The Ideology of Obama's Folly

Read carefully because the below Socialist Party USA “manifesto” explains clearly the path Obama supposes to force us down.  


It even shows why Obama DEMANDS certain compromises in bills such as the recent budget “crisis” and ObamaCare.  In the Oct 2009 edition of their American Socialist Voter newsletter (below), they even listed the US legislators who belong to their organization in 2009.

“Who We Are” from the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) Statement of Principles....

THE SOCIALIST PARTY (SPUSA) strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own  control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible.  The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power.  The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below.  The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future.  We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives.  We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government.  The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members.

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus which also includes the group Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter Oct 2009 newsletter –

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven:   John Conyers (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee), Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez (there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA).

Q: Who are these Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members of the 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)

Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)

Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)

Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)

Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)

Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) 

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)

Hon. André Carson (IN-07)

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)

                                                              Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

                                                                Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)

Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)

Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)

Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)

Hon. John Hall (NY-19)

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)

Hon. George Miller (CA-07)

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)

Hon. John Olver (MA-01)

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Looks like a lot of socialists in our government?  And that list above doesn’t even include President Obama and his administration, cabinet, and staff.  Now do you understand why we are being forced down the path toward socialism?  You might want to include the above list of legislators on your mailing lists, e-mailing lists, Tweet lists, and fax lists, for your “socialization” of America concerns.  If you don’t become pro-active, you will look up one day soon and see that we are already there!

The next few paragraphs are just plain scary!  They are found on page 10 of 10/1/09 edition of the American Socialist Voter newsletter (scroll down to page 10 on the link above).  I think it is pretty safe to assume that all of the above legislators, along with President Obama believe in these principles of Social Redistribution listed in their newsletter below?  Especially notice that the “Social Redistribution” is not just redistribution of wealth, but also redistributions of “resources”.  It’s no accident we are being forced, head long down this slippery slope by the Obama administration and other card carrying legislators listed above.

If you read the below “manifesto” from the Oct 2009 edition of the American Socialist Voter newsletter, carefully, it makes clear the reason behind every unfathomable decision taken by Obama and his administration.

Socialized Redistribution

Socialized redistribution--the shift of wealth AND RESOURCES from the rich to the rest of society—will require:

1.  Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance andinfrastructure rehabilitation

2.   A massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses. Although such reforms will be very difficult to achieve on a national scale in the short term, their urgency increases as income inequality intensifies.  Over time, income redistribution and social programs will be critical not only to the poor but to the great majority of working people.  The defense and expansion of government programs that promote social justice, equal education for all children, universal health care, environmental protection, and guaranteed minimum income and social well-being, is critical for the next Left.   At the same time, the military Keynesianism that has dominated federal expenditures, constricting the capacity of governments at all levels to respond adequately to social needs, must end. Much of the current distortion in government spending and taxation has its roots in the massive military and national security build-up in the 1980s, combined with the massive tax cuts for the wealthy. The great run-up in national debt is due directly to military-led deficit financing.  Reduced military expenditures and more equitable taxation represent the only sources of funds on the scale needed to provide the social programs required to ameliorate declining living standards.  Together, economic democracy, global justice, and social redistribution are the linchpins of a broad-based anti-corporate left, that is international in character and local in its reliance on popular control of economic resources and decision-making.

SECTION 5:  THE ROLE OF ELECTORAL POLITICS

Democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on a new party or on realignment within the Democratic Party. The growth of PAC-driven, candidate-based, entrepreneurial politics in the last25 years leaves little hope for an immediate, principled electoral response to the rightward, pro-corporate drift in American politics.  The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts. Our electoral work aims at building “majoritarian” coalitions capable of not only electing public officials on the anti-corporate program of these movements, but also of holding officials accountable after they are elected.  The U.S. electoral system makes third parties difficult to build at both the national and state level.  Winner take-all districts; the absence of proportional representation; open primaries; executive-run governments that make coalition governments impossible; state legislative control over ballot access and election laws all combine to impede third parties.  Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.  Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end result expectation.  Where third party or non-partisan candidates mobilize such coalitions, democratic socialists will build such organizations and candidacies.  However, to democratize U.S. electoral politics - whatever its party form -requires serious campaign finance reform both within and without the Democratic Party.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Obama vs. Obama (warning, this may make you dizzy!!)


Not long ago, Obama warned that raising taxes in a struggling economy is "the last thing you want to do."


In a 75-minute meeting Sunday night July 10, 2011, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling.  In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals.

It's a curious position, given the anemic economic growth and rising unemployment.  And it's even more curious considering that Obama himself has warned about the deleterious effects of raising taxes in a struggling economy.  In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy."


Obama agreed with Ferguson's premise - raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea.  "First of all, he's right.  Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we've instead cut taxes.  So I guess what I'd say to Scott is - his economics are right.  You don't raise taxes in a recession.  We haven't raised taxes in a recession."

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on "some of the wealthiest" Americans.


Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing.  "We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession.  Even the proposals that have come out of Congress - which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward - still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over.  So he's absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up - take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole."


 When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession-growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent.

Today, however, economic growth has slowed to less than 2 percent. Even before the horrible June jobs report, economists were warning about the "substantial" possibility of a double-dip recession.  Many others agreed after the news last week.  "In addition to the shock value, we need to seriously question whether a double-dip is there," David Ader, chief treasury strategist at CRT Capital, told CNBC.  "I would say it's back on the table."


If raising taxes in a recession would be "the last thing you want to do," wouldn't raising taxes in a struggling economy teetering on a double-dip be the second last thing you'd want to do?


Obama made a similar argument in December, when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement - a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses.  "Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades - freeing up other money to hire new workers."


If Obama was right and the tax breaks in that deal freed up money for job creators to hire new workers, isn't the reverse true?  Isn't it the case that new taxes on entrepreneurs and other job creators will leave them with less money to hire new workers?  And wouldn't raising taxes on the "wealthiest" just "put business further in a hole," as Obama believed just two years ago?

His economics were right in August 2009. So why the change?

Redistribution? LETS GO FOR IT!

In the video below, the same college students who support Obama's redistribution of wealth by increasing taxes on the wealthy, seem to have a "problem" with this petition to allow forcible redistribution of GPA averages by lowering the GPA averages of the best students and using that to raise the GPA averages of the lower struggling students.  They seem to feel that they have "earned" their high GPAs, whereas the highest taxpayers do not deserve to keep the fruits of THEIR labors?  Listen carefully to the video and you will hear several students refuse to sign the GPA Redistribution petition, and complain that they "NEED" the high GPAs that they have worked so hard for.

Most college students don't seem to realize that THEY are the bugs, and REDISTRIBUTION is the windshield.

I wonder if any of these students ever thought that the reason they attend college and work hard,  is because they are doing their best to BECOME a wealthy taxpayer?  Redistribution ONLY works when you take it from OTHERS and put it in YOUR pocket.  Isn't that the definition of felony theft?

Hope this video causes a revelation and then a revolution among the millions of young, college age voters who thoughtlessly jumped on the Obama bandwagon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded#at=13