Our Marxist Wizard of Oz

I started looking into this several years ago and after quite a while I found very intelligent and honest Dr. John C Drew, PhD, who had met with and spoke with quite extensively Barack Obama while he was a student at Occidental College in California.

Dr. Chu states that he knew Obama as “ a radical Marxist, someone who was sure that the revolution would take place in America and that the poor would replace the rich”.

Listen to the interview for yourself–it is truly amazing–it is truly amazing that America could elect such a person into any public office much less the office of the presidency of the United States. Amazing and sad.

http://obama-is-a-marxist.com/here-i...rxist-history/

Published 05:37 02.03.12Latest update 05:37 02.03.12
Spoken by a well respected statesman as opposed to right wing extremists.
Remember Netanyahu wouldnt get involved in politics.

The TRULY DUMB ONES are those few trying to somehow twist themselves into knots
to say President Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan, a Muslim etc. What kind of holes
have these crazies crawled out of.


Peres: Obama is a great president, security ties are 'the best we’ve ever had'
In interview with Charlie Rose in New York, President Shimon Peres says he does not want to interfere in U.S. politics, but is stating his opinion on Obama 'because it’s true.'

Israeli President Shimon Peres on Thursday said that U.S. President Barack Obama is “a great president and a great friend of Israel,” and that security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel is “the best we’ve ever had.”

In an hour-long interview with American broadcaster Charlie Rose, conducted before a large audience at New York’s 92nd Street Y, Peres said that he does not want to interfere in American politics, but he is stating his opinion on Obama “because it’s true,” adding that he has “the highest respect” for Obama for overseeing the current relationship between the two countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Published 05:37 02.03.12Latest update 05:37 02.03.12
Spoken by a well respected statesman as opposed to right wing extremists


Peres: Obama is a great president, security ties are 'the best we’ve ever had'
In interview with Charlie Rose in New York, President Shimon Peres says he does not want to interfere in U.S. politics, but is stating his opinion on Obama 'because it’s true.'

Israeli President Shimon Peres on Thursday said that U.S. President Barack Obama is “a great president and a great friend of Israel,” and that security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel is “the best we’ve ever had.”

In an hour-long interview with American broadcaster Charlie Rose, conducted before a large audience at New York’s 92nd Street Y, Peres said that he does not want to interfere in American politics, but he is stating his opinion on Obama “because it’s true,” adding that he has “the highest respect” for Obama for overseeing the current relationship between the two countries.

---

You are dumb, really, really dumb. What would you expect him to say?

http://wrmea.org/component/content/a...4-billion.html

Obama Marxist Quotes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt7zWQMHLFY

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

He didnt have say anything. Like Netanyahu.

Sorry to interrupt the extreme right wing rants posted by who else but
SiriuslyWrong.

Lets start with the lies about Saul Alinsky. Shame, shame.


Fact: Alinsky Was Not "A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist"

Biographer: Alinsky "Is Routinely Labeled As A Marxist Or Communist Or Socialist, None Of Which He Was." From a May 2010 article by Sanford D. Horwitt for "Just Books," a review published by New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice:

Alinsky's name and Rules for Radicals are a daily presence on the Internet, especially in Tea Party blogs and, periodically, on Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's web sites. For most of these commentators, Alinsky is caricatured as a dark, sinister force whose spirit comes alive late at night in the Oval office. He is routinely labeled as a Marxist or Communist or Socialist, none of which he was. [BrennanCenter.org, 5/12/10]
Communists Attacked Alinsky For Advocating American Intervention In World War II. From a 1972 Playboy interview with Alinsky:

PLAYBOY: What was your own relationship with the Communist Party?

ALINSKY: I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.

When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, "This is the face of a warmonger." But there were too many Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Latvians in the area for that tactic to go over very well. Actually, the greatest weakness of the party was its slavish parroting of the Moscow line. It could have been much more effective if it had adopted a relatively independent stance, like the western European parties do today. But all in all, and despite my own fights with them, I think the Communists of the Thirties deserve a lot of credit for the struggles they led or participated in. Today the party is just a shadow of the past, but in the Depression it was a positive force for social change. A lot of its leaders and organizers were jerks, of course, but objectively the party in those days was on the right side and did considerable good. [Playboy, March 1972]
Alinsky: "Dogma, Whatever Form It Takes, Is The Ultimate Enemy Of Human Freedom." From the Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Did you consider becoming a party member prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

ALINSKY: Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. The great atomic physicist Niels Bohr summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Nobody owns the truth, and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm rudderless; I think I have a much keener sense of direction and purpose than the true believer with his rigid ideology, because I'm free to be loose, resilient and independent, able to respond to any situation as it arises without getting trapped by articles of faith. My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today. [Playboy, March 1972]
Alinsky Disparaged Lenin And Those Who Quote "Mao, Castro, And Che Guevara." From Rules for Radicals:

What is the alternative to working "inside" the system? A mess of rhetorical garbage about "Burn the system down!" Yippie yells of "Do it!" or "Do your thing." What else? Bombs? Sniping? Silence when police are killed and screams of "murdering fascist pigs" when others are killed? Attacking and baiting the police? Public suicide? "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun!" is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns! Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport? [Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Pages xx-xxi]
Biographer: For Alinsky, "Communists Were Trouble That His Community Organizations Could Do Without." From Horwitt's biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me Rebel:

Alinsky's own attitude toward communists had changed over the years. In the late 1930s, before the Soviet-German nonaggression pact, Alinsky had been enthusiastic about a United Front strategy, and in the Back of the Yards he had worked amicably enough with the occasional communist. After the war, during the purges of left-wing unions and in the McCarthy period, he was disgusted by the professional Red baiters, spoke out against them frequently, and extended his sympathy and, occasionally, a helping hand to witch-hunt victims whom he knew. Still, he had little patience and sympathy for the relatively few communists he continued to encounter. To be sure, he didn't give more than a scintilla of psychic energy to them, and to the extent he thought about them at all, he held to a very strong stereotype: they were quarrelsome, rigid, dour, humorless. In any event, he thought that to be a communist in the United States was pointless at best and perverse and destructive at worst. In short, communists were trouble that his community organizations could do without. Within an organization, they were apt to be trouble because they were obsessed with pushing ideologically pure issues and otherwise manipulating the agenda for their own narrow interests. They were also trouble, especially if they occupied visible leadership roles, because they made the organization vulnerable to outside attack. In short, he did not like them, did not need them, and as a general matter, wanted them quietly moved out of his community organizations. [Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy, Page 395]

Ah, I knew it. All things lead from Fox News to Siriuslybraindead. No surprise.

Bogeyman: Fox News Attacks Progressives With Fantasy Version Of Saul Alinsky
January 31, 2012 5:34 pm ET — 66 Comments
Fox News personalities have repeated numerous falsehoods about activist Saul Alinsky, including that he was a "Marxist" and that he dedicated his book Rules for Radicals "to Lucifer." Fox has used this false image of Alinsky to attack President Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Ah, I knew it. All things lead from Fox News to Siriuslybraindead. No surprise.

Bogeyman: Fox News Attacks Progressives With Fantasy Version Of Saul Alinsky
January 31, 2012 5:34 pm ET — 66 Comments
Fox News personalities have repeated numerous falsehoods about activist Saul Alinsky, including that he was a "Marxist" and that he dedicated his book Rules for Radicals "to Lucifer." Fox has used this false image of Alinsky to attack President Obama.

---

Nice diversion lol. That's what I would expect when you have nothing to say.

Nothing diversionary about it. Dont you read how Fox news tied Saul Alinsky to Marxism and Obama to Alinsky. I knew you would rather avoid it. Par for the course.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself.

Obama Is A Socialist! Why Are We Afraid To Admit It?

Do we not imperil America more by denying, by repressing Obama’s socialism? Or is it the fear of drawing increasingly negative attention to ourselves by attacking the politics of Obama that we most fear? Shouldn’t we most fear the loss of America itself, and use that as our strength and determination, our rallying call, the reason for our vocal dissent?

Obama gave another speech we all ought to fear. Said Obama:

Remember that in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and Social Security.

If this is true, if this is not just another Obama lie, how does he, how does any liberal, explain the fact that we had under 5% unemployment in those early years?

How does Obama explain that during those years of “expensive tax cuts” and despite the aftermath of 9/11, our war in Iraq and our increased involvement in the Middle East, not only were deficits not “massive”, compared to today’s deficits under Obama, the entire national debt was roughly about a third of what it is now and gas was under $2.00 a gallon?

George Bush did make a fundamental mistake with No Child Left Behind and his Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act. However, the Bush tax cuts helped prevent the massive unemployment we are now living with and the recession we are living in. If the Democrats had not taken control of congress in 2006 further cuts could have been made, legislation could have been passed to slow the growth of government, millions of jobs would not have been lost and either we would not have had a recession or it would have been a mild one – and we would have recovered from it by now.

Recessions don’t last for years and years, historically. Yet, this recession has lasted five years, and we are being told it will last for years more, for the “foreseeable future”. When all is said and done, this recession will have lasted longer than our Great Depression!

We are being told by Obama and the Democrat Party that we have to “spend our way” out of this recession. We have been doing precisely that since Obama took office, and the more we have “spent our way” out of this recession, the more deeper we have dug ourselves into this recession. Aren’t we smart enough to see the correlation between “more spending” and how deeper the hole becomes?

Obama says raising taxing on millionaires is the answer to solving our economic crisis; that raising taxes on millionaires will somehow create jobs ( higher paying jobs) and somehow reduce the deficit. Aren’t we smart enough by now to know that millionaires are the ones with the capital to invest in business and the economy? Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that millionaires have access to tax shelters to protect their money from being confiscated by the government? Isn’t Obama smart enough to know that? Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that once taxes are raised on millionaires, Obama will use those extra funds to further expand government, rather than reduce the deficit? Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that there is a direct correlation between raising taxes on the rich, and the rising unemployment rate? Does Obama think we aren’t smart enough by now to know what the real driving force behind our recession is?

Remember, this recession did not occur until after the Democrats took control of congress in 2006. The recession only got worse, deficits dramatically increased, unemployed imploded, government dependence skyrocketed. Conservatives won a victory in 2010 by taking back the House. It was enough to stop Democrats from further destruction, but not enough to reverse the devastation that has laid waste to our economy.

If we continue allowing Obama to trash America, the greatness of America, America’s past greatness which freed hundreds of millions of people from the types of despots and dictators and evil men who held the same socialistic ideals Obama himself praises, and disregard the future greatness that America holds for us, our children and future generations; if we bow to Obama and his agenda of big government, more radical government, more government involvement in our lives; if we bend to Obama’s political will out of some exaggerated fear we will embarrass ourselves, we will discredit ourselves, we will diminish ourselves and our conservative cause – we will ultimately lose that cause. There is no progress in apathy.

Socialism is defined, in part, by a system of wealth redistribution – collected and controlled by government. In the end, however, while the people may have an “equal share” of the pie, it is government itself which controls the biggest portion of that pie; it is government, by socialistic design, which holds the deed for all the wealth, including the wealth they redistributed to the people. It is government, by socialistic design, which has power over the people, because while the people have an “equal share” it is never enough to secure independence. An “equal share” of the wealth does not mean, nor is it ever intended to mean, the people will ever be wealthy.

http://neosecularist.com/2011/12/07/...d-to-admit-it/

I am so glad this thread is getting SO MANY views.