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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/…