left views the state as primarily being a mechanism to threatening and control Americans.
The Right views war as being conducted against outsiders. Leftism is a war against one’s neighbors.
The accepted term for non-military benefits from military R&D is spinoff.
Military expenditures per se are neither capital goods nor consumption goods. They bear a strong relationship to insurance, another item that fits into neither of the two recognized economic categories. Both are unproductive and unenjoyable, but necessary to avert worse possibilities. That makes them overhead items.
Providing an overhead item with a strong externality character — that is, an item one cannot provide to oneself without simultaneously providing it to others — is the sort of job a truly free country would delegate to government. Capital and comsumption goods, which embed positive incentives, would be left to private action: the marketplace. But I’m not telling you anything you couldn’t have figured out for yourself.
Social programs should be eliminated outright.
It is not the job of the state to wipe the arses of those who lack the competence to do so themselves. Government is enshrined and empowered to protect our rights and liberties. It has no legitimate purpose beyond that.
Unless a particular government action promotes/protects the COMMON welfare of ALL the people (such as the military), AND is not already being adequately addressed by other actors, then government should not be in the business of doing it.
Such efforts by the state rarely succeed in solving whatever problem they are supposed to be addressing. They also create unintended consequences that are often far more damaging than the initial problem itself.
Public roads paid for by taxes on the gasoline that powers the vehicles using these roads is an example of a public good that promotes the COMMON welfare. Everyone gets to use the roads. The military is another obvious example.
But throwing money at losers who can’t be bothered to care for their children only encourages other losers to follow in their footsteps. Subsidizing stupidity makes it grow. Illegitimacy is a social ILL. The welfare of the few is improved at the expense of everyone else, and at cost to the fabric of society as a whole. Entire sub-cultures of dependence are created in which ambition and competence are violently discouraged and in which intact and functional families are all but unheard of, in which the most confusing day of the year is father’s day. Such cultures then turn around and blame the rest of us for their plight. In truth they do have a point since we are acting as enablers for their self-destructive bullshit.
You want social programs, PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF and stop trying to pilfer my paycheck.
Lefty,
Have you actually looked at historical deficits? Choose your measure: nominal dollar, constant dollar, as a percentage of GDP. Deficits both rose and fell during Reagan’s time in office.
“Are high speed rail and solar power Obama’s Star Wars program? It’s an interesting question.”
Some of them believe their own propaganda. It must be a genetic defect.
Why not high speed horse trails? They would be as useful as high speed trains, since virtually nobody will use either one. See, there is a nice feature of airplanes and cars. They can go anywhere, not just to the spot where the bureaucrats brother lives.
And there’s those wee problems with solar as well. Like, you know, the sun doesn’t shine at night. Has Lefty noticed, or is the sun always shining in his addled brain? Apparently he doesn’t care either that the environment choking footprint of solar panels is about 100 times a coal powered plant; or that the investment and maintenance costs of solar are astronomical; or that “the sun” isn’t portable like coal and oil are; or, oh never mind…no amount of reason matters to the idiots. They live in fantasy worlds of their own making.
Reagan or Gorbachev?
Hell, this guy is barely Mike Dukakis. On a good day. With expert assistance.
How many politicians can you name who hold up their incompetence as some shining example of excellence?
Because that’s what we’ve been hag-ridden with.
He is neither. He is Pierre Elliott Trudeau, complete with no work experience except community activism and “public service”, unrepentant leftism getting dashed on the rocks of reality, incompetence at dealing with international crises and a fawning fanbase in complete thrall of his “rock star” image.
Ah yes, central planning works very well for the central planners. It gets you toady executives who dump money into your campaigns so they can reap the benefits of federal largess, instead of innovating their way to bigger profits.
Its gets you an above market rate paid cadre of bureaucrats which are very loyal to the federal behemoth. Look, they seem to have no qualms about grabbing and groping the public whose only offense was wanting to fly on an airplane that didn’t get blown up. These bureaucrats get above market rates for their pensions (I don’t get cost of living increases in mine) and for their health care. After the “food safety” law comes into fruition, will there be special stores that only the bureaucrats can shop at while the rest of us look at empty shelves?
Then The New York Times must be Pravda and The Washington Post is Izvestia. CNBC and CNN fulfill the function of USSR Gosteleradio. The readers and viewers of the above along with academia, the bureaucracy, the main stream media, the arts and the corporatist faction constitute the Nomenklatura. We are currently undergoing Perestroika.
But you forget that the The readers and viewers of the above don’t have the capacity of the Soviet masses who treated their “news” with disdain and were able to keep a different perspective of reality from that of Reality TV.
This is not the first time Obama and Gorbachev have been compared. David Warren has done so very effectively.
Both men have been praised for their wonderful temperaments, and their ability to remain unperturbed by approaching catastrophe. But again, the substance is different, for Gorbachev’s temperament was that of a survivor of many previous catastrophes.
Yet they do have one major thing in common, and that is the belief that, regardless of what the ruler does, the polity he rules must necessarily continue. This is perhaps the most essential, if seldom acknowledged, insight of the post-modern “liberal” mind: that if you take the pillars away, the roof will continue to hover in the air.
Gorbachev seemed to assume, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and then beyond it, that his Communist Party would recover from any temporary setbacks, and that the long-term effects of his glasnost and perestroika could only be to make it bigger and stronger.
There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.
Very small children, the mad, and certain extinct primitive tribes, have shared in this belief system, but only the fully college-educated liberal has the vocabulary to make it sound plausible.
He was prescient as this was written early in Obama’s term.
I don’t care what you think, Obama is the smartest president we have ever had with a double digit IQ.
They have polled and have estimates of the number of vote they will gain with the ruse of comparing Obama with RR. They wouldn’t bother if the estimate wasn’t positive.
I meant the similarities are: both Nobel Peace Prize winners, loved abroad but largely hated at home because they are deliberately riding their economies down the toilet. Oh yea, both are hard core communists.
Obama was so taken with Gorbachev that he gave one of his daughters a Russian boy’s nickname.
Lefty -
“What we on the left objected to was the way in which military spending grew and social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.”
Thank you for contributing to the Dishonest Democratic Narrative (DDN). It is always a pleasure to see what you people are up to, if only for your entertainment value.
Yes, “military spending grew”. After all, the Constitution makes the president the CinC and responsible for defense of the Republic, subject to congressional oversight. The Reagan military budgets were bipartisan affairs, as I recall, and the Soviets just a few years previously were saying, “We will bury you.”
Reagan was the only person on planet Earth outside the Soviet Union who recognized that the Soviet economy was decrepit and that their economic cycles alternated between recession and depression for the entire seventy years of their existence, but that is the way Lefty/Marxist states always operate: inefficient and corrupt. But then, Reagan was the only economics graduate who ever occupied the White House. He knew that a modest increase in military spending would tip the Soviets, and it did. Modest, in the sense that the Reagan investment in military spending had a tremendous pay-off, unless you are a Lefty, of course. And even you are bright enough to recognize that “amazing technology and jobs” were created by Reagan’s initiatives. No shot, Sheerluck!
“The budget deficit grew at an unprecedented rate. What we on the left objected to was the way in which … social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.
Tell me exactly which “social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.” Surely LBJ’s Great Society programs were not “pushed aside and decreased”, much to our subsequent regret. LBJ’s War on Poverty began taking massive amounts of cash out of the economy for the wasteful, corrupt, and ultimately futile War on Poverty. The War on Poverty cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, average $220 billion per year. These billions of dollars came at the expense of investment capital, which is a much more productive and socially useful way to spend money, with the added advantage of eliminating expensive bureaucratic parasites. The immediate effect of taking these billions of dollars out of the economy starting in 1965 was that the markets (DOW) flat-lined for seventeen years with three recessions including the Carter Catastrophe. You can look it up on any Dow Industrials graph, such as Yahoo. After wasting $6.6 trillion on the War on Poverty, the national debt stood at $6 trillion in 1995.
Reagan recognized that lack of investment was the problem with the American economy, just as lack of investment was the Soviet Union’s problem. Reagan cut taxes and regulatory burdens on the economy, and the economy took off like a rocket. Reagan tried to reform the War on Poverty, but was blocked in congress, chiefly by Tip O’Neill.
The War on Poverty belonged to LBJ and the Democrats, it did not belong to Reagan and the Republicans. The $220 billion p’d away each year on the War on Poverty during the Reagan years belongs to Democrats, not to Reagan and the Republicans. If you care to do the math, the amount spent on the Democrats’ War on Poverty during the Reagan years is almost exactly the increase in the national debt during those same years. The War on Poverty ended in 1995 because it was wasteful, corrupt, and ineffective, but it wasted additional trillions of dollars between Reagan who wanted to end it and Clinton who finally ended it. One of the great frauds perpetrated by Democrats is trying to pin the cost of their War on Poverty on Reagan who did his best to end the waste and corruption.
“What we on the left objected to was the way in which military spending grew and social programs and such were pushed aside and decreased.”
Social programs were neither pushed aside nor decreased; they were increased at a lower rate than leftists found to their liking. Remember that the House was Democratic for all 8 years and the Senate for 6; not exactly a “Tea Party”-like hotbed.
It’s an old and libelous trick of the left to label unsatisfactory increases as “cuts” by calling the difference between what Democrats wanted and what the final increase arrived at as a “cut.”
For instance: if the funding for Lesbian Baby Ducks was $1.1 billion in ’86, the Republicans (RINOS, actually) would increase it to $1.2 billion in FY ’87, when the Democrats wanted $1.4 billion. The Democrats would then scream “FUNDING FOR Lesbian Baby Ducks CUT BY $200 MILLION!” and the MSM (there was no alternative media in the 80′s) would compliantly put that in their headlines. In the meanwhile, Lesbian Baby Ducks had received an additional $100 million courtesy of those nasty Republicans. The mendacity of the left is legendary. Basically, they’re a bunch of middle school Mean Girls on a PMS-induced tear.
Central Planning does not work ?
It certainly works for the people who do the planning, for the bureaucrats who implement / enforce and journalists who beat the drums and blow the trumpet for the central planners. And government cops/ security guards who “for the good of the people” push ordinary people who have done nothing wrong around. To get touchy – feely with total strangers who are doing nothing more than travelling (which if you recall was in very recent history considered sexual harassment/ assault and was actionable). To fill a quota to keep their jobs. Quota decided by their bureaucrat bosses at the service of these “central planners” / dictators / tyrants.
It works for them. And who pays for their benefits, their perks, their status as “betters” at the cost of lawfully protected RIGHTS of those they have made serfs, too often with cheering acceptance from the serfs. When was the last time any of these planners and implementers was sent to given hard-time penalty or paid large sum compensations for the real damage they do to millions of other peoples’ lives?
In the USA, a Country of Law in which natural RIGHTS which include EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW are by Constitution, i.e. FUNDAMENTAL LAW. NOT by sufferance of the central administrators theoretically protected. AND isn’t it the purview of the Court to assure those RIGHTS are not restrained without consent of the governed. Consent of the governed, NOT of their closed shop gentlemens’s club of other judges and lawyers.
The words, AND the meanings of this LAW/Constitution/ Bill of Rights have not changed.WHAT HAS?
“The words, AND the meanings of this LAW/Constitution/ Bill of Rights have not changed.WHAT HAS?”
That among our “Leaders,” such things as duty, honor, country, and God have no meaning.
like gorby obamachev seems to be presiding over the dissolution of our spheres of influence.
Reagan wasn’t all about “Individual freedom and responsibility.” He escalated the war on drugs that has cost countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and led to the gradual erosion of the Bill of Rights that has only accelerated over the past quarter century, and which has contributed to the justification for all of the bailouts, Obamacare, Homeland Security and every other government boondoggle foisted upon citizens by both Repblicans and Democrats. Mission creep is a problem with all government programs, not just Democrats’ pet ones.
The so-called “Reagan Revolution” only lasted 6 years. G.H.W. Bush (Bush I) strangled Reaganism in it’s crib when he took office with his “kinder and gentler” mantra. Bush was an old-style country-club Republican who had no use for Reaganism, and betrayed its tenets immediately so as to go back to business as usual. He fired Reagan appointees right and left to install his establishment “suits.”
Therefore, the stuff you attribute to Reaganism was actually a result of a betrayal of his intent by the general political class. Even during the Reagan years he had to fight an uphill battle against entrenched Democrats and their RINO allies.
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances…” – As You Like It, Shakespeare
Everything you see emanating from the Left – i.e., Obama’s sudden shift to “the center”…his so-called falling out with the radical Left – it’s all an act…staged theatre.
The goal? To save ObamaCare.
Obama’s “shift” and his falling out with the progressive Left is an attempt to fool independent voters into believing that he’s a centrist, not a Leftist. Why? Because without those independent voters, he doesn’t get re-elected in 2012. And if that happens, the Left knows that ObamaCare is absolutely dead…and so is their last, best chance at fooling the American people into chaining themselves to Big Govt forever.
Why is that such a big deal? Because ObamaCare is the hammer with which the Left intends to drive a stake through the heart of the country as it was perceived by our Founders.
Remember: 47% of working adults in the US get more back in the form of direct federal benefits or payments than they pay in via taxes.
Now which party do you think most of that 47% vote for?
If ObamaCare makes it to full implementation, that number will cross the 50% goal line that the Left has be incrementally building up to for the past 100 years. When that happens, the game is up…and they know it…and most importantly, Obama knows it.
That’s why he was willing to go along with extending the Bush tax cuts. What does he care when he knows that in 10 years the consumer class will give the Dems unchallenged majorities in both Houses? Majorities that will only grow larger with every passing decade as, more and more, the productive class is bled dry by the Democrats and the punitive taxation tidal wave they’ll unleash on this country? ObamaCare must be protected at all costs…because it’s the linch-pin to their century-long quest to destroy this country’s capitalist, individualist system.
So just sit back and watch as Obama continues moving to the “center”. And watch as the Left continues their fake outrage over his every “concession”, in order to allow him to claim the mantle of “centrist” over the next year…then, miraculously, watch as they all kiss and make up come February of next year…just as the election season heats up.
The only way to counter their cynical strategy is to expose it…repeatedly. And so far, I see no one on the Right doing so.
“and led to the gradual erosion of the Bill of Rights that has only accelerated over the past quarter century,”
Examples please. (This ought to be good…)
“and which has contributed to the justification for all of the bailouts, Obamacare, Homeland Security and every other government boondoggle foisted upon citizens by both Repblicans and Democrats.”
Proof positive that drugs are a plight on our society…holy crap! What are you smoking? That’s some pretty special stupid you plopped down in that sentence right there!
“Example please.”
That’s been done quite exhaustively elsewhere:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/341/reagan.shtml
Mandatory minimums, erosion of Posse Comitatus, “Just say no…”
I know reading is harder than just calling people stupid, but give it a try. Reagan was a damn sight better than Obama has been, but he was not exactly a bastion of liberty. And some of the things he did, or allowed to be done in his name, have been used by subsequent governments to further erode civil liberties. But name calling and ad hominems are easier than substantive arguments.
I was expecting a much simpler and blunter Gorbachev comparison:
Gorbachev presided over the demise of the USSR. Is Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, presiding over the decline, or even the demise, of the US?
“He is in for a rude awakening.” And our nightmares will come true.
I don’t mind him having a rude awakening, it’s the nightmare for us that I’m not real fond of.
Yet another symptom that the “Left” /”Liberals/Progressives” are clinically insane. OR their contempt for citizens of the USA is utterly boundless to even pilot /try out comparison with Reagan, as character or politician. Unfortunately they may well be right,given recent experience After all Obama was “elected”. And even now after having been found in a myriad, almost institutional in his public persona, of lies and frauds and incredible cestructiveness of the framework of the USA, still think he’s doing a good job, and like him. Perhaps his cheerleaders, in chmparing him with Reagan, are just trying to pull a fast one on their real competition Sarah Palin.
Anyone remember that in contrast to Obama Reagan was one of the most experienced AND SUCCESSFUL politicians, including Governor of California which he left with a budget surplus. Anyone remember that Reagan was a proud American, in contrast to Obama who announced he was “ashamed” of America”?
NOW suddenly REAGAN is the model / twin of their “messiah” Obama. NOT Kennedy, NOT Clinton but REAGAN, Who they have spent decades even long before he was President,excoriating, vilifying and were he not public figure libelling. As their favourite dumbo, ill-educated, inarticulate, provincial,laxy, whatever. NOW SUDDENLY he is their “hero”. Look closely and see these “elite” treated Reagan in EXACTLY the same way they now treat Sarah Palin.
Yes, clinically insance OR with MASSIVE CONTEMPT for those Americans who respect their country and are proud to call themselves American with a capitol A. No other descriptive needed, or wanted. American with a Capitol A. Good enough for Reagan and Palin. Not good enough for the Internationalist Obama
Is America blind to the plan of self-destruction? Allowing ISLAM to rise as Christianity declines?
Like Alinsky, Hilliary Clinton, Bill Clinton, & Obama, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”
People who enter the USA illegally should NEVER be able to become citizens and their children shouldn’t either. That is like allowing a bank robbers children to keep what the bank robber stole.
A group of people who do not accept out Constitution as Law and who do not believe in Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State should have no right to demand our acceptance of them on this same basis. Would we grant a childcare license to a pedophile?
“There is nothing more EVIL than to refuse to call that which is EVIL, EVIL.”
“If there is nothing that is Un-American, then to be American means nothing.”
American Patriots Commission on Un-American Activities
Visit: Ameritianity . com
Do your comments also apply to citizens, as the Kennedys, the Clintons, AND the Congressmen/Senators and judges who, despite their sworn FREELY taken oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the USA, patently fail to honour that oath. Not only in remission but in commission by enacting laws, that absent the time and expense consuming costs, are not challenged, and become fixed in Law thus abrogating RIGHTS protected by that Constitution. As in “not caring about the Constitution” (Phil Hare erstwhile Congressmen 17th? District Illinois).
What do the profeswsors in law schools teach these days that so many lawyers, graduates, do not seem to understand the words in the root documents of this nation.
Reagan or Gorbachev? Dumb question. Obama is the new Stalin.
From The Heritage Foundation:
Needless to say, Obama has shown he has none of these qualities.
Neither Reagan nor Gorby–0bama is a combo of Vidkun Quisling (hates the US as much as Quisling did Norway), Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Ruhollah Khomeini.
I don’t think he’s Reagan and he certainly isn’t Gorbachev. Gorbachev is known for his dual policy of glasnost and perestroika. Our glasnost or openess or transparency is disappearing. It also seems that our economy is badly in need of perestroika or restructuring. If it ever takes place the role of the bureaucracy will decrease along with the number of bureaucrats. It seems to me that they are increasing. But don’t lose hope. In the words of Thomas Paine: “Time makes more converts than reason.”
Che Guevara had personal integrity, and cojines; PO has only a lying mouth.
Obama is surely not the second coming of Gorbachev, but he’s no Reagan either. While he may be rehashing much of the failed economic theory from the Soviet’s communism and shares many goals with it, his plan does not seek world domination by force. He in many ways is seeking a top down approach to leftist/communist nationalism as part of a dual track with others such as Francis Fox Piven who pushes for a bottom up approach. Both result in the liberation of the masses from their perceived enemy – Capitalism. Read what I have to say here:
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/02/reaganobama-1984.html