…raised on KGB propaganda:
From his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis to the unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Barack Obama has always gravitated towards people holding radical leftist views akin to those of Zelaya. He eagerly promoted leftist ideology as an ACORN activist and later when he taught and developed theories that opposed the American system of individual liberties in favor of unsustainable group entitlements at the expense of producers — theories that advocated placing the people under the controlling “care” of the state.
And since such views are part of the ideological template that vilifies America and lionizes its enemies, Obama’s instinctive reaction was to back Zelaya and throw a lifeline to Ahmadinejad.
Like John Kerry at the Senate hearings, President Obama may be acting in good faith, but his processing of reality is just as impaired by the same “metaphorical deformation.” As a result, the leader of the free world strays across the frontlines and joins the Marxist leaders Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega, at least two of whom — Castro and Ortega — were committed Soviet clients.
It explains much.
He eagerly promoted leftist ideology as an ACORN activist
It’s a minor point, but where’s the evidence that he ever worked as an ACORN activist? He did some ACORN staff training, and was an attorney for ACORN in a lawsuit, but I wasn’t aware he’d actually been a paid or volunteer activist for them.
taught and developed theories that opposed the American system of individual liberties in favor of unsustainable group entitlements at the expense of producers — theories that advocated placing the people under the controlling “care” of the state.
This part appears to be totally made up.
It explains much.
Rand’s credulity where crazy Communist conspiracy theories are concerned explains much as well.
It’s a minor point, but where’s the evidence that he ever worked as an ACORN activist? He did some ACORN staff training, and was an attorney for ACORN in a lawsuit, but I wasn’t aware he’d actually been a paid or volunteer activist for them.
What’s the difference between an “activist” and doing staff training and being a pro bono attorney? He didn’t march in a protest with them and burn American flags? I can tell you that, as an attorney, I wouldn’t represent an organization like theirs for any amount of money, let alone pro bono. That’s a clear indication of support.
These aren’t conspiracy theories. They lack that utterly crucial ingredient, a conspiracy. They also lack a second utterly crucial ingredient, a mysterious theory. (Theorizing that Marxist influences produce Marxist thought is far too pedestrian a theory to qualify as a conspiracy theory.) They are a relatively standard way to construct a biography. Who did Obama spend time with? What did he study? And so on. It would ever so illuminating for President Obama to be more transparent about his own life. What embarrassments, if any, lurk in his college transcripts? We’ll never know.
Actual conspiracy theory >>> Maybe he secretly took lots of courses from disciples of Milton Freidman. <<>> Barack Obama has not released his college transcipts. <<< Not a conspiracy theory
Why? One man’s own decisions, no matter what the reason, are not a conspiracy. President Obama is not required to release his college transcipts. But his college is required to keep them private unless he does. No conspiracy.
If you will consider your last paragraph to be utter bunk, Jim, you will improve the content of your cranium.
Yours,
Tom
Except on Planet Jim.
What’s the difference between an “activist” and doing staff training and being a pro bono attorney?
An activist is dedicated to advancing a group’s goals in matters small and large. Obama’s involvement was not of that nature: he held some training sessions (which were about generic community organizing, not a particular effort or project), and he worked on a voting rights case that he specifically believed in.
What’s the difference between an “activist” and doing staff training and being a pro bono attorney?
There is no difference. Activist means one who is active. I suppose one could redefine the word so one can pick nits, but it’s alot less entertaining then the whole conspiracy motif.
I know I invited Jim to remove a particular conspiracy theory meme from his cranium, but maybe we could pick up another, more entertaining conspiracy theory. Here’s one: Barack Obama is actually a discipile of Hayek and Friedman, and it performing political judo by making us so disgusted with large government that we will finally throw off it’s shackles and become the Free Trade economic giant the world really needs.
Yours,
Tom
Jim is an optimist.
He is always looking for that rare gem in a mountain of s-hit.
Except on Planet Jim.
Don’t you know your place? Such insolence will not be tolerated. In the future defer all opinions to self-made millionaire Jim who through financial success has clearly demonstrated his intellectual superiority to those of us who are a little lighter in the pocketbook. After all, his success allows him time to contemplate the deep issues of our day and join the pantheon of great political thinkers such as Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo, Matt Damon and Danny Glover. Show respect to your superiors!
This warning will not be repeated. Those who continue to offend will be appropriately flagged as “fishy” and dealt with accordingly.
There’s a reason Barack Obama went to live in Chicago. Secret meetings with Chicago economists. Late night strategy sessions. Masonic rituals involving young, innocent and naive college socialists at the Chicago Board of Trade!
Yours,
Tom
Notice no disagreement about the leftist ideology, just whether he was an ACORN activist. I will mention past tense is incorrect. The WH is in contact with ACORN through OFA and ACORN is a part of HCAN which is coordinating with OFA; i.e. the WH. I would also mention something about ducks but that would be superfluous.
The first time a Chicago school economist defines the word ‘monopsony’ is such a rush for a young, inexperienced socialist! How do you think the young Obama was recruted?
Yours,
Tom
The crazy conspiracy theory is the idea that any views the author disagrees with — e.g. opposition to the Vietnam war — must be the work of the KGB. He seems incapable of imagining that there might be other reasons for people to hold the views they do.
Or maybe Obama actually believes that the U.S. has been arrogant, and could benefit from acknowledging it. But no, that’s too obvious, it must be a KGB plot….
Well, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy fact. The KGB had a big disinformation program. Big disinformation programs are know to be successful at promoting disinformation, just like any propaganda campaign – even good propaganda which is designed to spread truth works this way. I’m afraid this is too pedestrian to be a real conspiracy theory, since it is the standard behavior of totalitarian governements of all stripes – and it always works to fool somebody.
It’s not a conspiracy theory to claim that someone has been fooled by propaganda. Didn’t you claim that the angry people at the congression town halls were being fooled by propaganda? You conspiracy theroist!
Come on, Jim! This is like claiming that anyone who accuses armies of stockpiling bullets is a conspiracy theory nut!
Yours,
Tom
Obama’s involvement was not of that nature: he held some training sessions (which were about generic community organizing, not a particular effort or project), and he worked on a voting rights case that he specifically believed in.
So in other words, the one part of Obama’s resume that seemed to have some meat, being a community organizer, is as paper thin and full of baloney as the rest of his resume. Got it.
I have heard of one innocent young socialist, exposed to the quantity theory of money who ran ecstatically into the night, shouting, “Copernicus! Copernicus!”, until exhausted.
Yours,
Tom
Or maybe Obama actually believes that the U.S. has been arrogant, and could benefit from acknowledging it. But no, that’s too obvious, it must be a KGB plot….
Well, the problem is that thinking he actually believes such obvious nonsense is that it’s difficult to square that laughable belief with his ability to be appointed to the Chicago faculty and get elected President.
I mean, really, it’s easier to believe that the President has been duped by old Marxist propaganda than that he’s a complete stupidhead. Also a little less frightening.
Jim, there’s a weird ADD component to your argument. You tend to avoid the main point and dive straight in to questions of precise definitions of terms and other such minutiae. I’m wondering if this is some flaw in your own reasoning ability or whether it’s a deliberate strategy, that is, you think the rest of us suffer from a mental flaw that would make us concede the main point if you prevailed on the triviality. For examlpe, if you were quite correct about the dictionary definition of “activist” we’d all slap our foreheads and say Huh! This stuff is all crap! Clearly Obama isn’t a man of the left after all! What were we thinking?
Believe me I wince and nod at a lot of things Glenn Beck says. He did do a pretty concise rundown of Barack Obama on his birthday
“Or maybe Obama actually believes that the U.S. has been arrogant, and could benefit from acknowledging it.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or both. We have done more good for the rest of the world than the rest of the world combined. We stopped world totalitarianism twice in 50 years. There is no country in the world that has projected power for the good of all as we have. None, nada, zip. If you want to focus on mistakes, go ahead. This leftist attitude that we can do better and nothing short of that will do drives me nuts because we have been the best for a long time. To paraphrase, it’s not arrogance if you can do it. What a tool.
I am no expert on the leftist Mind, but it may be that the Mindset requires confidence that humanity can be perfected, and that the only moral behavior is to move humanity toward perfection. (Yes, this leaves a lot of wiggle room).
In short, the leftist’s psychological insecurity at its own frailties gets “self-medicated” via trying to impose (or support the imposition of) “perfection” on others.
Traditionally, such a person might seek refuge in Christian doctrines of salvation. Now… scientific socialism?
That pretty much nails it imo. Along with a serious lack of understanding of history and acceptance of diminishing freedoms. Reminds me of the great scene from Serenity:
Malcolm Reynolds:
Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.
Whenever I hear “Il Dufe’s” defenders say, “Well, he’s really a moderate,” I always wonder, “So where were (or who were) the modertaing forces or thinkers in his life?” On one side you have “Uncle Frank the Red, “* Ayers, Alinksy, Rev. Wright, and that socialist political party he, Zinn and other “progressives” were in. Did young Barry Obama, smoking dope one day in college, inadvertently channel-surf onto a broadcast of Milton Friedman’s FREE TO CHOOSE? If he’s not the radical people he gives the impression he is, where is the pro-freedom side of Obama? Inquiring minds want to know.
(*”Hey, Barry, look what I got you for your birthday!”
“Goll-ee! My own copy of DAS KAPITAL FOR KIDS! Gee, Uncle Frank, you’re the best! Some day I’m going to grow up to be just like you!”
“That’s great, Barry! But first convice the masses that you’re a moderate! There’s a lot of false consciousness out there, and people aren’t ready for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat yet.”)
Carl Pham writes: “Jim, there’s a weird ADD component to your argument. You tend to avoid the main point and dive straight in to questions of precise definitions of terms and other such minutiae. I’m wondering if this is some flaw in your own reasoning ability or whether it’s a deliberate strategy. . . ”
Based on experience with other pro-State commenters on pro-freedom blogs, Carl, I’d say it’s deliberate strategy. It’s like Kos gives them a basic ploy-book. (And I meant “ploy,” not “play.”) That, or its just more evidence of the Hive Mind these people are part of.
Well, the problem is that thinking he actually believes such obvious nonsense
If you do not believe that the U.S. has anything to apologize for, you need to read more history. And even if it were the case that we were completely blameless, the fact would remain that the rest of the world does not see us that way. Understanding how we are seen, and letting others know that we understand how they see us, is a first step towards defusing differences and building relationships — relationships that we need for our own self-interest.
For better or worse, there are dozens of countries in the world where much or most of the population sees the U.S. as a malign force. We want the rest of the world to see us as we see ourselves: as a unique and exceptional force for good. But pretending does not make it so: it just makes the rest of the world think we’re arrogant and fooling ourselves.
There is no country in the world that has projected power for the good of all as we have.
We have also hurt millions: some intentionally, some not. Acting like we didn’t, or that it doesn’t matter, is arrogance. And it is self-defeating. If you are an Iranian, and you think that the U.S. condemned Iran to dictatorship and theocracy by supporting the 1953 coup against Mossadegh, being lectured about all the good the U.S. has done in the world is not going to impress you. Showing that we’re big enough to admit our mistakes and take responsibility for them, however, validates the Iranian’s point of view and puts the U.S. in a more favorable light.
Jim, there’s a weird ADD component to your argument. You tend to avoid the main point and dive straight in to questions of precise definitions of terms and other such minutiae.
In this particular case, and maybe in others, I find the main point (“Obama raised on KGB propaganda”) so ludicrous that I don’t know where to start. It’s like trying to respond to a LaRouchite, or someone who thinks that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. So I try to find some clearly erroneous statement that will perhaps discredit the rest of the nonsense. If you can suggest a better approach, I’m all ears.
If you do not believe that the U.S. has anything to apologize for, you need to read more history.
The issue is not whether or not we have things to apologize for, as whether there is any value in apologies to countries and cultures that are much worse in many ways.
For better or worse, there are dozens of countries in the world where much or most of the population sees the U.S. as a malign force.
Often for nutty reasons that will not be changed by faux apologies from the likes of Barack Obama, with his “blame America first” attitude, who seems amazingly able to apologize for everyone and everything but himself.
For better or worse, there are dozens of countries in the world where much or most of the population sees the U.S. as a malign force.
So what? This excuse has been bandied around a lot, but you have yet to establish either the value of these peoples’ opinions or why glib apologies from the current leader of the US will influence these peoples’ opinion.
In this particular case, and maybe in others, I find the main point (”Obama raised on KGB propaganda”) so ludicrous that I don’t know where to start. It’s like trying to respond to a LaRouchite, or someone who thinks that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. So I try to find some clearly erroneous statement that will perhaps discredit the rest of the nonsense. If you can suggest a better approach, I’m all ears.
How about not reading this at all?