Mike Pulsifer Photography mike-pulsifer.org

Of Obama and Communism

For those who follow me on Twitter, you may be thinking I'm going overboard when I equate the Democrats' gains in Congress and in Obama's taking the White House with a slide toward Communism.  However, consider the following all together.  It smacks of the Soviet rhetoric we heard growing up:

Biden insisting that paying more taxes is the patriotic thing to do:

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977452499

Pelosi telling us that a one-party state under the democrats would make Congress more "bipartisan"

"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/28/pelosi-you-know-what-would-make-congress-more-bipartisan-giving-us-total-control/

I'm sure she meant, "But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, the American people would be happy serfs."

And then there's Obama calling those bourgeois wanting to keep their hard earned money "selfish":

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich. I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific... 

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-blasts-selfish-americans-for-not.html

Who can forget Obama's lamenting that the courts weren't more redistributionist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

...and the "guardian of free speech (as long as it's Marxist)" Pelosi rounding this off with:

"It's interesting to hear Senator McCain talking about the dangerous Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Dangerous is not really a word that should be a part of a national debate as we go into a presidential race," said Pelosi.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6473426

Yes, Madam Speaker.  You and what you stand for are dangerous.  I hope and pray the Constitution and all it stands for can withstand their assaults.

Racists For Anne Barth?

This should come as no surprise, given the amount of money he brings to our state, but our senator famous for using the "N" word on the Senate floor 9 years ago can be seen endorsing Anne Barth in her race for Congress. What's more important than this racist's endorsement of Barth is defeating her for the sake of pluralism. If Barth were to win, it would send us back to having only one political point of view representing our state in Congress. There is no way that can be justified as good for our democracy.

Beware those who merely exchange their hoods for a straw hat and a newspaper:

From the Archives: America’s Not Ready For A Black President

Pulled from the ashes of my WordPress database is this blog posting of mine exactly 13 months ago.  Given today is the day of West Virginia's primary, it's still relevant, and is perhaps more-so than ever.

-------

Originally posted on April 13, 2007:

Now, first off, I do not condone or support Don Imus's joke that was in poor taste. With that said, what the left did to him is just as depraved. There's a double-standard in the way political and social discourse is conducted in this country and the left and mainstream media (I know, one and the same) use that to full effect.

On April 12th's Larry King Live on CNN, Della Reese, when confronted with the double standard regarding use of racially or sexually offensive language by Don Imus and rappers/hip-hop performers, said:

With hip-hop and stuff like that, you choose to listen to that. We didn't choose to hear this gentleman say what he said.

Granted, if you listen to hip-hop, chances are it was your choice to do so. But guess what Della? The same goes for what Don Imus said. Nobody forced you or I to listen to him.  Let's not forget, either that Jesse Jackson suffered no repercussions from calling New York City "Hymietown." Al Sharpton was convicted of libel in the Tawana Brawley incident. Senator Byrd used the "N" word on the floor of the Senate. In none of those incidents did you have the press or "tolerant" liberals calling for Jackson, Sharpton, or Byrd to lose their jobs or have their bully pulpit permanently revoked. In fact, the opposite happened. The media and other liberals run to them with cameras in tow (assuming Jesse Jackson's internal video camera homing device didn't spot one first).

Tom Delay cut to the meat of the issue quite nicely in today's column on Townhall.com, where he wrote:

"You see, I have learned something about liberals. They are much like communists. They believe they have to destroy you in order to win." As I outline in my book, the Left is effective by using the bullying tactics inherited from their comrades. Intimidation and force are their only means because they refuse to accept public debate or the free market's ability to simply turn the dial.

This brings me back to the title of this post. The reason why America is not ready for a black President is not because this country is inherently or systemically racist. It's not because Americans aren't ready to vote for a black (or woman) president. It's because the left and the media are not ready for a civil discourse should a party nominate a black person or a woman as their candidate for President of the United States.  Let's say for arguments sake, that Barak Obama is nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate. The demonizing of anyone and everyone that would not vote for Obama, even on ideological or policy grounds as a racist and "not ready for a black President" would start immediately and not let up for years after the election, whether he wins or not. If he were to lose the general election, the headlines of the liberal rags such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times would be, "Americans Not Ready For African-American President." The left would, in a blanket statement, label America racist because it didn't choose the black candidate. To them, it's not the candidate's platform that matters. To the liberals, we're racist if we don't vote for the person, who happens to be a minority, even if we disagree with their platform.

Americans are ready to vote for a black President. The liberals inside and outside the mainstream media, however, are not ready to let us vote for the other candidate without labeling us racist. Once (and if) the left grows up and can show tolerance for other points of view, then America would be ready for a black President.

-------

With how the media across the board painted rural Pennsylvanians as racist because they voted for Clinton in their primary, this demonization is already in full swing.  God help us all.

Obama’s America?

Given what we know now about the source of Barack Obama's politics, we have another example of what may be on his agenda.

As evidenced by Evo Morales, the left is so determined to carry out their agenda that they are willing to ignore the consequences of this kind of theft beyond the obvious injustice to the land owners.

Rockefeller: An Embarrassment To West Virginia

Proving yet again that our senator, Jay Rockefeller has no shame, he told the Charleston Gazette,

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.  What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

This is beyond the pale.  For the sake of the many veterans in this state, this shameful waste of space needs to vacate his senate seat.  Now.

Of course, if the party affiliations were reversed, the press and the democrats would have been calling for his resignation and not quit until he caved.

Obama’s Red Tendencies

It's been no secret that Obama is one of the most left-wing members of the Senate.  However, just how far left wasn't as clear before as it is now.  In fact, he's not that far removed from Robert Mugabe.

Apparently, Obama framed his value system around those of his communist father's.  PrestoPundit dug into Obama's book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, which spurred the following questions:

There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance.  What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college?  Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school?  Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college?  Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

And there is more mystery in the book.  Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?"  Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others?  Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer?  It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.

Those are very important questions.  This source of his values advocated the following:

• Communal ownership of the land and forced confiscation of private land.
• Taxing citizens as much as 100%.
• Pursuing an "active" program to achieve a classless society.

Those are just a few of the many disturbing political stances.  If we let this man occupy the White House, this country would be on the fast track to ruin.