Monday, October 27, 2008

Socialist Warning Signs

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a political cartoon is priceless. Especially a cartoon containing "racist" "socialist" warning signs.

Socialist Warning Sign

Obama is currently angry at Fox News for digging up an old Chicago Public Radio interview in which he voiced regret about the civil rights movement’s shift towards court solutions and away from what he considered the real goal: income redistribution.

And there I was back then, thinking our fight for civil rights for blacks was about deserving a place at the table, that our goal was an equal opportunity to strive without the artificial and cruel restraints regarding skin color.

Dumb li’l ol’ white me.

Here’s the Obama campaign’s lash-out at Fox and the other usual suspects (except for Rush Limbaugh who somehow missed the cut on this one):

In the interview, conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001 while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama discusses the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights decisions. The unearthed conversations gave fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Monday accused FOX News of pushing a “fake news controversy” to further an agenda. Though FOX News played the audio tape for its viewers and did not just recap Republican criticism, Burton suggested FOX News was conspiring with the McCain campaign and the Drudge Report, which posted the material on its Web site.

No wonder the O campaign is kicking. The Big One laid a big one in this interview. But in 2001, he never dreamed he’d be running for president so soon, do you think?

Look at this radical diatribe (editor’s note — is “radical” the new “racist”? Just askin’):

In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

No, I’m not making this up. He really did say that.

See why his handlers are trying to discredit the messenger? See why he’s waving the big red flag up there?

But it gets worse. Much worse. This is an American lawyer who doesn’t like the founding doctrine, our Constitution:
- - - - - - - - -
Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. [my emphases — D]

To which I can only respond, thank heavens it hasn't “shifted” or we'll all be shafted, including those people Obama wants to make special. Maybe especially those folks.Public greed is not treated kindly by the average American.

Obama has been fortunate that his wishes didn't come true back then, or he wouldn't be running for anything now. It can be a terrible thing when you get what you wish for, especially when you are wishing for it on the behalf of others.

Funny thing about the Democrats: they are simply unable to learn from the mistakes of the past. In fact, they don't even see them as mistakes.

It would be a tragic day for America if her Constitution were ever to bear the burden of any amendment of entitlement.


no2liberals said...

"that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you"
This is the part of the sentence that truly troubles me.
The Constitution is the foundation of our country, and for anyone to view this document as being one of negative liberties, they are functioning with the twisted mind of a radical Marxist. It is a document of freedom and liberty, embraced for over two hundred years by freedom loving people. That restraint, is placed on government for the express purpose of preserving our liberties.
That B-HO believes our liberties should be rationed by government, shows his lack of respect for our Constitution, the very document that an elected official takes an oath to protect and defend, against all enemies, including people like himself.

Another great cartoon from IBD.

Also, a wonderful piece by Mark Levin. He rights wonderfully, even if I don't like his style as a radio personality.

Anonymous said...


"and for anyone to view this document as being one of negative liberties, they are functioning with the twisted mind of a radical Marxist."

Uh, no. No, no, no. Negative liberties is exactly right. That's _exactly_ what the constitution is. It defines what government _cannot_ do to you. It defines _limits_. If it talked about positive liberties, that would be "you have the right to do A, B, and D" and government would be able to say "well D isn't in the Constitution so you don't have that right". Actually you do hear some of that these days, but it isn't progressing nearly as fast as it might otherwise.

Understand what the term means before jumping all over it. Obama's exactly right in his characterization of it. And also exactly wrong in wanting to change that, but that's because he's a short-sighted ignorant fool of a so-and-so.

Dymphna said...


I agree with you re Levin. His book on the Supreme Court should have taught you that rollory is right. The Constitution is truly about negative liberties. Otherwise we get that horrible scenario of O's:

it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf

Pardonnez-moi? Since when is the Constitution the Constituted Teat?

We've got to get the lawyers out of government. They're ruining the country.

Speaking of negative liberties: Palin in NOT a lawyer. Makes her a prime candidate for public service.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

In case anyone hasn't noticed, much of the Bill of Rights is quite simply no longer in effect in any practical sense, anyway. (Just try using your 2nd Amendment "rights" in my own home state "the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.") The Marxist traitors have been chipping away at the Constitution for decades. Now with all of us browbeaten with cries of "Racist!" if we do not vote for "the Messiah" and a very weak Republican candidate, the Left can smell blood in the water.
Mark Levin is quite right; soon we will not recognize our country.

Henrik R Clausen said...

'Redistributing wealth' not only fails to deliver its promise, it is downright counter-productive. City Journal has a great essay We Don't Need Another War on Poverty, where one of the first things to be pointed out is that the "War on Poverty" initiated by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration stabilized poverty at 13 %, where until the program was initiated, it was falling around 1 percentage point per year.

The main reason 'Redistributing wealth' is counterproductive is that it diverts attention from what creates wealth in the first place, work and personal responsibility. Obama seems to be in a state of absolute confusion about this.

Regarding the concept of negative liberties (Wikipedia is usable on this), it is rather important in these days of constitutional weakness, both in Europe and the US. Negative liberty is what philosophers in the tradition of Adam Smith argue for.

Marx and socialists would argue for 'positive liberties', where the State guarantees various aspects of life, at the expense of loyalty (ideological and economical) to the State.

Yankee Doodle said...

"the right to have someone else pay for the meal"

In most parts of the world, that "right" is considered a "crime".

"This is an American lawyer who doesn’t like the founding doctrine, our Constitution"

Understated; he's even worse than Bill and Hillary.

"To which I can only respond, thank heavens it hasn't “shifted” or we'll all be shafted, including those people Obama wants to make special."

In getting people addicted to the narcotics of "free" government handouts, these extremists seek to rekindle the fires of slavery -- one crowd will be enslaved and forced to work for another; this other crowd will never learn how to fend for itself, and will feel it can only survive as long as it accepts handouts.

There's nothing at all "negative" about telling which parts of our lives the government must stay out of; but, demagogues seeking absolute power would think otherwise.

"It would be a tragic day for America if her Constitution were ever to bear the burden of any amendment of entitlement."

The tragedy is already here. Long ago, they stopped interpreting the Constitution as it was written, and began to interpret it according to their whims.

"Light" can mean "darkness" and "slavery" can be "freedom" if those who decide the meanings of words are corrupted.

no2liberals said...

I stand corrected on the technical term.
Listening to him express that term in the audio tape, conveyed a disdain I had not heard before.
To me it is a beautiful document, and hearing him express it in those terms, was very troubling.
I have always discussed the Constitution in terms of restraining the state from infringing on private liberties. To me, that is a very positive thing.

Dymphna, I agree. Not only is Super Sarah not a lawyer, neither is John McCain. I don't wish to impugn all lawyers, but of this valuable profession, there are far too many in policy making positions. Especially on the left.

Joan of Argghh! said...

"negative liberties" is code for "rules".

I wish I coulda used that whopper when I was a teenager! LOL!

talnik said...

So this would make Obama the Anti-Kennedy: "Ask not what you can do for your country, demand the Constitution guarantee hand-outs".
Talk about perpetuating a negative stereotype.
Additionally I'm not one who thinks Obama is a closet Muslim by any means, but someone could make the argument that these statements and his plans for a world poverty fund is jizya with another name.

Afonso Henriques said...

Thank you Dymphna for the article.

However, the only news I get here is that two dangerous neo nazi skinheads were going to kill Obama and the whole black population of Tenessee... they give us all the dirty details of it... the bias is so... sickening... at least in America the MSM says "I support this one, I support that one"... at least in America almost everything is black and white, here it's not, everything is of a shade of gray. It can be very dark or very light but is always gray. I have been so many times acused of being anti-American but the truth is it will be sad to see the destruction of America that, right or wrong, was indeed the only State-Nation based on idea(l)s, that is, hopes and dreams...

Anonymous said...

Alexis De Tocqueville: "America will last until the populace discovers that it can vote for itself largesse out of the public treasury”.--Alexis De Tocqueville

Henrik R Clausen said...

Alexis De Tocqueville

I think he deserves a link.

I just got his book, and found a fifty page analysis of it here.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Even thinking of shooting Obama is a seriously sick idea. It's not his body that causes problems, it's his ideas.

They need to be defeated in the appropriate dimension, open and qualified debate.

Gosh, I hate these Nazi goons. They mess up *everything* they touch...

Dymphna said...

Afonso said:

I have been so many times accused of being anti-American but the truth is it will be sad to see the destruction of America that, right or wrong, was indeed the only State-Nation based on idea(l)s, that is, hopes and dreams...
It’s a sad prospect when it begins to become real. America was a handy target for Europe until we began our own implosion.

Look at Chalon's comment. That is one of de Tocqueville's most famous predictions, and it’s been coming true since FDR.

If you haven't read "Democracy in America", do so. Not only is it an accurate portrayal of the American character then, but many observations still hold true.

A recent commenter claimed that Spain was more fortunate than the US because as the global economy went down at least Spain had the Community to see them through. I wasn't sure what the reader meant, but he or she obviously doesn't know America.

As de Tocqueville marveled, we were (are) a nation of many voluntary associations -- and America’s extroverted culture creates our tendency to join into groups for community service.

In our rural county, both the fire department and the rescue squad (the latter is ambulance service and first aid) are voluntary; supported on private contributions. The land for the firehouse where our district votes was donated by a local family. As was the land for our church (same family. Not much money but good land).

When I had the energy, I was a joiner. The Baron was active in Boy Scout training, the church vestry, and belonged to an arts group.

We contribute to our church, to the rescue squad and firemen (never can tell when you need them. Not just for fires – like the time the darn cat fell down an ancient and unused well back in our woods and they came to help retrieve him). Our local library depends on donations. A small place, but it's heavily used by the community, both black and white. Both races work there in harmony, as they do at all the other places mentioned.

Church is the exception. Rural churches are segregated, which has more to do with culture than race. Each denomination has a different worship “style”. Also, many individual parishes are old (by our standards); people want to stay where their families worshipped in the past…a complicated issue.

One place where this is less true: college campuses. Students are transients tending to gather by denomination, this cuts across racial lines. When we went to church at our son's school last Sunday, I noticed a tall young black man in the congregation.

The US has survived worse than Obama, though I fear the tunnelling through our institutions of the Gramscians. Bill Ayers may succeed at last where others have failed.

Oops...the 500 word limit approaches…eyes are glazing over….

Bela said...

The Clique

As a person who acquired extensive ideological experience by living under various streaks of Socialism I believe there is an over-estimation of this Obama fellow.

Most radicals have a long track record to refer back to but this One popped up from nowhere.
He never read Das Kapital nor Hegel' works so the intellectual wealth what he might acquired either in Jakarta or Chicago's South side is nil or on the level of Snoop Dog.

The true evil are the puppeteers The Clique who are behind and pulling the string.

They will come up all to the fore in due time and they will remind you to the first Bolshevik Politburo of Russia as far as ethnicity concern, peppered with heavy dose of semi-illiterate blacks.

It's going to be an interesting pastime to Google the backgrounds of the Obama crew. I follow my uncanny hunch in this regard and I am seldom mistaken.

As for the Constitution...please don't be naive: It can and it will be interpreted any which way that further the interest of the Left; - be sure ACLU with Herbert Sandlers millions will do their best to frustrate you.

Organizations funded by the Sandlers:

* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
* ProPublica
* America Votes
* Center for American Progress
* Human Rights Watch

Henrik Ræder said...

If you haven't read "Democracy in America", do so.

Dymphna, thanks.

Here it is as a free audio book.

What you describe above has a term, it's called 'civil society'. It's common sense of common people, doing useful things around them, just because it feels sensible. Politicians here in Denmark talk about 'strengthening' the civil society, but what they really mean is 'ursurping'.

Perhaps this subject, including the resources (it must be online as text also), deserves a separate post?

Unknown said...

He never read Das Kapital nor Hegel' works

You may be right, but I'm curious how you know he's never done so.

so the intellectual wealth what he might acquired either in Jakarta or Chicago's South side is nil or on the level of Snoop Dog.

Did you forgot to add "Honolulu" and "Boston" to that list, or was that a deliberate omission?

Bela said...


You have a tendency to split hairs:
Honolulu or Boston...irrelevant: his lifetime association with radical as***les speaks for itself. Incidentally Commie Davis was his buddy in HONOLULU! Got it? That is, HONOLULU!

You can spin and twist the subject as much as you want no one cares: why don't you make your own research instead of nagging at every single verb, adjective and noun or grammatical syntax of others?

You may be right, but I'm curious how you know he's never done so.

Because his upbringing, family association, lifestyle, surroundings exclude any type of scholarly, intellectually oriented philosophical study. He is not 80 years old.
Not even his university degree or any type of achievement is public; everything that might reflect negative light on him is meticulously covered by The Clique
He is being told by others about these subjects.
Others run his show.

This is for you lucille:
From the hard left Haaretz, Israel

Members of the tribe / 36 Jews who have shaped the 2008 U.S. election
By Bradley Burston and J.J. Goldberg

Unknown said...

The joke is thinking that any of the candidates DON'T have a socialist agenda. It's national socialism or international socialism, take your pick. This country has been socialist since the 60's.
The people were offered a candidate that would follow the Constitution and eliminate the socialism, he couldn't break 5%. Americans like their nanny state a great deal, they no longer would have any idea how to function without it.
The Constitution has had nothing to do with how the U.S. is governed for over a century, politicians make constant rhetorical reference to it but if the Constitution came up for ratification today, I'm quite sure it will fail miserably.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Oops...the 500 word limit approaches…eyes are glazing over…."

I was enjoying it... really, I was.

"The US has survived worse than Obama" It's not Obama, the basis is already there to put an Obama in charge, America is 66% to 74% white and decreasing... the body that made it possible to survive everything is / has fallen apart.

Who's Obama? Obama has no real power or ideas of his own.

Bela said...

afonso h:

Who's Obama? Obama has no real power or ideas of his own.

You are absolute correct: I stated the same thing above.
However the dark forces behind him are the real danger and Americans are too naive to fathom or seize up the real world.
They think "Socialism" is about fairer taxation, more human rights, World Peace! and other assorted nonsenses.
They have no idea about the true face and the brutality of the Authoritarian or Totalitarian Socialism which would rule by Fiat.
(an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree, government by fiat).
I am ahead in experience but it's too early to pull up the warning sign: it's considered as fear mongering.

They will learn and will learn very fast, don't worry.

Conservative Swede said...

Yes, Bela is right. It's not Obama himself that is the true danger, but the Gramscian forces behind him and the forces he will unleash. These are the forces of brutal ostracism and violent street "activism". Forces with a totalitarian mindset. We have already seen their character in their propagandistic art (pop music videos, children singing praising the great leader), among other things.

This sort of aggressive activism need a strong symbolic concept to fuel them, and keep them going. Once it was "world communism" today it's "black president". Obama is simply fulfilling the formula - acting the part well enough to maintain the illusion. That's his place in all this. The real danger does not come from him as such (but is on the other hand intimately tied to him as a symbol).

We could compare him with Allende in Chile. Allende himself was fairly moderate as a socialist, but there was a whole people's front, including the hardcore communists, behind him. These communists did things as marching into factories and taking them over. Allende was pushed by the inner dynamics of his base (not that this makes him innocent), and yes he ruled by fiat, surpassing all principles of parliamentarism and democracy (the socialists only had 34% in the congress).

In spite of the many differences, by studying Chile from 1970-73 could provide some insight into what America has in stall for the coming four years. Most of these differences are to the advantage of America (I think). For example, America is not Latin republic (yet), (no I'm not gonna call Chile, anno 1970, a banana republic). But the conceptual symbolism "black president" is potentially more dangerous then "socialism" (Chile). First of all it means that the leftist symbolism has regressed into a rather tribal totemic mythology, kind of like "the day the redheaded man on a white stallion appears our people will throw away their chains and become free" (as opposed to the typically abstract and universalist symbols of the Industrial Age). Secondly it adds an ethnic component to the whole thing, which makes it potentially very explosive.

Czechmade said...

Chile is a beautiful example.
I love the story of Allende begging in Sov.Union for money and receiving none.

I love also the workers strikes against the leftist gov.

Remember the Mirists intimidating students/staff and deciding who can lecture at the university.

A Czech factory owner who lost all his property in CZ lost it again in Chile. Under Pinochet he got it back...and had to pay some horrible debts.

Pinochet also used bolshevik methods - removing people from public life who "might" do something wrong or had some outstanding or independent character.

Allende might be moderate muslim systematically unable to do anything about radical muslims.

Henrik R Clausen said...

the dark forces behind him are the real danger.

I second that. It's the unspecified group of 'advisors', lobbyists, interest groups etc., who all - probably rightly so - view Obama as much easier to manipulate than McCain, and thus a better man in the Oval Office - for them.

What I would expect, should The One take office, is first - relative quiet. Then a slow escalation of ever-increasing crises, which he will tend, mired in bad advice, to solve by more spending. An idea that lends itself to the arrival of more crises, as one tends to get what one pays for.

Federal government will have to increase either debt or taxes to do that. Debt is obviously suicidal given the 65 % GNP debt already there, I'll guess he'll aim for taxes.

When he then wants to increase taxes to cover the expenses he made on behalf of everyone, the real challenge comes. Will people hold on to their property, or let the State take control?

Henrik R Clausen said...

Oh. Here's a term from de Tocqueville:


He uses in in the context of lack of zeal fulfilling a public office etc., but I think it is applicable to something else that takes a bit too much of the public space:


Racism is a quasi-offense, in that it isn't proper, but it isn't a real, tangible offense either.

Quasi-offenses are so difficult to ascertain that the only recourse against them is - the public vote.

No scaremongering, no Big Brother, no 'midnight knock'. Just the basic functionality of democracy.

One of the wonders of de Tocqueville is that he takes you back to the time before the American Civil War, where government was a public matter, and was so as a matter of cause. Big government was inconcievable.

Unknown said...


I'm not the one who insists that a Harvard student and US Congressman is incapable of reading books, or has never read books. Perhaps it is true, but it's hardly likely. You want to convince me of that, you do the research.

Conservative Swede said...


It's the unspecified group of 'advisors', lobbyists, interest groups etc., who all - probably rightly so - view Obama as much easier to manipulate than McCain

Oh but there's more to it. This is a revivalist movement and stronger as such than even the global warming alarmism. Surely, as in 20th century with the World Communism movement, there are a whole lot of calculated moves being made here, but at the bottom and at the core of it it's people who are emotionally ecstatic. These people are believers. And in this sense the group is not "unspecified". (compare it to Jihadism: distributed system, coordinated not by central command but by the same mental program, the same emotional ecstasy).

What I would expect, should The One take office, is first - relative quiet.

This is the million dollar question. What will happen when Obama enters office? On day 1, after 100 days, after 2 years, 4 years?

Day 1 won't be quite. There will be huge celebrations, some of which will go out of bounds (as a minimum).

But that's not what you referred to. Yes, I think too that an Obama Administration will do everything to go easy in the beginning. To appear moderate and not scare people. However, even if this is their ambition, is it even in their control? Obama as president will unleash forces in the society, at all levels of the society, that they will not be able to control.

It's clear to all of us how Obama does not have a program (except for "hope" and "change"). But Obama is not a program, he is a key. A key has to have the right shape and properties to be able to open the gate. Obama is this key. It's a key to Pandora's Box. Nobody, I say nobody, can foresee what will be unleashed when opening this box - even less controlling these primal forces!

Bela said...

Very interesting, all of us posting on this thread came to the very same conclusion namely that Obama is an untouchable (black)figurehead and those behind him are the real threat.

None of us regarded Obama as a true political heavyweight, a sophisticated leader to be reckon with.

Because of my European cultural roots I am not adept enough at guessing the Americans reaction when this type of underclass/ethnicity assume absolute power.

We Europeans are quite aware of the realities related to the social classes, we know the meaning of the "proletariat", the "class struggle" etc. but Americans fooled themselves and conjured up the classless society myth in which meritocracy rules.
Except for blacks, Mexicans etc.who are revered in this new "Negrophilia" - Whites are racist trash, Ghetto Blacks are the new Übermenschen.

European leaders stoop for the Muslims, Americans stoop for the Blacks.

Bela said...


You said incapable of reading books

The subject matter was Das Kapital and Hegel's philosophy and not "books" in general sense.
You try to twist and spin everything. Is this your perverse enjoyment?

Incidentally, we do know well (you and I) how much Chicagoan blacks love to read Marx, Engels, Hegel works, all the 50 volumes after Rev.Wright sermons.
The other wonderwoman, the pianist Russian "expert", a provost! - cannot utter a word in Russian.

Affirmative action at work - please Google it up.

laine said...

Conservative Swede has pointed out a critical element in creating and perpetuating a dangerously volatile situation:
"it's people who are emotionally ecstatic. These people are believers."

The Gramscian puppet masters are coldly calculating, but their useful idiots are pure emotion, groomed to be that way by schooling that eschews critical thinking and substitutes spoon feeding emotion laden propaganda. "If you don't replace your incandescent light bulbs YOU ARE KILLING THE EARTH!" "If you don't vote for Obamamessiah, YOU ARE A RACIST!" etc.

The MSM have fanned this apocalyptic irrational belief that is impervious to facts, no matter how many or how damning. Obama is the Teflon man. Nothing sticks. Any one of his putrid associations would have done in any other candidate for whom the media was not carrying water.

The MSM have done their job stirring up the populace so well with pre-emptive charges of racism that if by some miracle Obama lost, there would be civil unrest across the United States with rioting in the streets that would be quelled only if McCain promised to govern as Obama would have (not such a stretch for the guy who's too much of a gentleman to save his country).

The natives are restless and want their entitlements.

Eventually stupid white liberals will realize that indulging their whim for a black president is going to drop their standard of living considerably because he's red. Limousine libs are always for cheap socialism, posturing that doesn't cost them anything. Now they're going to get the real thing and I agree with Bela, they have no idea what they're in for and won't like it much. Yet it will be too late for all of us.

Oh well, I came from a poor childhood. I'll only be going back to my roots.

Henrik R Clausen said...

CS, completely agree, also about the day 1 festivities. I thought them but didn't find them worth mentioning.

OK, so it looks like The One will take this election. 5 days to go, and McCain/Palin honestly look like lame ducks. I still hope for a miracle, but am no longer expecting one. The next thing to fear is a liberal super-majority and the, ahem, Change it would introduce.

I notice that a lot of new people have taken interest in participating in the campaign. They have done so mainly by uncritically supporting the Obama campaign, but I hope they will find, as the new administration botches one crisis after another, that they need to take interest in the issues, and have an underlying philosophy to guide them to the proper remedies.

Interesting times. When Hillary was defeated, I thought this would be easy pickings for the Republicans. Not so. It should be, but people are too ecstatic to worry about the deeper issues. They have Hope for Change. I think they'll get Change, but not the kind of changed they had Hoped for.