Obama is Not a Liberal

12 Feb, 2010  |  Written by  |  under Politics

Frank Marshall Davis was important enough to Barrack Obama that he included a few paragraphs about “Frank” in his book, “Dreams From My Father”.  Jerome Corsi also found that he evidently sold drugs in the teenage Obama’s presence, please see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79467. You can Google this man’s name and find that he is a Marxist Communist.  Obama’s grandfather introduced his grandson to the communist radical.

Obama was a Saul Alinsky disciple in his early 20s. This is also someone whose name can be Googled and you will find him to be a Marxist communist.

Obama attended a church for 20 years which espouses black liberation theology, which is anti white, anti Jew, and Marxist in nature.

If Obama is not a Marxist communist, he has spent his whole teenage and adult life trying to look like one.

Tags: , , , , ,

22 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

  1. Kaleokualoha  |  February 12th, 2010 at 9:51 AM #

    Where does Obama admit to smoking dope with Davis? Here is “Dreams” online, so that you can quote the exact paragraph: http://issuu.com/xinyangge/docs/obama_barack_-_dreams_from_my_father


    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  2. Marty Griffith  |  February 12th, 2010 at 6:44 PM #

    It is funny to me that the Communist Marxist tag doesn’t seem to bother you. The bothersome thing to you is the line about Obama smoking dope with Davis. Obama does say in his book, “I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though”. So, he does admit to using marijuana and cocaine. Jerome Corsi, an investigative reporter, found that Obama and his grandfather were often with Davis who sold marijuana and cocaine from a hot dog cart that Davis operated.

    A source states that Davis was the source of the drugs that Obama consumed. Of course, Frank Marshall Davis is mentioned as Frank in Obama’s book. The time lines match up for this drug use to have been with and provided by Frank Marshall Davis. In other words, by mentioning Frank Marshall Davis in his book, you have very good evidence that yes, they did drugs together. Maybe not an out and out admittance, but certainly a tight circumstantial one.

    A couple of things amuse me though. First of all the main point is that Obama is indeed a communist Marxist. Secondly, he does admit to drug use in his book. Third, if he hadn’t mentioned Frank Marshall Davis, we wouldn’t know where he got the drugs and who he used them with. Fourth, his Marxism is the point of the post and you don’t seem to have a problem with his ideology.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  3. Kaleokualoha  |  February 14th, 2010 at 7:58 AM #

    There is a distinct difference between speculation and verifiable fact. While people may argue until the cows come home about the validity of speculation, false declarations of “fact” cast doubt on an author’s integrity.

    In this case, the author falsely asserted that Obama admitted to smoking dope with Davis. Because this assertion is without merit, it impairs the credibility of the entire article. There is no primary source evidence that Davis smoked pot in Hawaii with anyone other than Obama’s grandfather, nor is there any evidence that Davis was involved with cocaine at all. If you are privy to such evidence, please advise.

    Further, claims regarding Davis and the hot dog cart are attributed to an anonymous source, and therefore have no more credibility than any other rumour. Such reporting violates the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, and should be disregarded by any serious researcher (see http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp).

    Thanks for your consideration.

    “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.”
    – William O. Douglas

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  4. Marty Griffith  |  February 15th, 2010 at 8:18 AM #

    It still cracks me up that the thing you take from the post is a side issue. The main point is that Obama’s mentors are communist Marxists. Obama mentions “Frank” in his book and this mention of Frank Marshall Davis led Jerome Corsi to Hawaii to investigate the relationship between the communist mentor and the young Obama. Corsi found that Obama and his grandfather hung around Frank Marshall Davis’s hot dog cart from which Davis sold drugs. Corsi found that drugs were sold in Obama’s presense.

    Since Obama himself admits to doing drugs with his grandfather, it is no stretch of the imagination that he also did drugs with his communist mentor. The admittal is an accidental one by offering up the name of “Frank” who happens to be Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, drug dealer, and a pervert who Jerome Corsi unconvered information concerning which can be found here, http://ow.ly/17psh. I call Davis a pervert because in his own book, “Sex Rebel: Black”, he tells of having sex with a minor.

    Again, there is plenty of evidence that Davis was a communist and a mentor to Obama. There is also evidence that Alinsky was a communist and a mentor to Obama. That is the main point of the post.

    Thank you for your comments. They have not fallen on deaf ears so to speak.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  5. Kaleokualoha  |  February 16th, 2010 at 2:39 AM #

    There is no empirical evidence that Davis eveR had a hot dog cart, much less that he ever sold drugs. An anonymous rumour is not evidence. Further, where does Obama admit to doing drugs with his grandfather?

    Davis’s novel is a work of FICTION! Calling Davis a pervert based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke. Both lies are widespread in the right-wing blogosphere, and reflect the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. Both misrepresent the core values of artists by spreading falsehoods that gullible readers accept as truth, and who then spread further in good faith.

    Such misrepresentation exploits mainstream unawareness of literary styles such as the semiautobiographical novel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_novel or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Autobiographical_novel), memoir-novel (see http://www.answers.com/topic/memoir-novel-1 or http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O54-memoirnovel.html) and the first-person narrative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative or http://www.artandpopularculture.com/First-person_narrative), by claiming that the artist actually experienced fictional events when it serves their disinformation purposes. Deliberate misrepresentation is the foundation of disinformation campaigns, such as the campaign against Barack Obama and Davis.

    Pornography is mainstream entertainment. To keep things in perspective, “Sex Rebel: Black” is no more pornographic than the majority of R and TV-MA programs available on premium cable, not to mention pop music, because it uses the same sexually explicit language. Although pornography is mainstream, the pornography disinformation against Frank Marshall Davis is just as heinous as the political disinformation.

    At a minimum, it indicates a cognitive disorder manifested by an inability to distinguish fact from fiction, in the manner of soap opera fans who blame actors for their characters’ misdeeds. Further, it suggests that those making such false accusations may be projecting their own libidinous psychological disorders onto Davis. Do those spewing such nonsense also believe that John Cleland personally experienced the erotic adventures of “Fanny Hill”?

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  6. Marty Griffith  |  February 16th, 2010 at 5:36 AM #

    My point with this blog post is that Obama is a Communist Marxist who wants to remake America into the utopian vision of his mentors, Davis and Alinsky.

    You choose to defend the character of men who want to destroy the fiber of our system of government by turning it into a tyrannical form of rule that has failed everywhere it has been tried and has caused the agony of millions upon millions of people who long for freedom such as we enjoy.

    Pornography is NOT mainstream entertainment. It is a gross sin that weakens our society and cheapens people, especially women, by taking sex out of the marriage bed and offers money for sexual services. The following is taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk which is hardly a right wing web site. “I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”. The link for the article is, http://ow.ly/17KVX. His own words are what indicate that “all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

    Again though, you keep chasing rabbits when the post concerns Obama’s communist Marxist ties.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  7. Kaleokualoha  |  February 16th, 2010 at 9:23 AM #

    Untrue. I am refuting falsehoods that are unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. I am searching for the TRUTH! If you do not think porn is mainstream, recommend you watch premium cable channels (such as Cinemax) at night. You will find that every subscriber receives it almost every night!

    But back to the issue at hand. According to Hamden, “Mr. Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences.” Please note that the fictional character Bob Greene, not Davis, alleges that incidents were taken from actual experiences. Even Hamden’s travesty of journalism only stated that Mr. Davis confirmed that he was the author, not that the events actually occurred in Davis’s life.

    Casual readers of Hamden’s story may not have noticed his sleight of hand when substituting author Davis for fictional character Bob Greene as the subject of experiences in the book. This deception, however, reveals Hamden’s intent to directly smear Davis and thereby indirectly smear Obama through guilt-by-association.

    There are at least four disclaimers that shield Frank Marshall Davis from literal attribution of this novel:

    a. ALL memoir-novels, whether pornographic (e.g., John Cleland’s “Fanny Hill”), satirical (e.g., Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”), or other genre (e.g., Daniel Defoe’s “Moll Flanders”), ARE ALLEGEDLY TRUE BUT NEVERTHELESS FICTION! The fictional authors of memoir-novels, such as “Bob Greene,” claim that such incidents actually occurred although they, too, are fictional. The actual authors, however, NEVER claim the stories are true!

    In a broader sense, ALL first-person narrative novels, such as Nabokov’s “Lolita” and Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn,” claim authenticity despite obviously being fiction. To claim that some memoir-novels are literally true (if convenient for one’s political agenda), while acknowledging that other memoir-novels are truly fiction, is intellectual dishonesty.

    Please note that Jonathan Swift (writing as fictional character Gulliver in memoir-novel “Gulliver’s Travels”) described various encounters with Lilliputians and other characters, and Vladimir Nabokov (writing as fictional character Humbert Humbert in memoir-novel “Lolita”) described various encounters with Lolita and other characters. Upon what rational basis can someone claim that Davis’s story is history, while other first person narrative memoir-novels are fantasy? To literally attribute memoir-novel character Bob Greene’s encounters to Davis, but not attribute the encounters of memoir-novel characters Gulliver and Humbert Humbert to their respective authors, indicates a flagrantly biased double standard to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association.

    b. Scandalous memoirs such as “Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)” have been a literary genre for centuries. According to Wikipedia, such scandalous memoirs are allegedly factual, but are largely invented. The title, alone, qualifies it as a “scandalous memoir.” It is the epitome of dishonesty to claim, without empirical evidence, that fictional characters’ experiences actually occurred in their author’s real life .

    c. The fictional character Bob Greene, not author Frank Marshall Davis, “changed names and identities” of other characters. According to dictionary.com, “identity” means “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is: a case of mistaken identity.” Changing name AND identities means changing names AND other “condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is,” which may include biographical data such as age. Further, “taken from actual experiences” does not mean they are accurate representations of any experiences.

    d. Edgar Tidwell, the expert on the life and writing of Frank Marshall Davis, says the book is “semiautobiographical,” which (according to dictionary.com) means “1. pertaining to or being a fictionalized account of an author’s own life. 2. pertaining to or being a work of fiction strongly influenced by events in an author’s life.” “Sex Rebel: Black” is therefore a fictionalized account of events in Davis’s life.

    In an honest evaluation, any of these disclaimers should protect the author from literal interpretation. The combination of all four should provide absolute protection from any culpability. Unfortunately, Davis’s accusers are dishonest. Like Mike Nifong, the disgraced ex-D.A. in the Duke lacrosse case, their campaign to demonize their target ignores exculpatory evidence in their reckless rush to judgment. In order to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association with Frank Marshall Davis, they are virtually lynching Davis by grossly misrepresenting his character and influence. Such misrepresentation may be symptomatic of the accuser’s own psychological disorder, indicated by projection of the accuser’s own pedophilic fantasies onto the author.

    In “Sex Rebel,” Davis’s Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl’s sexual invitation, but foolishly relents. Like “Lolita,” this faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship. As a result, however, Davis has been posthumously accused of pedophilia, while “Lolita” is “considered by many to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century.” In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library,” despite also being initially dismissed as pornography, according to Wikipedia.

    BTW: You might want to consider changing your blog software to one of the leading systems because your current system is very user-unfriendly.

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  8. Kaleokualoha  |  February 16th, 2010 at 9:39 AM #

    If you have any evidence that Davis actually said those events happened in HIS life, instead of the fictional author Bob Greene alleging they happened in his fictional life, please advise. Otherwise, Greene’s allegations are no different from the the allegations of other fictional authors of memoir-novels such as Humbert Humbert (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiographical_novel).
    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  9. Kaleokualoha  |  February 16th, 2010 at 10:59 AM #

    BTW: Cinemax now has MILLIONS of U.S. subscribers, which qualifies it as “mainstream.” According to search.com, [QUOTE] Today, a large number of Cinemax movies shown at night are softcore, and rarely hardcore adult films produced especially for adult cable or hotel entertainment channels. The sheer number of these films has earned the network several nicknames, including “Skin-a-max” (which the network once adopted as the name of their adult movie block), “Sinamax,” and “Climax” and has made the cable channel the source of jokes, mostly on television sitcoms and sketch comedy series to this day. Cinemax also airs half-hour adult erotica series proceeding and/or following adult films, sometimes not airing at all. Rarely does Cinemax not air adult programming of any kind. Cinemax’s rivals Showtime and more recently, The Movie Channel have also tried to compete by airing adult films late at night, although these two networks have not gained as much attention for airing these programs.[END QUOTE]

    According to Wikipedia, [QUOTE] “Max After Dark is a nightly programming block on Cinemax that usually airs between 11:00 PM and 3:00 AM Eastern/Pacific which currently airs mostly original softcore erotic drama series, but also some softcore pornographic films as well. The original series that are currently airing new episodes are Co-Ed Confidential, Forbidden Science, Sex Games Cancun, Zane’s Sex Chronicles, Lingerie, Life on Top, and The Devil Wears Nada.”[END QUOTE]
    You still have not responded as to whether you also consider Vladimir Nabokov (author of “Lolita”) to have personally experienced the adventures of Humbert Humbert, or John Cleland to have personally experienced the erotic adventures of “Fanny Hill.” Just like fictional author Bob Greene, fictional authors Humbert Humbert and Fanny Hill claim the incidents related in their books are true.

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  10. Marty Griffith  |  February 16th, 2010 at 7:21 PM #

    Words mean things and in Davis’s own words, “all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”. He NEVER refuted that this was about his life and that he wrote under the shades of anonymity to conceal his true identity for this reason. Most people, once authorship was known, would distance their personal lives from the content, especially the content of this book. Davis was a radical communist and regardless of his private life is someone to be shunned instead of listening to his poetry and getting career advice from him.

    That Cinemax has to “hide” porn at night proves that it is not acceptable mainstream behavior. No matter how many people watch porn, it will not make the watching of it less sinful and morally repugnant. Millions of people watching it, just means millions more with wrecked lives, split homes and tortured souls.

    With all due respect, the fact that Obama soiled himself by hanging out with communist Marxists and terrorists is a much more serious claim than the one you keep refuting. Does it not bother you at all that our president is a communist Marxist? You keep wanting to debate literay style when the debate is which way our country is going to go. Are we going to embrace the hope and change of destroying America to rebuild it in Obama’s model, or are we going to back to our founding documents, the rule of law, and individual liberties.

    The debate isn’t with literary styles, it is that we are in a culture war for this nation’s soul. At one point you say, “back to the basic issue at hand”. You have NEVER addressed the basic issue which is that Barrack Obama is a MARXIST. You don’t seem to know what the basic issue even is.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  11. uberVU - social comments  |  February 17th, 2010 at 4:18 PM #

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by MartyGriffith: Obama is Not a Liberal http://tinyurl.com/yjzsvny / He is a Marxist Communist…

    uberVU – social comments - Gravatar
  12. Kaleokualoha  |  February 18th, 2010 at 6:48 AM #

    YOU WROTE: “. . .in Davis’s own words, “all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences.”

    RESPONSE: Also untrue. Those are NOT Davis’s own words. That quotation came from fictional author Bob Greene, just like a claim of authenticity comes from fictional author Fanny Hill. Do you believe the incidents related in “Fanny Hill” actually occurred in actual author John Cleland’s life?

    YOU WROTE: “He NEVER refuted that this was about his life . . .”

    RESPONSE: It was never an issue. Why would anyone refute a claim that never arose?

    YOU WROTE: “Davis was a radical communist and regardless of his private life is someone to be shunned instead of listening to his poetry and getting career advice from him.”

    RESPONSE: Is there any evidence that Obama even knew of Davis’s CPUSA background? If not, then what reason would he have to “shun” him?

    Although it is outside my area of interest, I will respond to your basic assertion.

    YOU WROTE: “Does it not bother you at all that our president is a communist Marxist?”

    RESPONSE: The basic assertions that Obama is a socialist, communist, or Marxist are equally absurd, and hardly worth dignifying with a response. Marxist theory advocates a collectivist society, and there is no evidence that Obama has advocated any such policy.

    Obama was criticized by liberal Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman for being too conservative. His human rights policies are criticized by the ACLU for being too much like Bush’s. Neither his economic or political policies are truly leftist. Obviously, he is a moderate. See:


    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  13. Marty Griffith  |  February 18th, 2010 at 7:28 PM #

    Did you not watch the video?
    In the following piece from an interview, Obama even used the words “collective union” to describe his collectivist views.
    “In America we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” – Barack Obama, Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995

    You said, “Marxist theory advocates a collectivist society, and there is no evidence that Obama has advocated any such policy”. Did you not hear Obama’s answer to Joe the plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they’ve got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. That isn’t collectivism? His health care plan and cap and trade are all about taking from the supposed haves and giving to the supposed have nots. This is straight up Marxism. Krugman thinks that Obama should not worry about deficit spending, proving that he is out to lunch anyway. Obama is spending our money, our children’s money, and our grandchildren’s money, and this isn’t worrisome to Krugman. Krugman’s disagreement with Obama about how many banks to take over, doesn’t make Obama a moderate.

    You said, “Neither his economic or political policies are truly leftist. Obviously, he is a moderate”. Surely you aren’t serious about Obama being a moderate. His policies as a whole are leftist. From the buyout of GM where Obama effectively became the CEO to Cap and Trade to the allegiance he continues to show to global warming even after it has become to be known as a complete and utter hoax. Never before have we had a president who picked CEOs and board members in a private company. He also wants to tell CEOs what they can make. His vote on partial birth abortion is also not moderate. His view on the constitution is not a moderate view, but a leftist view, “I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution–that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world”. Every time I read it, it seems to say the same thing. Obama launched his political career in the home of a self proclaimed Marxist who is also a terrorist. Have you noticed his choices for Czar? These positions are filled with Marxists, socialists and communists such as Van Jones.

    In “Dreams From My Father” Obama wrote, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” So in choosing his friends carefully he sought out Marxist professors. Yep, he sounds extremely moderate to me! Yes, I realize an extreme is an oxymoron, but Obama has extreme, radical views. He is no moderate.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  14. Kaleokualoha  |  February 19th, 2010 at 12:12 AM #

    “Collective action” is not collectivism. It is just action taken by a group. A mob takes collective action, as does a labor union. The Continental Congress, and all Congressional action, is collective action. NATO takes collective action, as did United Nations Command in Korea, and Coalition forces in Iraq.
    A mixed economy is not collectivism. Collectivism requires the replacement of capitalism with complete public ownership of the means of production and distribution, as in North Korea. Everything else is just a point on the mixed economy spectrum, as demonstrated by European Social Democrats.

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  15. Kaleokualoha  |  February 19th, 2010 at 3:57 AM #

    Although I regret that you have shifted the focus from my primary issue (Frank Marshall Davis) to economic theory, I feel compelled to respond further.

    Just as Chicken Little started a “sky is falling” hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a “Marxist Obama” hysteria based on government bailouts of American industry. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. The could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”

    Please note that it is a stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Marxist socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership.

    Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a “socialist,” but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which means the replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is “WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?”

    Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand’s fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be “socialism,” then the United States and ALL other economies are “socialist.” The debate is over, because by that definition we have been “socialist” since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be “socialism,” according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually “socialist.” The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist, or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as “socialism,” or you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite “trigger point” qualifies as “socialism,”, and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The “trigger point” explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

    Marxist “socialism,” in contrast to European “democratic socialism,” requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    “Direction” is one thing. “Goal” is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In history, socialism/communism was reversed and capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  16. Marty Griffith  |  February 19th, 2010 at 6:21 AM #

    You seem to write as one who does not have a dog in this race, but I’m betting that you really do. You act as if you have no opinion about what form of government is best, socialistic, Marxist, or capitalistic. My guess is that you are either a Marxist yourself, are a union member, or work for the government. Do you work for a living, or are you a government hack? These are not rhetorical questions, I really want them answered.

    Your comment above is the most jumbled up BS I a have read in quite some time. The trigger point BTW is the constitution. It does not allow for a take over of our health care system. It does not allow for Obama to be the CEO of GM. It does not allow for the spreading of wealth for the “common good”. Those practices are foreign to the constitution that Obama took an oath to uphold. These are practices, especially ObamaCare and Cap and Trade, lead us closer to the brink of a soft tyranny and a Marxist regime.

    How do they lead us closer to a soft tyranny? A government bureaucrat will determine when it is time for the old and diseased to die. That decision should never be at a government level. Through health care a bureaucrat will tell us what we can eat, drink, smoke and chew. I’m sure that isn’t a problem for you, being the elitist that you are.

    Any moron can see that Obama is leading us closer to a socialistic, Marxist form of government than we have ever been. Observable evidence is everywhere for the mentally sighted to see.

    Has Obama EVER said that he advocates a mixed economy? Marxists never, or least hardly ever come right out and say, “I’m a Marxist and I want to take over your country”. So, with your philosophy, we should wait until there is no shadow of doubt that what he wants to do is turn our country upside down into a Marxist regime. The truth is that leftists of every stripe campaign like they are moderates. They stay away from even calling themselves liberals. Obama is certainly not going to call himself a Marxist and openly admit to having a Marxist agenda. Through his own words, through his friendships, through the church he attended for 20 years, and through his connections with socialists such as the Democratic Socialists of America, who endorsed him in his senate run, we know where he stands ideologically. If he had one Marxist friend, it would be a possible case of guilt by association. This guy surrounds himself with Marxists and communists and he chooses friends carefully.

    Obama is a Marxist. What are you?

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  17. Kaleokualoha  |  February 19th, 2010 at 8:45 AM #

    Integrity requires that you distinguish between speculation, and verifiable fact. Integrity requires that you use due diligence, and comply with the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, whenever you report on current events. Empirical evidence is the key. As they say on CSI: “Follow the evidence!”
    YOU POSTED: “Do you work for a living, or are you a government hack?”
    RESPONSE: As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am researching the persistence of disinformation in the blogosphere. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory’s misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century. This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” where a target is smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. Relying on unsubstantiated claims of mentorship to implicate Obama makes no more sense than relying on Curveball’s unsubstantiated claims of mobile weapons labs to implicate Iraq.
    BTW: There was no “takeover of the healthcare system” within Healthcare Reform bills. That myth is yet another deceptive straw man.

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  18. Marty Griffith  |  February 19th, 2010 at 4:21 PM #

    I thank you for your service to this great country. We are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and we are not going to agree. There is overwhelming evidence of Obama’s being a Marxist which you throw out because you can’t digest this evidence through one of the five senses.

    I am NOT a journalist. I AM biased. I write about what I believe and if you like what is written, then by all means keep reading. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a Christian who happens to be a conservative. That is in the “About Me” page. Nowhere do I make a claim to be a journalist. I have an agenda with this blog, while a journalist must view society from a non biased point of view, and, by the way there are very few journalists within the national media.

    Leftists must be defeated so that we can hand off to our children a country that does not have an all powerful government and taxation that is 75% of their earnings. This is where we are headed at the spending rate of Obama and his lapdog Dems in both houses of congress. I didn’t have children to have them be relegated to serfdom. That is the point of this blog. I am not an investigative reporter or journalist, but I can take in the news and write about what it means to me from my perspective.

    Obama himself said that he prefers a single payer system. The government option listed in most of the Democrat bills would lead to a single payer system, at least that was the hope of Barney Frank, who said this was his hope. Obama is also on record as being a proponent of single payer health care as is shown below.
    Transcript from Obama in 2003:
    “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” – Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

    Of course, again this is not evidence that you can taste, touch, feel, see or hear.
    I am sure this will also not be good enough evidence for you, as it is not evidence that is to your liking.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  19. Marty Griffith  |  February 19th, 2010 at 7:53 PM #

    You stated that you retired from the military in 1989 and then didn’t say where you have worked since then. That is a long time to be without work. Maybe you work for moveon.org or some such leftist media outlet, or maybe Organizing for, really against, America? Are you researching supposed disinformation in the blogosphere at large or are you pinpointing blogs that mention Frank Marshall Davis? I ask this because you seem more interested in him than in defending Obama.

    I just have the idea that you didn’t tell me the whole story, seeing as you didn’t include what you do today.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  20. Kaleokualoha  |  February 20th, 2010 at 1:36 AM #

    Actually, I only received that training in 1989. I retired later, and survive with my pension. I never entered the blogosphere until 2008, when a friend told me about Obama and my father, Frank Marshall Davis. Thanks for asking!

    As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid’s researcher: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last few comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June. Not a peep was heard from him since then.

    “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    Kaleokualoha - Gravatar
  21. Marty Griffith  |  March 4th, 2010 at 7:29 AM #

    I looked over the exchange with Max that you had and also at other material. It is impossible to tell who said that Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor to Obama first. It is also impossible to tell on what the information is based. I have stricken this from my blog as you can see.

    Marty Griffith - Gravatar
  22. URL  |  June 1st, 2012 at 11:37 PM #

    … [Trackback]…

    […] There you will find 11883 more Infos: martygriffith.com/blog/2010/02/obama-is-not-a-liberal/ […]…

    URL - Gravatar

Leave a Feedback

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline