About Me

Name: traitorbill
Location: Norristown, PA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

An analysis show how Obama's words reveal socialism

Posted by traitorbill on Sunday, June 06, 2010 3:29:01 PM
A psychologist will show a person a photograph and ask him create a story based on it.  The key is that the photograph is ambiguous.  This allows the person the opportunity to project himself into the picture, and thereby reveal who he is to the psychologists.  In a similar way, when people make statements, the underlying assumptions reveal who they are.  If the sample size is large enough, one can safely make inference about the persons belief system.  In the case of Obama, the sample size of statements showing sympathy for socialism is large enough that any reasonable person must conclude that he is a socialist.
 
Long before Obama became president he gave a radio interview in which he lamented that the Supreme Court didn't do enough in the area of "redistributive justice."  The assumption behind this phrase is that wealth needs to be redistributed in the name of justice.  To make this kind of statement one must believe intelligence, effort, or talent is not involved in the acquisition of wealth.  The wealthy have merely won life's lottery.  In the interests of fairness, their wealth should be redistributed to those who were less fortunate in the lottery drawing.   During one of the debates, Obama dismissed the finding that lowering taxes increases government revenue by explaining that government had a higher interest in "fairness."  Of course, the government does not have an interest in fairness.   It has an interest in upholding the laws. which apply to economic activity.  Note how Obama equates not reducing taxes with fairness and how he is willing to have the government involved in the outcomes of economic activity.   Recently Obama said that he believes that "At a certain point, you've made enough money."  In our economic system, it is not up to the government to decide when anyone has made enough money.  However, if one seeks "redistributive justice," it follows that a person can make too much money.  A person with such beliefs would be likely to tell someone that he "liked to spread the wealth," even if no provisions could be found for it under the constitution.  Obama considers the acquisition of wealth to be selfish.  He said, "John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic, I don't know when they decided to make a virtue of selfishness." 
 
Obama once said "Exxon Mobil made eleven billion dollars this past quarter.  They don't want to give up their profits easily."  In reference to BP and the oil well Obama said "what I don't want to hear is that they are spending that kind of money on shareholders, and that kind of money on advertising..."  Both statements reveal a profound ignorance of the role of capital in our economy, and a grandiose belief in his authority to confiscate profit or otherwise dictate how it is to be spent. 
 
A person with such beliefs could not be expected to be limited by the constitution.  Obama has called the constitution "fundamentally flawed" totally disregarding its brilliance and its 200 plus year longevity.  Obama doesn't like the constitution because it consists of "negative liberties," which dictate what the government cannot do to infringe upon individual liberty.  As a socialist intent upon redistributive justice, Obama laments that the constitution "doesn't say what the government must do on your behalf."  His narcissist boast that, with his election, we were on the verge of "fundamentally transforming the U.S.A." was no idle threat, as he has firmly placed us on the slippery slope of socialism.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Philadelphia Inquier: still so sad.

Posted by traitorbill on Monday, April 26, 2010 9:28:56 AM
 

When Clinton was President I subscribed to the Inquirer.  I was closely following one of his many scandals when more news broke.  I looked in the paper and didn't find it reported.  It wasn't reported the next day either.  I called the paper and was told that the story broke too late for them to cover it.  On the spot, I cancelled my subscription.

I didn't think about the Inquirer much since.  But today I came across a copy.  The front page has a story headlined "E-mail tells of "serious" profiting at Goldman."  The way the headline was written, serious profit sounds almost criminal.  The Inquirer seems to have forgotten that serious profit might be considered serious achievement.  I guess it wouldn't conform to their capitalism is bad for you template.

Moving to the editorials, there was an piece titled "When Racism masquerades as something else.  Don't let the virulent hatred of Obama's presidency-veiled in "policy differences"-fool you.  Just ask someone raised around bigotry."  The cartoon accompanying the article showed an outline of the country with a burning cross on top of it.  The author tells us that he remembers being raised around bigotry, but that at the age of 4 or 5 he was able to transcend it.  From his transcendent position he is able to recognize it in all of it's camouflaged forms.  He writes "Unfortunately racists in the U.S. have learned one valuable lesson since the 1960s:  They cannot express their racism directly...They must veil their racial hatred behind policy difference...They "want their country back"...They feel a black man has no right to be president of their country."  He goes on to lament the ignorance of the racists who oppose Obama "The very people who stand to gain from the efforts of the Obama administration and the Democratic congress are, because of their racism, willing to oppose policies that would benefit them the most."  This is sickening.  It is beyond the reach of the author's imagination that people could be opposed his messiah because they recognize Obama's radical transformation of the country and don't like it.

When I was 4 or 5 years old I lived in ignorance.  I transcended it.  But I recognize it today.  It masquerades liberal slander as condescending intellect.

Tags: Media bias  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Israel and the Future

Posted by traitorbill on Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:06:00 PM
Johnny Chung is a naturalized American citizen.  In 1994 he had a meeting with China's chief Military Intelligence officier.  He told Chung, "We like your President very much.  We would like to see him re-elected."  He gave Chung $300,000 to give to the DNC.  China would eventually give millions of illegal dollars to Clinton's campaigns.  In exchange for the campaign cash, Clinton gave China our military technology and national security secrets.  It is no exageration to say that no one in history has done more to advance the interests of China's military than Clinton.  Before Clinton became President China's miliatry was hopelessly inadequate, as it was based on 1950's Soviet design.  Today, China's military is competitive with the ours.  Recently Ahmed Yousef, a leader in the Hamas organization, echoed the Chinese officier when he sais "We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election."  The question becomes: Will a President Obama do for Hamas what President Clinton did for China?  The evidence is not comforting.
 
Obama had to suspend his Mid East policy advisor, Robert Malley, for meeting with Hamas.  The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.  Malley wrote several articles with a former Yaser Arafat advisor which attacked Israel and argued for international aid for Hamas. 
 
Another Obama advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, said that any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must include the future of Jerusalem.  He has stated that the Bush administration was not doing enough to pressure Israel into dividing Jerusalem and that Israel was responsible for the lack of successful peace negotiations.  Kurtzer has rightly been denounced by several Jewish organizations.
 
Obama's church reprinted an article written by Hamas which defended terrorism and compared the Hamas charter with the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
 
Al-Jazeria TV recently did a report showing Palestinians conducting a phone bank in Gaza calling Americans urging them to vote for Obama during the primaries.
 
Rashid Khalidi, who said Israel was an "apartheid system in creation," held a fundraiser for Obama in 2000.  That same year Obama called for a more "even-handed" approach toward Israel.  That's code for leaning on Israel to give nore concessions to the Palestinians.
 
Although it is hard to tell from his associates, Obama claims to give "unyielding support for Israel's security."
 
Obama first claimed that he wasn't present during reverend Wright's racist sermons.  Then he admitted being present, but said that he could no longer disown the reverend than he could disown his white grandmother.  Finally, after Wright's racists comments at a press conference, Obama disowned him.  He said that the man the public saw was not the man Obama knew.  Now he seems to be saying that the advisors who he surrounded himself with are not the advisors that he knew.  How soon will a negotiating President Obama lament that the world's thugs are not the thugs he thought he knew?  The candidate of hope and change will have us all hoping for change soon after he is elected.
 
 
 
 
Tags: Israel   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »