Marxism in America: A Warning For the Democrat Party

More from Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng. This from one of her interrogations while in prison during China's Cultural Revolution.

Cheng, insisting she had acted within the dictates of the Communist Party of China, tells her interrogator: "Chairman Mao talked about the formation of a united front and cooperation with all patriotic Chinese." (Think: Obama's promise of uniting America.)

Her interrogator replies:

"That was the correct policy at that time. It was meant to win the support of the bourgeois class and to undermine the Kuomintang. After the Kuomintang was successfully overthrown, naturally that policy was no longer needed. In every circumstance, we unite lesser enemies to fight the major enemy. When the major enemy is overcome, one of the lesser enemies will become the new major enemy. So the struggle goes on."

And the struggles never end. For a Marxist hell-bent on having absolute power, there will always be a new major enemy. And something our hapless Democrats don't seem to get is that once capitalism is abolished, Obama's list of major enemies won't be any shorter...and they will probably be on it.

As I read Cheng's book and watch as ranking Democrats, and former president Clinton himself, tell fellow Democrats to forego their political careers and vote for a health care bill their constituents overwhelmingly reject, I can't help but wonder who they are really afraid of. And this leads me to make the following assertions/predictions about Obama and his relentless pursuit to create a Marxist America:

Destroying capitalism and thereby bringing America to its knees has long been the gold ring for which Marxists have reached throughout history. And no one has ever been as close to accomplishing that goal than Obama. Whether he is the newest architect of the latest attempt to destroy America or just a Marxist prince reaping the benefits of his Progressive predecessors matters little. If successful, Obama will go down in history as the man who toppled the last bastion of freedom in the world-the United States.

Obama knows this. It is what drives him.

With that in mind, know that everyone is expendable in Obama's world. Don't look for him to care as he betrays his voting base and the ranking Democrats who put him into power. Consider them the lesser enemies he united and used to get him there. Look for them to be the major enemies as he strips his voting base of their jobs and their rights, and picks off any suspected opposition from within his own party.

There will be no emotion displayed by this man who is determined to be the One who ushers Marxism into America. There are will be no allegiances and no loyalties. There will only be lock-step obedience to an ideology of oppression and unchecked power.

We did not elect a liberal president.
We did not elect a misguided and inexperienced man.
We elected the very enemy of this country.
We elected a determined, narcissistic Marxist.

As unemployment soars, as health care declines, and as this country is laid to waste by it's external enemies, Obama will remain detached and cold. As our economy is intentionally sabotaged for the purpose of forcing dependence upon the government, any attempt to appeal to his conscience will be futile.

It is not for America, but for absolute power over her, that he toils.

And if, and when, those in his party come to their senses and try to rectify the disaster created by the despot they protected, jockeyed, and lied for it might be too little too late. His allies will be cast aside. Hand-picked confidants and czars will be fired or left to defend themselves against the outcry of the nation's people. There will be no defense of them from Obama. They will be left entirely on their own. Again, they, who were, in truth, always one of the lesser enemies, will become the new major enemy as Obama clears the path before him. History has proven time and again that Marxist dictators share power with no one.

Marx's desperate and flawed ideology was borne out of a life lived under an oppressive czarist regime. Unfortunately, his followers, past and present, view anything other than Marxism as oppressive enslavement of the working class (hence the Marxist's use of unions). In their all-out effort to force Marxism/communism (in all its evolving forms) on a nation they have to first create financial and social chaos. Once this is accomplished, they (for a brief period) play the part of the benefactor and proceed to "help" the people while actually leading them into enslavement by their own government.

Marxism can be forced (veiled, of course) upon a people only when the oppressive conditions Marx lived in are recreated. These are calculated moves Obama is making. That said, Obama does not feel any empathy where American suffering is concerned. Humanity is as foreign to Obama as it was to his predecessors. Americans aren't people, they are a means to an end. We, the American people are, in truth, Obama's major enemy who must be overcome.

Obama and the Ft. Hood Memorial: Yet Another Security Breach In the Making

As we wait with baited breath for Obama's address at the Ft. Hood memorial, I'd like to exercise some presumptuous creative license and, borrowing from his historical (and vapidly narcissistic) Berlin Wall speech, predict what our illustrious leader will say. For the sake of brevity, all "uh's" and "um's" have been omitted.

"Few would have foreseen that this military installation would be saved from absolute carnage by a female police officer in an America led by a man of African descent. But destiny is what human beings make of it. Let's not jump to any premature conclusions. My condolences go out to the families. And now, I'd like to turn the podium over to Dr. Mansoor Farooqi."

Seriously, what more should we expect from a commander in chief who, because of his disdain for freedom and all things military, has made it obvious he'd like nothing more than for our armed forces to disappear in a UN vapor trail...or, as his comments have intimated, in Muslim gunfire?

As if Obama's very presence won't be grating enough to the grieving men and women of Ft. Hood, the rest of the guest list brings tasteless, inappropriate, and unethical into the picture.

Mosque Leaders Part of Ft. Hood 'Healing Process' at Memorial Service

Leaders from the mosque where alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped are on their way today to Fort Hood to attend the memorial service in a move some hope will help ease suspicion and anger between Muslims and the military base, still reeling from last week's tragedy.

"Alleged" shooter? But I digress.

That this PR move by the White House and members of the mosque could be grotesquely reprehensible to the grieving families and soldiers goes without saying. But it also shows clearly that Obama's loyaly lies with terrorists and not with the military for which he is responsible.

In the spirit of tact, and national security, Ft. Hood should remain on threatcon Delta, which is the threatcon level a base goes to once a terrorist attack has occured; that way no one resembling, smelling, or aiding and abetting terrorists would be allowed to enter the base. By the way, that would include, not only the members of the mosque, but our commander in chief as well.

Reagan is Dead - God Isn't

I originally posted this piece on RedState, but I'm going to elaborate more in this post.

My Short Conversation with Mary Fallin

I’ll admit, I’m not real savvy when it comes to Mary Fallin, but I can tell you she is the representative for Okalhoma’s fifth district, has voted in favor of Big Oil, voted against a Climate Change Committee, and is an avid supporter of our military. And, at the Navy Birthday Ball in Oklahoma City a couple weeks ago, I got the privilege to speak with her. Our conversation was brief, but very encouraging.

After I thanked her for her stand against health care reform, I voiced my concern about the Democrats and my suspicion that, being Democrats, they’ll start to find (create) “problems” with how votes are cast or counted, or how elections have been grossly unfair in the past, or…whatever they can think of in order to get some sort of “Voting Reform” in play in time for the 2010 elections. (I left out the part about my being prone to conspiracy theories, but I’m pretty sure she picked up on it.)

Her reply?

“We’ll be OK, God is still on the throne.”

Now, for staunch members of the Armchair Politician Community, her answer might not suffice, but for anyone who understands true conservatism, her answer was spot-on.

The Republican party needs more Mary Fallins and Sarah Palins. Not because they are women, and not because they tell it like it is, but because they haven't hollowed out the core of conservatism-that core being God.

The conservative movement is becoming a force to be reckoned with, but will it be enough? Just this week I heard a man call into Rush's show and lament that Rush was "our only hope". Hearing this, I pounded my steering wheel and shouted, "And therein lies our problem! We are no different than the libs if we think our salvation-this country's salvation- lies in the hands of a man!" Don't get me wrong, I am not minimizing what Rush has done for the conservative movement. In fact, I contend that, for all practical purposes, we wouldn't have much of a conservative movement if it weren't for him.

But there are those who call themselves conservatives and extol the virtues of Reaganism, but wouldn't be caught dead saying something like this (though it desperately needs to be said)...

“We Americans are blessed in so many ways. We’re a nation under God, a living and loving God. But Thomas Jefferson warned us, ‘I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.’ We cannot expect Him to protect us in crisis if we turn away from Him in our everyday living. But you know, He told us what to do in II Chronicles. Let us reach out to Him. He said, ‘If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land’.” ~R. Reagan

The fact is, those who want to bring back the Reagan Era while omitting the very core values Reagan held, will be sorely disappointed. I contend that it is not only a mistake to think we can stop Obama's break-neck sprint into socialism (fascism, communism...pick one) with a watered-down, Godless Reaganism, but it is also an exercise in false hope.

That conservatives want to protect American liberty is noble. That conservatives want a limited government that will adhere to the Constitution is admirable. But a Godless conservative movement with lots of steam, good policies, and some great talking points, will have very little staying power if it is not fueled with the Truth. We'll have our tea parties, our Joe the Plumbers, and, if we're lucky, a few more Sarah Palins, but if this nation continues to turn away from God, we will have no guarantee that the One who holds the universe will have our backs. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Him, and we sure as heck aren't going to survive without Him. It's that simple.

There hasn't been a nation yet that has been able to withstand the assault of a determined communist movement. And, for the record, communism (along with all the other despotic "isms") is an ideology that demands, not only the eradication of individual liberty, but also the eradication of the God who grants that liberty. With this in mind, it is important to note that every nation that has fallen to communism had, over time, become Godless (with a big "G"). Quite simply, Godless nations cannot defeat an ideology hell-bent on destroying God-given liberties. It would be a little like asking Michael Moore to defeat obesity.

This brings us to our current conundrum. For reasons far too numerous for this post, gone are the days of America calling itself a Christian nation. That said, what makes us think we can hold back the tide of communism any better than the countries who have succumbed in the past? Tea Party Expresses, calling our congressmen, making our voices heard through our votes, and even listening to Rush, while valiant efforts, are small arms in what is truly a spiritual war.

"The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." 2 Corinthians 10:4

I'd say a pathological liar for a president, a gaggle of a moral malcontents for czars, and a leftist Democrat congress are considerable strongholds. And, make no mistake, our current leaders do not care how much public support we manage to muster at tea parties or on Fox News. Despots don't plan their steps based on the polls. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao handled dissent with humiliation, intimidation, coercion, and violence. Obama and his henchmen will do much the same.

A tea party won't cut it. We need something bigger. We need Someone bigger.

Reagan had much to contend with, but he didn't have this scale of evil worming its way through his country. Even so, he repeatedly pointed this country back to its roots-back to the foundation of its founding...back to what he knew was the only avenue of victory for American greatness and liberty.

“We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” ~R. Reagan

It isn't Reagan's policies that should be restored and infused into this nation, but, rather, his zeal for and faith in God.

Reagan is dead; God isn't.

Obama's Military Strategery Imitates Art

[File under: YCMTSU]

According to TimesOnline, this is one of the inspirational pieces of art the Obama's have added to the White House.

How fitting.

Nobel Criteria Favors Despots: Obama Shoe-In

Obama Wins Peace Prize To Mixed Reviews

There are no words, truly, for the rampant lunacy surrounding this man.

OSLO (Reuters) - President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." But critics -- especially in parts of the Arab and Muslim world -- called its decision premature.

I have to ask, what more do these towel heads want? They've got a U.S. president who has turned the war in Afghanistan into a game of military Duck Hunt, kissed Ahmadinejad's ring, and upgraded the status of the detainees in Gitmo to that of foreign diplomats. Are militant Muslims never happy?

Obama's press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt "humbled" by the award, a senior administration official said.

When told in an email from Reuters that many people around the world were stunned by the announcement, Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, responded: "As are we."

Humbled my arse. It's pretty safe to say he lept out of bed mumbling, "It's about damn time."

And Obama surprised about this? That's like saying he was surprised to find out ACORN needed another in service on how to vet pimps and prostitutes.

"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said in a citation.

This translates: We are positively giddy over Obama's success. We've been waiting decades to award the Prize to the man who would finally bring down America.We know it seems premature, but he had us at "nationalized healthcare".

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best.

"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. "Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes."

What Zuhri means here is that Obama better step up his plans to help the Muslim world wipe Israel off the map. Then, and only then, will Obama be worthy of the Nobel in Allah's eyes.

The the Nobel committee defended its decision.

Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland rejected suggestions from journalists that Obama was getting the prize too early, saying it recognized what he had already done over the past year.

"We hope this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying to do," he told a news conference.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize: One must unabashedly pander to the despots of the world, apologize for America's foibles, and hand American sovereignty over to the UN on a silver platter. I'd say Obama nailed this one...and that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is a bunch of blathering idiots.

Breaking no new historic ground,

Obama, laid out his vision for eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.

Ya think?

By the way, history speaks against the attempt of eliminating arms. In 1928 the American Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg, promoted a Peace Pact which he invited all members of the League of Nations to sign. The Peace Pact was aimed at outlawing war and keeping Germany as impotent as possible: "The unqualified renunciation of all war as an instrument of national policy." Kellogg wanted to avoid another World War. Nothing wrong with that.

However, not everyone in the League wanted to sign off on it (FYI, the French thought it was a dandy idea.) Eliminating war sounds good, but human nature dictates its impossibility. As every leader in the world knows...that is, except Obama...you can trust your neighboring dictator about as far as you can throw his fat aunt. Hence the need for arms.

And while the world thought Germany was being restrained under the League's thumb, and while Kellogg promoted his Peace Pact, the Germans were in Russia and Sweden building up their army, manufacturing tanks and airplanes, and perfecting their chemical warfare skills. Oh, and the rest of Europe was doing pretty much the same thing.

See the pattern? Obama, absurdly enough, thinks Iran takes him seriously about the whole nuke thing. And while he disciples Ahmadinejad on the finer points of peace, Iran, along with the rest of the malcontents around the world, are mixing up plutonium Coyote Ugly style.

And, oddly (though not surprisingly) enough, to the Nobel committee, this is a good thing. And Muslims are critical of their choice of Obama because...?

So, to recap: The purpose behind handing the fascist rookie, Obama, the Nobel is to encourage him to keep up the good work. They want to secure his continued cooperation in tearing down America along with any nation remotely as free. They know he hasn't really done jack yet, but they know an egoist when they see one. Throw a few trinkets his way and he'll be putty in their hands...and America will be trampled under their feet.

What does this mean for our country? Well, now every thug around the world who has wanted to see the U.S. brought to its knees has just secured our president as their biggest ally. It also means our troops are screwed, and that they'll probably be sporting UN uniforms faster than you can say, "Allah wills it!".

The only difference between 1928 and today is that Germany at least feared America enough to hide what they were doing. Ahmadinejad, fearing America like Oprah fears a Twinkie, not only publicly boasts about the nuclear program that Obama so limp-wristedly told them to scrap, but markets it as well: “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”

And, it is precisely because the despots of the world have decided to nuke-up that the Nobel committee would have done well not to have awarded a budding despot the Prize for making us all unsafe as hell...and that includes the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Obama Throws America and Her Troops Under an Afghan Bus

American Troops Losing Heart in Afghanistan

This is unconscionable. Our troops have lost hope because we have a stark raving mad, narcissistic fascist for a president. (Did I leave anything out?)

It is gut-wrenching to see our soldiers demoralized like this. And, trust me, it is maddeningly infuriating to be married to an active duty military member whose commander in chief is not only frighteningly incompetent, but sadistically and pathologically dangerous as well. This man has no love for this country. He feels no duty toward our troops.

The short list is this:

Obama is intentionally and methodically making our troops vulnerable to the enemy.

Obama is intentionally and methodically destroying our economy.

Obama is intentionally and methodically killing what's left of the American work ethic.

Obama is intentionally and methodically creating a racially divisive America.

Obama is intentionally and methodically taking away the liberty of Americans.

Obama is intentionally and methodically destroying this great country.

And he still sleeps like a (spoiled) baby at night.

Make no mistake, it is a non-issue to Obama that the American people do not support his version of Commie-Fascism or his blatant disregard for the military. Obama does not care about poll numbers. Like Mussolini, he knows you don't need popular opinion to pull off a bloodless revolution, just enough gullible accomplices to get the ball rolling. Oh, and some fascist thugs who are willing to intimidate and beat people up...to get the ball rolling.

So, while our troops lose heart because they have been abandoned by their commander in chief; while they serve and suffer under a president who is turning out to be a bigger enemy than Al Qaeda, Obama further destroys America from within with his vapid rhetoric, his clandestine congress, and his manipulative benevolence toward the Hand Out Crowd who line up for his "free" money (aka, My Money).

This is not what our service men signed up for.

This once great nation, America, the land of freedom and endless possibility, that is what our men in uniform volunteered to defend. It would be disheartening, indeed, to be this man...
...and realize that your own commander in chief was tearing down the very things you've sacrificed to defend.

Who Is More Qualified To Call the Shots In Afghanistan? You Decide.

So, here's the rub from the UK Telegraph:

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

Apparently McChrystal pulling rank on Obama didn't go over so well with the talking heads at the White House.

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Nice to see that "some in the Obama administration" are able to grasp the obvious.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: "They still have working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

That might be because McChrystal, the man in charge of keeping the free world safe, has dutifully asked his commander in chief for permission to win and all he's getting is a back seat to Obama's PR schedule.

But it gets better:

Some commentators regarded the general's London comments as verging on insubordination.

FYI, 'commentator' as defined in the Leftist Media Lexicon (LML) is: "Any random person who acts as an armchair expert on a subject he knows nothing about. Can be a tenured news anchor, Hollywood activist, or the poor disgruntled schlub writing the story. Commentators need no credentials because that would require 'vetting', and, according to the LML, vetting is, "not practiced on members of the media or anyone the media proclaims is a commentator".

Oftentimes, the 'commentator' is someone from the academic world:

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements."

Constitutional and lawyer...now there's an oxymoron. Given the Left's propensity for getting really credible 'commentators', I highly suspect Mr. Ackerman also thinks the Constitution implicitly states a president can take over the private sector.

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general's recommendations.

Now, here's some hubris: The White House briefed "against the general's recommendations".

Which leads us to this question: Just who is more qualified to call the shots in Afghanistan, the general who is actually in Afghanistan, or our spoiled, man-child president who was stupid enough to use his outside voice when he said, "I'm not interested in victory"?

This question can only be answered by a comparison of the two men.

May I present Barack Obama and General McChrystal.

McChrystal:

Obama:

McChrystal's work environment:

Obama's work environment:

McChrystal on the front lines:

Obama on the front lines:

McChrystal's world

Obama's world

In case you missed that, McChrystal's world:

Obama's:
McChrystal's enemy:

Obama's enemy:

What McChrystal fights for:

What Obama fights for:

McChrystal's men:


Obama's men:



An average day for McChrystal, his men, and their Commander in Chief. Now might be a good time to say a prayer for your military.