Thursday, March 17, 2011

Sphere: Related Content

Top Marxist Communist Policies Being Implemented By Obama

Throughout history Communist leaders have seized power by promoting themselves as populists, and often completely hiding their own ideology. Indeed in a poll taken after Communist Hugo Chavez' first election victory in Venezuela, only 3% of the electors believed Chavez to be a Socialist, let alone a Communist. Currently 32% of Americans believe Obama to be a Socialist.

The initial stages of Communization of a country invariably begin with seven basic steps:

Seizing Control Over The Free Flow Of The Nation's Money

Obama has stated that he wants to convert the stock the US government now owns in the nation's banks from preferred stock, which is the case currently, to common stock. This modification in type of stock may seem irrelevant at first glance, but under further analysis it is the single greatest communist policy the US government has ever adopted: It means that the federal government will control all of the currently publicly traded major banks and financial institutions in the nation which are currently in the hands of individual shareholders. Not only will the current shareholders' rights be trampled, but the control of the nation's flow of money is the first keystone of communism.

Stripping Capitalists Of Their Assets

According to US bankruptcy code, secured creditors such as the ones who have outstanding debt against Chrysler and GM, have to be paid before unsecured creditors. That is the law. Obama has ignored this law, and seized the vast majority (89% in GM's case) of all "asset value" of the automakers and taken direct control or given it away for free to the unions. Karl Marx's theses were all based on the workers owning the means of production, and thus communism takes hold in America.

Changing The Structures Of Government To Suit

Obama has given the GOP until October to approve his health care plan which many experts have shown, would be as socialized as Cuba's. If the Republican Party does not meet his demands, the Democratic Party will simply change the very rules of the United States Senate to pass their legislation through simple majority, instead of the 60% which has been required by the Senate through history. Changing legislation to suit the leader is another common tactic of communist leaders from Chavez to Castro.

Taking Advantage Of A Crisis To Impose Communism

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel published a book entitled The Plan which would require (yes, require) young Americans regardless of their political stripe to serve in a direct copy of Hugo Chavez' red-beret local militias. The Plan also promotes massive taxpayer funded programs as universally free university tuition and health care as well as a tax reform to ensure that the middle and upper classes are crushed by the enormous new government expenditures. Obama has already admitted such a "soak anyone making over $250,000/year" punitive tax policy. Emanuel is famous for his quote "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste…(it’s) an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before," which is the prototypical process whereby communists seize power, witness Lenin, Mao, Castro, Tito, et al.

Controlling Higher Education

Obama has already launched legislation to remove private lenders from student loans which would now all be provided by the federal government directly, so that it could choose in a totalitarian manner who receives the loans and who doesn't. Many educational institutions are up in arms over this legislation as it essentially shifts admissions policy from the colleges and universities to the federal government. Control of higher education as in Obama's Pell Grant entitlement is an universal characteristic of communism to ensure that the young are properly ideologically indoctrinated.

Punishing Residential Property Owners

Obama's enormous mortgage bailout legislation is little more than a full blown entitlement program. The plan forces the 92 percent of responsible home owners to heavily subsidize the irresponsible "ARM-ATM" mortgage holders who didn't read their ARM mortgages and used their home equity like ATMs. These taxes would be so overwhelming that many of the "responsible" majority of mortgage holders could lose their homes. The punishment leading to the elimination of property owners in favor of the state is a fundamental tenet of Marxism, as Karl wrote "the middle-class owner of property: This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

Demolishing The Economy To Replace It With State Control

Obama has:

*Handicapped American multinationals by denying them tax deferral, placing them at an enormous competitive disadvantage against corporations based anywhere else.

*Launched entitlement programs which punish innovation and dry up funds for entrepreneurial start ups.

*Stopped the Treasury from implementing any real recovery plans, discouraging private capital flow into the financial sector.

*Stated "we have to spread the wealth around, we have to redistribute the wealth of this country through taxation," which is a paraphrasing of Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

*Declared a "War On Business" as shown by his legislation that pharmaceutical corporations pay high rebate fees to Medicaid and promoting the importation of foreign drugs which could include low potency or outright counterfeit drugs into the nation. The financial outlook for US pharmaceutical companies has been decimated.

*Placed nearly two thirds of a trillion dollars into a health reform reserve fund, which is the tip of the iceberg in the expectations of the cost of fully socialized medicine in America. USA Today has stated that every household in the United States would be on the hook for over half a million dollars.

All of these policies represent time-honored Communist policies specifically designed to devastate the free market economy as well as impoverish and punish the upper and middle classes leading to their elimination so that the Communist "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat" can be introduced. It is important to note that in each and every historical instance Communism has been introduced into democratic countries and they were all swiftly changed to totalitarian dictatorships of a single leader benefiting from a "Cult Of Personality."

Policies virtually identical to these were implemented by:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1917 Russia
Josip Broz Tito in 1945 Yugoslavia
Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) in 1949 China
Fidel Castro in 1959 Cuba
Hugo Chavez in 1999 Venezuela

and now they are being implemented by

Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 United States of America.

That is why has called Obama a "Manchurian Candidate" set to destroy the US economy once elected. SOURCE:


Any wonder Americans turned away from
this imposter leading US down 'The Road to Serfdom'...

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Gaddafi's Fin de Régime

Sphere: Related Content

by Daniel Pipes
February 24, 2011
From National Review Online

The violent demise of the Middle East's longest-ruling leader – who came to office in September 1969, just a few months after Richard Nixon – stands well outside the mainstream of the region's politics, but then Moammer Gaddafi always did.

Gaddafi (for the record, the correct spelling of his name is Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhāfi) began his rule at the tender age of 27, just as Pan-Arabist ideology was dying down; undeterred, long after others had given up on this fantasy, he remained a proponent of the notion of turning all Arabic countries into one gigantic whole. Eventually frustrated with Arabic-speakers, where the small population of Libya limited his influence, he turned south, where his outsized energy income bestowed real clout in Africa.

Fortunately for the world, every one of his hare-brained schemes came to naught. What I observed in 1981 still holds true: "For all Qadhdhafi's hyperactivity, he rarely gets his way; empty promises and fanaticism on his part have repeatedly undermined his ceaseless efforts to project power. … Qadhdhafi has won many battles but not a single war."

How deeply satisfying will it be to watch as a brave and desperate people sweep this eccentric, nasty, and repressive tyrant into the dustbin of history. How gratifying that he has alienated nearly the entire world, even the U.N. Security Council. May his ugly example serve as a permanent warning to other dictators who make war on their populations.

On a personal note: I have watched Gaddafi with interest through the years in part because my career in Middle East studies began coterminous with his rule. Also, he invited me in 2007 to Libya for a one-on-one chat. Although at the time curious about meeting him, in retrospect I am glad I did not. A shower does not cleanse oneself of some encounters. (February 24, 2011)
Gaddafi seems tired of living and likely will
be granted a release from this present reality!!

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Iranian Ships Blocked by Egypt [?]

Sphere: Related Content
Egypt blocks Iran ships from Suez Canal

Officials overseeing the strategic waterway that connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean could not confirm the report, saying only that they have been told that plans by two Iranian naval vessels to cross through the canal had been canceled.

By Avi Issacharoff and Reuters

The Suez Canal has been told that plans by two Iranian naval ships to cross the waterway were canceled, an official said on Thursday. It was not immediately clear which side was behind the cancellation, but the Al-Arabiya daily reported that Egyptian authorities had blocked the ships from crossing.

Any naval vessels passing through the canal, a strategic international shipping route that connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, must first have approval from Egypt's foreign and defense ministries, officials said.

If the ships had crossed, it would have been the first time since Iran's 1979 revolution that Iranian warships had passed through the canal, officials said.

Iran's revolution poisoned ties with Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel that year.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday called plans for the two Iranian warships to sail through the canal en route to Syria a "provocation". He had said the ships were expected to pass through the Suez Canal overnight on Wednesday.

Israel's state-funded Channel One television said Lieberman, a vociferously far-right partner in the conservative coalition, had spoken out of turn as the Defense Ministry "had preferred to ignore" the ships' approach.

An Egyptian canal official who declined to be named said that Suez Canal Authority was "informed today about the cancellation of two scheduled trips of two Iranian warships," adding that "no new date was set to cross the Suez as part of the southern convoy coming from the Red Sea."

The official, who identified the ships as the Alvand and Kharg, said the vessels were near the Saudi Arabian Red Sea port of Jeddah. Shipping experts had earlier said named the vessels as the Alvand frigate and Kharg supply ship.

Ahmed El Manakhly, a member of the canal's board who is responsible for shipping movement, had said the ships had not joined Thursday's early morning northbound convoy in the canal and were not on the waiting list to pass through on Friday.

The northbound ship convoy starts entering the canal from the Red Sea end at 6 A.M. daily, according to the Suez Canal website. Ships head south from the Mediterranean at other times of the day.

Another canal source said 26 vessels, including one French warship, had entered in the morning northbound convoy but that Iranian warships were not among them.

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported on Jan. 26 that Iranian navy cadets were going on a year-long training mission into the Red Sea and through Suez to the Mediterranean.

Syria is one of Israel's neighboring adversaries. It has an alliance with Iran which has deepened along with Tehran's isolation from the West over its disputed nuclear program,.

The Suez Canal is a vital commercial and strategic waterway between Europe and the Middle East and Asia. It is also a major source of revenues for the Egyptian government. [SOURCE]

Meanwhile back in Tehran:

TEHRAN (AFP) – Iranian officials were in contact with their counterparts in Egypt to secure the passage of two warships through the Suez Canal, Tehran's English-language Press TV reported on Thursday. The vessels intend to transit the canal, the channel's website quoted an unnamed Iranian navy official as saying.

"Iranian officials were in contact with officials in Cairo to secure the Iranian vessels' passage," the website said, adding that "Egyptian authorities believed there was nothing wrong with the passage."

Egypt insisted on Thursday it had not denied the two warships passage through the canal, but canal and shipping officials privately admitted they were blocked.

Iranian media had reported earlier this month that the vessels, part of a flotilla, would pass through the canal, prompting Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to brand the move a "provocation."

The ships were due to transit on Thursday, Lieberman claimed a day earlier, but a senior Suez Canal Authority official insisted his office had not received a request to allow the ships through.

"We did not receive any request for the passage of Iranian warships," Ahmed al-Manakhly, head of the canal's operations room, told AFP, adding he had no idea if any such ships were nearing the canal.

"Any warship needs approval from the defence ministry and the foreign ministry. We have seen no such approval. Before they pass, I need to have such an approval in my hand," he explained.

But privately, a canal official said the warships were on the list of ships scheduled to pass to the Mediterranean Sea before the passage was cancelled.

"They had permission, but the shipping agent told them yesterday the ships were cancelling. He said they are near Jeddah, and no new date was set," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Iran and Israel are arch-foes, with animosity between the two having surged under the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Also news to muse: In an unprecedented move, two Iranian warships called in the Saudi port of Jeddah last week. The Saudis wouldn’t have accepted this visit if they didn’t perceive their US-backed position as vulnerable and exposed.


"The Community for Seekers, Skeptics and Believers"

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Obama, Egypt & History of the Muslim Brotherhood

Sphere: Related Content

By Kelly O'Connell

Sunday February 6, 2011

As Egyptians ponder revolution, the globe awaits how this will effect energy prices, Middle East relations, and world stability, especially considering agitation by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is mystifying how Obama supports these protesters, while admitting he hadn’t yet called Mubarak—America’s ally and Egypt’s president. Remember Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights routine when Iranians protested rigged elections. So what is different this time?

As with all things Barack, if we scratch beneath the surface of superficial incompetence we find a genuine commitment to real leftism. It is axiomatic what excites Obama is some form of revolutionary liberalism, hence his “Change” mantra, and all subsequent progressive policies and past associations.

So his backing leftist radicals makes splendid sense considering his instinctual sympathy for Marxist revolutions, Hegel’s fatalism and hem-of-the-garment Islamism. These issues are the topic of this essay.

I. Egyptian Crisis

The 2011 Egyptian unrest has several named causes, including tyranny, grinding poverty, and social inequality. It should therefore surprise no one these socialist-sounding talking points, undoubtedly true on their own merit, were broadcast by Marxist propagandists.

This point is underscored by reporting from The Graph:

Many Arabic Jan 25 tweets used phrases sounding like Karl Marx… These Egyptian grassroots political activists, most socialist/ Marxist/ unionist, used the momentum of the recent “revolution” in Tunisia to kick-off their January 25th protests.

In the history of communism, many Marxist missionaries were sent internationally to foment revolution. This seems what occurred in Egypt, especially by the Marxist Muslim Brotherhood.

II. History & Beliefs of the Socialist Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) was developed in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna in 1928. It is the foundation of the modern Muslim radical movement, according to Ira M. Lapidus in A History of Islamic Societies. Lapidus claims the Muslim Brotherhood platform is:

Restoration of Islamic principles, and a return to the Quran and Islamic piety…the reform of morals, education, economic projects, and the creation of a Muslim state. Islam in their minds was the blueprint for a total modern society and presented itself as an ideological and political alternative to liberalism and communism.

By the 1930s, this religious revival became political. The Brotherhood sent fighters to other countries for uprisings, such as the Suez unrest. They call for a world Islamic state, imposition of Shari’ah law, and the application of socialist principles for “Economic Justice,” writes Lapidus. One detects here a Muslim fascism, seeking return to a glorious past, while resisting liberal democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of power in Egypt, when Nasser and Sadat did an end-run, overthrowing the king, creating the Egyptian army “Free Officers” regime. This changed liberal parliamentarian rule for a one-party presidential government, embracing Pan-Arabism, similar to the Baath party’s ideology.

Ideology of Muslim Brotherhood & Other Islamic Revivalists

The Muslim Brotherhood represent those wanting to revive the beauty and simplicity of basic Islam. Lapidus describes their ideology:

They believe the Quran and Sunna must be the basis of individual morality, and stress application of the Shari’a in all relevant matters. In social policy they hold the primary role of women should be care of the family. They avoid ideological positions in economic matters, but stress importance of minimizing the differences in wealth between rich and poor. For them, social justice is more important than technological, economic, or administrative issues. In general, these groups believe their society has been corrupted by secular values and only a return to Islamic principles will restore morality, economic health, and political power.

Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian Radical Separatist & Muslim Brotherhood Member

Radical Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb is called the Karl Marx of Islamic Revolution. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, spending many years behind bars in Egypt for controversial ideas, before execution by Nasser. His 1966 book Milestones on the Road (Ma’alim fi al-tariq) is a classic of Islamic fundamentalism. He is the “Philosopher of Terrorism,” laying down the template followed by al-Qaeda, and other radical Muslim terrorists. Qutb is said to have inspired Osama bin Laden.

One writer describes Milestones:

Part of the originality of “Milestones” was Qutb’s use of the term jahiliyya to depict the abject condition of the Muslim world. Literally meaning ignorance, the term was originally used to describe the benighted condition of Arabia prior to the advent of Islam. But Qutb used it to condemn Muslim governments and societies which, in his eyes, had been corrupted by Western culture and secularism to the point where they had abandoned Islam.

Another scholar describes his works:

Qutb’s major work is Fi Zalal al-Koran (In the Shadow of the Koran), a 30-volume commentary on the Koran started in 1952 and completed in prison. Striking is Qutb’s relentless insistence on the unconditional demands made upon believers. From his reading of the Koran, he deduced Christians are all destined for hell and in other, shorter, later works he polemicised against Christians, Jews and western ways of life.

One can see quite clearly if Qutb is the leading light of the men Barack has backed, the entire world may be in for a helluva ride. Says one scholar about Qutb’s beliefs:

Qutb rejected all kinds of government, secular and theocratic, advocating a kind of anarcho-Islam. His writings have exercised a formative influence on the Taliban, who, under the leadership of the shy, rustic Mullah Omar concentrate on implementing Shari’a in one country under the governance of the Mullahs. And, Qutb’s works have also influenced al-Qaida, which, under the leadership of Bin Laden, aims at a global jihad that will end with all men under direct, unmediated rule of Allah.

III. Jimmy Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini & Iran

Jimmy Carter was a tireless, self-righteous, yet opportunistic moralizer, causing other world leaders to bitterly complain. His ideology exposed a fatal leftist flaw. He believed if an ally had a shortcoming, the appropriate response was shaming, exposing or abandoning them. But socialists who were imperfect deserved protection.

As Dr. Mike Evans writes in Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work, Carter tossed out the Shah “like a dead mouse.”

Evans writes,

Former French Pres. Valery Giscard d’Estaing said of Carter: “He was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man [the Shah] that we had supported together.”

Carter did this without reflecting upon whether the first Iranian devil might be better than any replacement. The upshot—perhaps Carter saw himself in the Ayatollah, a religious zealot who ceaselessly blasted his enemies as morally compromised. Carter claimed the Ayatollah was a Ghandi-esque character, a “little George Washington.”

Evans claims Carter gave the Ayatollah hundreds of millions of dollars during his four months in Paris. Khomeini then used these funds for revolution, and seeding al-Qaeda. Carter hailed the Ayatollah as a human rights loving reformer, while booting the imperfect Shah to the curb like a plague corpse.

Dr. Evans describes how...

President Jimmy Carter provided checks of $150 million each to Khomeini who plotted to kill the Shah of Iran and overthrow his nation. Provided $500 million to the Muslim Brotherhood freedom fighters who became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Wire-transferred $7.9 billion to buy-back the hostages after 444 days of humiliation.

Is history repeating itself with the sanctimonious Obama demanding Mubarak step aside? Does Barack have any idea who will replace the old Egyptian regime? Does he even care? Could we possibly be surprised if a retrograde radical Islamic sect began demanding fundamentalist policy concessions in the name of Allah?

Evans also includes this astounding fact:

Leonid Brezhnev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, warned Jimmy Carter in 1979 NOT to assist in overthrowing the Shah of Iran. He told Carter if he did that Brezehnev would in turn invade Afghanistan

IV. Obama, Marx, Hegel & “Change”

By Obama’s own admissions and actions he is a man of the far left, a socialist, a progressive. King communist Karl Marx himself was deeply influenced by Georg Hegel, especially his Dialectic of History, writes Robert Tucker in The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. Alarmingly, Barack treasures Hegel’s ideas.

Hegel taught history went in cycles, in a kind of vortex, continually growing upwards in sophistication. This meant every regime change or revolution caused civilization to evolve. And this is exactly why socialists and Marxists are so euphoric over the idea of “Change” & “Revolution.” All change is good!

When a real leftist sees an Egypt on verge of revolution, his Marxist instincts encourage him to believe the transition will be salutary. Carter’s staff were also far-leftists, and their beliefs deluded them into blindly backing the Iranian Revolution, creating ongoing unmitigated disaster.

There are profound flaws in Marx’s & Hegel’s political ideas. First, according to Hegel, no person has any Natural Rights against those of the state, therefore justifying all tyranny. Second, individuals only find purpose and salvation in the group, a logical extension of the first idea. Third, according to Hegel and Marx’s Dialectic of History, all states are acceptable for they all lead to higher development.

It follows here Marxism lacks an ethical or moral core. True right or wrong, is merely an opinion, having no basis in absolute fact. Therefore, all moral evolution in the leftist state is an impossible mirage.

Conclusion: Official response by Obama administration to Egypt is absurd at nearly all levels.

First, Barack claims to have warned Mubarak; WH adviser David Axelrod said of Obama... “He’s—on several occasions directly confronted Pres. Mubarak on it. And pushed him on the need for political reform.”

This is confuted by the CIA’s admission:

Stephanie O’Sullivan, a senior CIA official, in testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Feb. 3, acknowledged the CIA did not envision the events over the last week in Egypt. She refused to elaborate on the intelligence assessment concerning Egypt.

Second, Obama blanched when asked to confront Iran on human rights issues, but was at the same time pressuring Egypt for exactly the same kind of reform? Of course! This spin is meant to rehabilitate Barack’s crippled legend as World’s Greatest Leader. Most laughable, Obama’s demand for Egyptian “Consent of the governed” flies in the face of his own refusal to even defend the concept at home. For example, 75% want Obamacare changed.

Third, and most disturbing, Obama seems to have no clear insight into who will assume power in Egypt after this unrest. The fact he might be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power, and doesn’t care about their socialism and fanatical Islamic goals would not be a surprise, given his fatalistic, revolution loving world view. Further, considering Barack’s criticism of all things American and Western, and obvious love of Islam, would he even care if the country fell and became another Iran?

Most unnerving of all—we must keep asking ourselves if each successive Obama pratfall is part of a master Muslim/ Marxist plan, or just another strand of the unbroken chain of incompetence from the world’s most overrated leader?


Tis BOTH and in plain sight...
and Bo prefers the B'Hood to
patriotic Tea Party members!!


Wednesday, February 2, 2011

What is 'The War on Terror' ?!?

Sphere: Related Content

A Culture of Death driving the world off a cliff ?!?

by Roger W. Gardner

The Global War on Terror. Why does the very name we have chosen for this monumental global conflict contain the seeds of our coming failure? The answer is simple. The name itself is prima facie evidence of our inability, or our adamant refusal, to face the hard truth about the real nature of this war. It is yet another example of our willful ignorance and our moral cowardice. Who are we fighting? Who are our enemies? Are we fighting some mysterious group of anonymous terrorists? Who has declared war against us, against the entire Judeo/Christian West? And finally, if we are afraid to even mention the name of our sworn enemy, how on earth can we ever expect to win this bloody war? - Read the Rest:


Jihadist globally have met little resistance in their self declared 'war' via a much dreaded 'ism! As my guitar gently weeps these forces are pushing a coup in Egypt that would leave power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leftist media types are trying to paint them as a democratic force and 'Pharaoh Bo of Chicago' seems to be choosing sides! Given UN protection againt criticism of Islam Inc. the B' Hood thugs will be shielded. Whether this will be a Sunni counter weight to Iran is anyones guess!