In a recent article on WND (WorldNetDaily.com) it has been reported as follows:
The organization, calling itself Free Press, claims media companies are engaging in "hate speech" because a disproportionate number of radio and cable-news networks are owned by non-minorities.
Either these people are confused about the difference between speech and discrimination or the line is moving again. Neither of these things can be good for the rest of us. Of course the the difference between actual speech and expression has been so blurred by the Supreme Court as to be almost indistinguishable. This all makes it even harder to ward of charges made by anyone who simply doesn't like what you're saying.
It should strike every American how much it seems that speech is freer for some then for others. If you in a politically correct protected group almost nothing you say can be cause of hate or problems, but if you're not you dare not disagree about almost anything with one of the politically correct protected groups.
Still it is not right that things like discrimination be confused with hate speech. Odd how these things actually get more air time now than murder? The media is determined to get to the bottom of who was the highest person to hold responsible for allowing a person to speak any illegal word.
It's odd we don't think of words as being illegal in this country yet not a news person anywhere will repeat the word nigger in a story if it was used as hate speech. They are petrified... they will consistently and ALWAYS use "The N-Word". This is the word that must not be mentioned. I can hear 4 letter words on TV on regular networks often as early as 9:00 now, but no one dares utter the word nigger. Yes I find this word offensive too as does everyone except black people when they are using it of each other. Odd I know, but that is the way things are.
The charge of racism is constantly raised against white people whose lives are then made a living hell regardless of whether it was simply a matter of interpretation, but you will certainly not see such charges leveled against the New Black Panther Party no matter how overt and number the terms used by them. It is clear it is not just one individual in the group either. We hear constant examples of the use of racial terms like crackers and the like yet I have never heard a news person say that they used "The C-word".
It is clear that things are trying to be provoked much as they were in the 60's and probably by the same radicals or their children.
No one can say why these people crave chaos or what they really hope to gain by it. The sad thing is that when they call things racism or hate speech when they are not it makes the real occurrence of such things taken less seriously, rather like crying wolf. After a while we get so used to the charges that they become understood to be meaningless.
Do we really want a society so based on the acceptance of hate by those who are trying to use the term as a means of control because of their own hate. Let's be real hate is not something peculiar to white people only. Hate is part of the human condition. It is not reserved only to one race and anyone who claims differently is lying.
It is time we had enough guts to nicely but firmly point back to the people leveling these charges and call them what they are, racists, haters and liars. After all if the arguments they were making were strong enough to stand on reason and real evidence there would be no need for the name calling. The real reason for all the name calling is that they don't have any evidence to provide.
They don't even seem to need any evidence other than your disagreement with them any longer to declare that it must be on the basis of race, after all it certainly can't be simply because you disagree as I stated above; yet more often than not the reason is just that political agreement no race based. The trick is to respond firmly but never in anger.
I hope when you hear these things on the radio or TV that you will make some attempt to contact them and let them know you disagree with the way they're covering things.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
NAACP Calls on Tea Party To Repudiate Racism?!
You have to wonder just how upside down the world can get when a group who specializes in racism and racist epithets has the nerve to tell a group like the Tea Party to renounce its "racist elements."
If the tea party says they are doing so it proves they are racists if they don't it proves they are racists. It is like the old question do you beat your wife every time?
At the same time it is laughable that an organization who refuses to make the same demand of the New Black Panther Party, the Old Black Panther Party, Louis Farakan or any other black group. I had wondered before seeing O'Reilly this evening how these people could look another person straight in the eye and say they weren't racists or that they didn't know for sure that one of these groups was racist no matter what they said publicly. Now I understand.
Like so many other liberal things it's all about how you define something. They pick the definition of what racist means and by the definition the only people who can be racist EVER is white people. Their pivot point is that none of these people is part of the institutionalized America and only people who are part of that can be racists because racism requires being part of an institution.
As it is with racists of the KKK and other groups (though at least in their case they don't deny they are racists) but the mind set is the same. They are so convinced in their mind that their racism is justified that nothing you could say would make them admit, even to themselves that they were really racists. They either redefine it away or excuse it because of the perceived damage some other group has done to their ethnic group.
Understand again that it is perceived damage. This is much like the Muslims who are always and ever only defending themselves... The reason... because infidels attack them back in the Dark Ages. Yes they are quite serious about this. They never forget an offense and the offense doesn't even have to be directly against them or what they believe, it is enough that it simply be against any who hold or have held a similar view.
With much fo the black community it is enough that we had slaves. No other reason needs to be produced for the charge of racism to apply to every white person in this nation, even though many of the white people in this country came here long after slavery was ended and had nothing to do with it; even though about 1/2 the country was in the north where slavery was rare or against the law. None of these things matter.
It is a form of insanity that cannot be argued or reasoned with. If you as a white person deny you're a racist you're lying and ought to be honest so you're a racist and anything you do concerning the black community or any individual in the black community (such as the president) must be based on your racism. If you admit you are still guilty and then it becomes a label you can never live down or escape. You are clearly guilty no matter what your real view is.
You can point to specific things from the black panther party that are clearly racist, yet much like the Muslims it is hard to find a black man that will condemn them almost no matter what they do.
All of this flared up over the dismissal of a case against the NBPP for voter intimidation. Still you have almost no black men willing to condemn what they did. All they can say is that there may have been more going on, or they don't know those particular black panther's views, or any of a thousand other weak and ridiculous responses.
Yet these same people have the gall to say the Tea Party is racist and that the Tea Party should renounce their racism yet they cannot point to a single racist item that has been recorded but it is naturally assumed that there is at least some large contingent of racists in the Tea Party. The reason is because they are against the policies of a black man in the office of president so it must be motivated by that. Of course they can prove what motivates people because they somehow know what is in the minds of other people, but when they say things outright we still cannot know what is really in their mind, or maybe it was just a slip, blah, blah, blah.
The media as with everything else is afraid to direct any attention to the black panthers lest that media outlet gets the charge of racist.
Please be brave enough to call things what they are. The more you allow this sort of thing to go on the higher the boiling point will be and ultimately things will explode.
If the tea party says they are doing so it proves they are racists if they don't it proves they are racists. It is like the old question do you beat your wife every time?
At the same time it is laughable that an organization who refuses to make the same demand of the New Black Panther Party, the Old Black Panther Party, Louis Farakan or any other black group. I had wondered before seeing O'Reilly this evening how these people could look another person straight in the eye and say they weren't racists or that they didn't know for sure that one of these groups was racist no matter what they said publicly. Now I understand.
Like so many other liberal things it's all about how you define something. They pick the definition of what racist means and by the definition the only people who can be racist EVER is white people. Their pivot point is that none of these people is part of the institutionalized America and only people who are part of that can be racists because racism requires being part of an institution.
As it is with racists of the KKK and other groups (though at least in their case they don't deny they are racists) but the mind set is the same. They are so convinced in their mind that their racism is justified that nothing you could say would make them admit, even to themselves that they were really racists. They either redefine it away or excuse it because of the perceived damage some other group has done to their ethnic group.
Understand again that it is perceived damage. This is much like the Muslims who are always and ever only defending themselves... The reason... because infidels attack them back in the Dark Ages. Yes they are quite serious about this. They never forget an offense and the offense doesn't even have to be directly against them or what they believe, it is enough that it simply be against any who hold or have held a similar view.
With much fo the black community it is enough that we had slaves. No other reason needs to be produced for the charge of racism to apply to every white person in this nation, even though many of the white people in this country came here long after slavery was ended and had nothing to do with it; even though about 1/2 the country was in the north where slavery was rare or against the law. None of these things matter.
It is a form of insanity that cannot be argued or reasoned with. If you as a white person deny you're a racist you're lying and ought to be honest so you're a racist and anything you do concerning the black community or any individual in the black community (such as the president) must be based on your racism. If you admit you are still guilty and then it becomes a label you can never live down or escape. You are clearly guilty no matter what your real view is.
You can point to specific things from the black panther party that are clearly racist, yet much like the Muslims it is hard to find a black man that will condemn them almost no matter what they do.
All of this flared up over the dismissal of a case against the NBPP for voter intimidation. Still you have almost no black men willing to condemn what they did. All they can say is that there may have been more going on, or they don't know those particular black panther's views, or any of a thousand other weak and ridiculous responses.
Yet these same people have the gall to say the Tea Party is racist and that the Tea Party should renounce their racism yet they cannot point to a single racist item that has been recorded but it is naturally assumed that there is at least some large contingent of racists in the Tea Party. The reason is because they are against the policies of a black man in the office of president so it must be motivated by that. Of course they can prove what motivates people because they somehow know what is in the minds of other people, but when they say things outright we still cannot know what is really in their mind, or maybe it was just a slip, blah, blah, blah.
The media as with everything else is afraid to direct any attention to the black panthers lest that media outlet gets the charge of racist.
Please be brave enough to call things what they are. The more you allow this sort of thing to go on the higher the boiling point will be and ultimately things will explode.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Congress Shall Make No Law
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may well be one of the most important.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof...
It seems so much of this part of the Amendment gets completely ignored or missed as though it didn't exist.
By the behavior and words of many you would think it say, "Congress shall make any mention of religion or public prayer and shall prohibit it at every opportunity due to separation of church and state" and then just stop there.
It does not say anything like this and contrary to popular opinion there is NO WALL of separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the constitution.
The Amendment above make it very clear... Congress shall make NO LAW. It does not say anything about not being able to mention religion or hold and express religious views while you are in any public office. It say they can't pass any laws to establish a religion. This means no legislation about it... such as passing a law that you must have the ten commandments in every public building.
They also usually stop after the mention of establishing to the point that you would think that's all it addresses. They don't want you to read the constitution for yourself and if they establish some overemphasis on some section or phrase it is that much more likely that you'll miss the rest of what it says.
It goes further than that though and it is a shame they stop after the "establishment clause" it is called a clause because it is part of a full sentence. What it says after the rules on establishing a religion is that the government is equally constrained from pass any laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
This is the part of the clause that is always left off. Even worse it seems that many think based on the separation of church and state (again not in the constitution) that the congress and other legislators have some obligation to have laws in place to restrict certain exercises of religion. These things include such things as not being able to pray at school even, or have the ten commandments in a public office at all. They say this because, again, they leave off the word and concept of creating a LAW. It doesn't say that they shall do nothing that even smacks of religious action or support and this was never intended.
By preventing these and many other things they are actually establishing laws that do prohibit the free exercise of religion. Free exercise means you can pray anywhere you want. It means you can carry the bible or the koran, it means you preach the gospel if you please. All of these and many more things are parting of exercising your religion freely.
The reason there isn't more outrage about this is because there has come about a political correctness in our nation that makes those who hold religious beliefs feel they don't have the right to "push" their beliefs on others, and because others make us feel that doing so is something so offensive to their individual rights that we should not be aloud to do it.
I suppose the second class of people doesn't realize that by supporting the silence of other people's point of view on religion they may soon find their own right to believe as they please curtailed. They may not be allowed to discuss humanism, or atheism publicly.
The founding fathers were very deliberate about what they wrote and unlike our modern leaders who write 1000's of pages hoping they'll hit the things they want the founding fathers were very specific and clear about what should and should not be a protected right in the constitution if people were to remain free.
It is the constant editing out of the second clause on freedom of religion that has given the politically correct people the power they've gained to almost eliminate religion from public life. The government now feels they are merely consenting to allow us to continue the private practice of our religion, but that is of course as long as it doesn't become public or offend anyone else.
Consider the new hate laws they are trying to pass. Would these not prohibit at least certain aspects of the free exercise of at least certain religions?
If you don't have a problem with them violating the First Amendment in such a way than you are part of the problem as well as an active participant in the demise of the constitution. If we allow certain aspects of the various amendments to be removed without the proper amendment process then we are essentially casting aside the constitution. If one right can be taken so can others and such we are now seeing.
Consider carefully when you side with any group that would set aside all or part of any right granted by the constitution simply because they or you find it offensive. Your rights will be next and soon the constitution will be meaningless.
It will serve you well to read the constitution very carefully and bear it in mind when you hear different decisions coming down from our legislators, judges and presidents.
Be warned your rights will be next!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof...
It seems so much of this part of the Amendment gets completely ignored or missed as though it didn't exist.
By the behavior and words of many you would think it say, "Congress shall make any mention of religion or public prayer and shall prohibit it at every opportunity due to separation of church and state" and then just stop there.
It does not say anything like this and contrary to popular opinion there is NO WALL of separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the constitution.
The Amendment above make it very clear... Congress shall make NO LAW. It does not say anything about not being able to mention religion or hold and express religious views while you are in any public office. It say they can't pass any laws to establish a religion. This means no legislation about it... such as passing a law that you must have the ten commandments in every public building.
They also usually stop after the mention of establishing to the point that you would think that's all it addresses. They don't want you to read the constitution for yourself and if they establish some overemphasis on some section or phrase it is that much more likely that you'll miss the rest of what it says.
It goes further than that though and it is a shame they stop after the "establishment clause" it is called a clause because it is part of a full sentence. What it says after the rules on establishing a religion is that the government is equally constrained from pass any laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
This is the part of the clause that is always left off. Even worse it seems that many think based on the separation of church and state (again not in the constitution) that the congress and other legislators have some obligation to have laws in place to restrict certain exercises of religion. These things include such things as not being able to pray at school even, or have the ten commandments in a public office at all. They say this because, again, they leave off the word and concept of creating a LAW. It doesn't say that they shall do nothing that even smacks of religious action or support and this was never intended.
By preventing these and many other things they are actually establishing laws that do prohibit the free exercise of religion. Free exercise means you can pray anywhere you want. It means you can carry the bible or the koran, it means you preach the gospel if you please. All of these and many more things are parting of exercising your religion freely.
The reason there isn't more outrage about this is because there has come about a political correctness in our nation that makes those who hold religious beliefs feel they don't have the right to "push" their beliefs on others, and because others make us feel that doing so is something so offensive to their individual rights that we should not be aloud to do it.
I suppose the second class of people doesn't realize that by supporting the silence of other people's point of view on religion they may soon find their own right to believe as they please curtailed. They may not be allowed to discuss humanism, or atheism publicly.
The founding fathers were very deliberate about what they wrote and unlike our modern leaders who write 1000's of pages hoping they'll hit the things they want the founding fathers were very specific and clear about what should and should not be a protected right in the constitution if people were to remain free.
It is the constant editing out of the second clause on freedom of religion that has given the politically correct people the power they've gained to almost eliminate religion from public life. The government now feels they are merely consenting to allow us to continue the private practice of our religion, but that is of course as long as it doesn't become public or offend anyone else.
Consider the new hate laws they are trying to pass. Would these not prohibit at least certain aspects of the free exercise of at least certain religions?
If you don't have a problem with them violating the First Amendment in such a way than you are part of the problem as well as an active participant in the demise of the constitution. If we allow certain aspects of the various amendments to be removed without the proper amendment process then we are essentially casting aside the constitution. If one right can be taken so can others and such we are now seeing.
Consider carefully when you side with any group that would set aside all or part of any right granted by the constitution simply because they or you find it offensive. Your rights will be next and soon the constitution will be meaningless.
It will serve you well to read the constitution very carefully and bear it in mind when you hear different decisions coming down from our legislators, judges and presidents.
Be warned your rights will be next!
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Party of Less Socialism
It seems it is quite politically incorrect to call leaders what they are so we are every stuck with calling them by the names the politically correct tell us we can use.
Right now it is not politically correct to call anyone in our nation a socialist or a communist. We must call them progressives because the other to labels are too offensive to our sensibilities, but then that is the purpose of making it so we won't call them what they really are.
Sadly we are now left with the choice of picking the party of LESS socialism. At least this is what we feel our choices are. We need to be demanding of our leaders clear answers to what they intend to pass. The general feel good answers of, "I'm going to lower taxes." sounds like a wonderful promise but you notice they don't tell you how. They don't tel you what specifically they're going to cut. You should understand this means they haven't really thought about it at all. They are merely saying the part you want to hear.
Because most of us do not want OUR programs cut and because there are so many different us's who want things they are continually afraid to cut anything for fear of making one group or another mad and thus not getting elected.
You see it's more important to be elected than to do the right thing. At the same time we want to elect some one who says the the things that sound nice but not the person who will do what is right.
The choice of less socialism is still the choice for socialism; it is merely a more incremental socialism.
We need to hold our leaders to their oath to the constitution. Since socialism is a completely different form of government from the constitutional, democratic republic we have received it can be easily seen that anyone who supports socialism is against the constitution and thus cannot be trusted to keep their primary oath of office.
Consider that we have the democrats in both the houses more than willing to vote Kagan in as a supreme court justice even though she clearly holds socialists views. Every senator or congressman that votes for her is showing by their actions that they are not supporting the constitution. They are not asking her about the constitution because they don't care about it themselves. She also does not seem to hold any real reverence for the constitution. From things she's said I get the impression she is doing all she can to avoid declaring any fealty to it. She has shown by previous actions that she is an activist which is not the position any judge should be in. The job of those on the Supreme Court is to judge the constitutionality of decisions made my lower courts.
The idea of precedence occurred to our founding fathers and they rejected it. To them most laws and rights were fixed by God. Though there was room for interpretation but it was not the job of clearly not the job of Judges to determine what laws was a good law. Their job is to determine if something is against the constitution or not. On the basis of this any law restricting religion should be deemed unconstitutional including those of separation of church and state which clearly is not in the constitution. That concept was merely discussed by one of the founding fathers in a paper but it cannot be found in the constitution.
We need to be very careful who we pick for judges and our measuring stick needs to be their loyalty to the constitution. Again I emphasize that socialism as a national or world view is against the constitution and as such we should not have any socialist as a person presiding over the constitution of the United States.
Call your congress people and tell them you want them to find out more about Kagan before they vote here in for the rest of her life.
Right now it is not politically correct to call anyone in our nation a socialist or a communist. We must call them progressives because the other to labels are too offensive to our sensibilities, but then that is the purpose of making it so we won't call them what they really are.
Sadly we are now left with the choice of picking the party of LESS socialism. At least this is what we feel our choices are. We need to be demanding of our leaders clear answers to what they intend to pass. The general feel good answers of, "I'm going to lower taxes." sounds like a wonderful promise but you notice they don't tell you how. They don't tel you what specifically they're going to cut. You should understand this means they haven't really thought about it at all. They are merely saying the part you want to hear.
Because most of us do not want OUR programs cut and because there are so many different us's who want things they are continually afraid to cut anything for fear of making one group or another mad and thus not getting elected.
You see it's more important to be elected than to do the right thing. At the same time we want to elect some one who says the the things that sound nice but not the person who will do what is right.
The choice of less socialism is still the choice for socialism; it is merely a more incremental socialism.
We need to hold our leaders to their oath to the constitution. Since socialism is a completely different form of government from the constitutional, democratic republic we have received it can be easily seen that anyone who supports socialism is against the constitution and thus cannot be trusted to keep their primary oath of office.
Consider that we have the democrats in both the houses more than willing to vote Kagan in as a supreme court justice even though she clearly holds socialists views. Every senator or congressman that votes for her is showing by their actions that they are not supporting the constitution. They are not asking her about the constitution because they don't care about it themselves. She also does not seem to hold any real reverence for the constitution. From things she's said I get the impression she is doing all she can to avoid declaring any fealty to it. She has shown by previous actions that she is an activist which is not the position any judge should be in. The job of those on the Supreme Court is to judge the constitutionality of decisions made my lower courts.
The idea of precedence occurred to our founding fathers and they rejected it. To them most laws and rights were fixed by God. Though there was room for interpretation but it was not the job of clearly not the job of Judges to determine what laws was a good law. Their job is to determine if something is against the constitution or not. On the basis of this any law restricting religion should be deemed unconstitutional including those of separation of church and state which clearly is not in the constitution. That concept was merely discussed by one of the founding fathers in a paper but it cannot be found in the constitution.
We need to be very careful who we pick for judges and our measuring stick needs to be their loyalty to the constitution. Again I emphasize that socialism as a national or world view is against the constitution and as such we should not have any socialist as a person presiding over the constitution of the United States.
Call your congress people and tell them you want them to find out more about Kagan before they vote here in for the rest of her life.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Obama's Blamethrower
I find it amazing that Obama can still continue to try to blame the bush administration for the economic woes of our nation. His administration has thrown more at the problem in the first year and a half than Bush did his entire term.
As someone said to blame bush for this situation makes it sounds as though Obama has no responsibility for it. Which is of course his aim. The reality is at least as far as I'm concerned it makes him sound weak. It also makes him sound stupid. It is not as if he didn't know what he was getting into while he was running for office. Even back then he was blaming bush for the economy and talking as though he knew what to do to fix.
If he really didn't know what he was getting into and wasn't willing to accept presidential responsibility then he should not have accepted the presidential post. Obama is not acting presidential in the least. He most certainly knows how to wield power to get what he wants as is evidenced by Obama care (bad for the country), the take over of the banks, the take over of auto companies, the take over of student loans, etc. Because of this one can only assume he really has no interest in stopping the economic destruction of this nation. His socialist associations, including belonging to a wing of the American socialists party as well as his actions seem to indicate that he wants the collapse of the economy.
His methods are certainly those exercised by socialists the world over. They are also very much in line with other revolutionaries within our nation who would like to see the fall of capitalism.
What did we get ourselves into and how do we get ourselves out? He and his party are trying their hardest to do all the damage they can before they lose power in November.
We should not ask why Obama is so powerless but rather why he chooses not to wield his power in ways that would benefit the nation instead of harming it? Why has he picked so many known communists and socialists for all his cabinet posts? Why is he now choosing Kagan? Again another woman who has known ties to American socialism and communism for a court that is supposed to uphold the constitution. Certainly American communists and socialists do not propose to support the constitution. They do not want to see America remain as it was founded to be. They are against the constitution which is yet another thing that the Supreme Court must swear to uphold and defend.
What is the matter with Obama and worse what is the matter with the American people that they continue to bury their heads in the sand as to what he is doing and where he is taking the country as well as wear he wants to take the country? Where are the questions from the press? Where is the pressure on the press to report these things?
I do not believe the media is afraid to ask him tough questions, the problem is they support the brand of socialism and communism he stands for. Why are people afraid to call what he wants to bring to this nation communism or socialism? Why do we have people like O'Reilly who seem, at least from his words, to think that Obama can't really be called a socialist until he actually brings about socialism. From things he's said he seems to feel if he doesn't actually make it happen then he isn't one philosophically. This is absurd to the highest degree.
Obama believes in redistribution of wealth. It was one of the most memorable things that happened on the campaign trail. Even though the media refused to give it the significance it deserved it doesn't change the fact that he holds that view. This is one of the key views of socialism and communism.
As someone said to blame bush for this situation makes it sounds as though Obama has no responsibility for it. Which is of course his aim. The reality is at least as far as I'm concerned it makes him sound weak. It also makes him sound stupid. It is not as if he didn't know what he was getting into while he was running for office. Even back then he was blaming bush for the economy and talking as though he knew what to do to fix.
If he really didn't know what he was getting into and wasn't willing to accept presidential responsibility then he should not have accepted the presidential post. Obama is not acting presidential in the least. He most certainly knows how to wield power to get what he wants as is evidenced by Obama care (bad for the country), the take over of the banks, the take over of auto companies, the take over of student loans, etc. Because of this one can only assume he really has no interest in stopping the economic destruction of this nation. His socialist associations, including belonging to a wing of the American socialists party as well as his actions seem to indicate that he wants the collapse of the economy.
His methods are certainly those exercised by socialists the world over. They are also very much in line with other revolutionaries within our nation who would like to see the fall of capitalism.
What did we get ourselves into and how do we get ourselves out? He and his party are trying their hardest to do all the damage they can before they lose power in November.
We should not ask why Obama is so powerless but rather why he chooses not to wield his power in ways that would benefit the nation instead of harming it? Why has he picked so many known communists and socialists for all his cabinet posts? Why is he now choosing Kagan? Again another woman who has known ties to American socialism and communism for a court that is supposed to uphold the constitution. Certainly American communists and socialists do not propose to support the constitution. They do not want to see America remain as it was founded to be. They are against the constitution which is yet another thing that the Supreme Court must swear to uphold and defend.
What is the matter with Obama and worse what is the matter with the American people that they continue to bury their heads in the sand as to what he is doing and where he is taking the country as well as wear he wants to take the country? Where are the questions from the press? Where is the pressure on the press to report these things?
I do not believe the media is afraid to ask him tough questions, the problem is they support the brand of socialism and communism he stands for. Why are people afraid to call what he wants to bring to this nation communism or socialism? Why do we have people like O'Reilly who seem, at least from his words, to think that Obama can't really be called a socialist until he actually brings about socialism. From things he's said he seems to feel if he doesn't actually make it happen then he isn't one philosophically. This is absurd to the highest degree.
Obama believes in redistribution of wealth. It was one of the most memorable things that happened on the campaign trail. Even though the media refused to give it the significance it deserved it doesn't change the fact that he holds that view. This is one of the key views of socialism and communism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)