Recently, we have witnessed some remarkable rhetoric coming from conservatives in the U.S. Most notable are Glenn Beck’s repeated claims that President Obama is a closet communist. These charges remain unsubstantiated. But they have nevertheless been echoed by other conservative pundits and have circulated throughout the conservative blogosphere. The language in each instance suggests the same scenario: that Obama’s official policies are a cover for a shadow conspiracy, determined to instate communism in the United States. Accusations such as these deserve examination. When the specter totalitarianism is suggested, we should inquire into the matter with severe gravity.
Beck’s rhetoric, in this regard, may be traced back to his report of the military coup in Honduras, June 2009. During his coverage, Beck implied that since President Obama condemned the coup, Obama must be a communist dictator. His logic here is that, since Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro also denounced this event, Obama—by virtue of having done the same—is a totalitarian Marxist. Beck’s logic is clearly fallacious.
Beck has made —what logicians call—a “non-sequitur” fallacy. That is to say, his conclusion logically does not follow from his premises. It is nonsensical to state that (a) Chavez, a communist, denounced the coup; (b) Castro, also a communist, denounced the coup; and (c) President Obama denounced the coup, as well; Therefore, Obama is a communist, too. Based on this logic, one could say that since Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all denounced Hitler, then Stalin was a capitalist. Such a claim is absurd.
Later, on his radio show, Beck quoted a statement Obama made five days before the election: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.
Beck responded: “If our founding principles are somehow or another no longer relevant, if the system in which this country was founded is somehow unjust or unworkable now, and communism, Marxism, socialism is the right and relevant path, then that is the discussion in a republic we must have. But to subversively bring in a new system through the back door in the middle of the night and bring it, piece by piece, by overwhelming the system, that is not acceptable.”
During the campaign, Obama often used vague, emotion-driven language like “hope” and “change”, in lieu of concrete arguments. That much we can grant Beck. But since his election, Obama has been clearer. His administration has posted numbers of documents on websites for public access, all of which outline his complete agenda. And none of these documents’ contents hint at socialist or communist polices—to say so, in fact, is to be ignorant of what communism and socialism is.
These documents were available by the time Beck made his broadcast. Thus, Beck has little excuse for misrepresenting Obama’s position. Also, the only evidence he offers here, to prove Obama’s communist agenda, is a “back door in the middle of the night” conspiracy theory. To misrepresent an opponent’s position, and then refute that misrepresentation is also a fallacy. Logicians call it “straw man”. And that is what Beck has done here.
On the September 4 Glenn Beck Program, Beck aired an interview he conducted with conservative pundit David Horowitz. The discussion was comprised of conjectures, regarding Obama’s hypothetical communist plot. At one point, Horowitz, who is a self-described former communist, stated: “I know in my gut, because I was [a communist], what’s going on. These people want to destroy the system, we live under.”
Horowitz’s publications are notorious for containing disputed events and unreliable sources. Thus, we should not be surprised that Horowitz submits an unsupported argument here, based on a “gut” feeling, yet expects us accept his claims.
But Beck replies: “It sounds crazy. And it’s almost like these things are ghosts, you know? It’s—it’s like you’re chasing ghosts.”
Horowitz then offers the theory that several progressive organizations —such as ACORN and The Center for American Progress—along with millionaire George Soros, are contributors to Obama’s secret plot. He says of this coalition: “They are still seeking to overthrow the system and to create a socialist future.”
Beck: “Do you think the President of the United States Barak Obama has that agenda?”
Horowitz: “Absolutely.”
The list of examples goes on. But the rhetoric by now is clear. Unsubstantiated as these claims are, they make for quite a story. So, let us give Beck and the conservatives the benefit of the doubt. After all, their thesis may still be true. They may just be poor arguers for their case.
The Truth about Communism
Let us now look at the essentials of communism and then compare them to Obama’s agenda. If they add up, Beck may have a point about the president.
Communism is a bizarre amalgam of German philosophy, nihilism, prophecy, and power politics. It can only be understood though an explication of Karl Marx’s concept of History. Marx argued that History, itself, had a predetermined endpoint—an idea he took from his predecessor, Georg W. F. Hegel. Both Marx and Hegel agreed that History’s endpoint would occur upon the realization of utopia, under the ideal state. Only, they differed on the nature of that state. Marx believed it was communism. But he argued that humanity could not force communism into existence. History had to naturally evolve into it, carrying humanity along the way. In the mean time, History would evolve forward as it always had, through violent class conflict. Marx explains this in his Communist Manifesto:
Free man and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and surf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed [in history], stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, [and capitalism] that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with these class antagonisms.
With this logic, “nihilism” is introduced into the traditional philosophy of Marxism. Because the movement of History is driven by violence, violence cannot be condemned. To do so would risk ending the conflict, therefore slowing progression toward the ideal state under communism. Thus “nihilism”, the death of all ethical values, the abolition of all human rights—including that of the right to life—is mandatory. Since revolutionary Marxism equates the meaning of human existence with obedience to the flow of History, life has no value other than servitude to historical progression. Albert Camus explains Marxist nihilism in his book, The Rebel:
Values are thus only to be found at the end of history. Until then there are no suitable criterion on which to base a judgment of value. One must act and live in terms of the future. All morality becomes provisional.
But communism had to be reached because it was the promised land, the ”propertyless” utopia at the end of History. And this absence of private property is crucial to Marxist mythology, since the presence of private property, according to Marx, is what makes man selfish. More importantly, property-inspired selfishness is what causes the class conflict—the battle between the “oppressor and oppressed”—waged throughout History. Only when that conflict vanishes through communism, Marx says, can humanity be free. As conservative historian Richard Pipes explains this in Communism: a History, “the abolition of property is a prerequisite to genuine freedom. Only after mankind has been liberated from this dependency will it attain complete self-fulfillment.”
Capitalism, Marx prophesized, was the final stage before History’s culmination in paradise. He argued the historical conflict specific to capitalism was between the industrial worker (the “proletariat”) and the owner of industry and wealth (the “bourgeois”). Like all previous eras, the struggle between the two forces would result in one force conquering the other. The proletariat, here, would be the victor. According to Marx’s prophecy, the workers would establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, a provisional government that abolishes private property—hence ending human selfishness, a phenomena that would foster a classless society.
Finally, communism’s last component: power politics. This element was injected not by Marx, but by a Russian radical named Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, who later became Russia’s leader, firmly rejected Marx’s idea that communism had to occur naturally. Lenin argued for immediate revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat needed to be established at all costs. Richard Pipes quotes Lenin as saying, “If it is necessary to resort to certain brutalities for the sake of realizing a certain political goal, they must be carried out in the most energetic fashion and in the briefest possible time”. We can see now how communism results in totalitarianism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, once established, never vanishes. But the logic of Marx’s prophecy remains. Communist regimes justify their constant expansion of power—their endless parade of violence and gulags—through a paradox. Since History will achieve paradise through violence, the communist state must keep killing and torturing In order to reach paradise—a reality which never arrives. Thus the horrors never end.
Given how terrifying communist reality is, we should not take Becks’ charges lightly. If they are true, a nation-wide call to action is needed. So let us examine Obama’s agenda.
The Truth about Obama
Having explored communism, we can now answer the question: is Glenn Beck correct in his assessment of Obama? The answer is “no”.
The abolition of private property is the cornerstone of Communism. But Obama’s economic agenda is based on upholding the right to private property. More importantly, the agenda proposes the expansion of that right. His “Stop Fraud Act” provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, and increases funding for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute fraudulent mortgage professionals. Equally important, this bill offers counseling to help home owners avoid foreclosures. These measures obviously aim at maintaining private home ownership, not abolishing that ownership, as is done in communist societies.
Obama also advocates a middle class tax cut under the “Making Work Pay” credit. This policy restores fairness to the tax code and, according to his administration’s figures, 150 million Americans would benefit from this adjustment. Adding to this assistance, the credit eliminates income taxes for 10 million Americans, providing relief to small-business owners. If Obama was a communist, he’d confiscate and federalize the small-businesses, not help them grow independently. He certainly would not be giving tax credits to citizens. Communist state policy is to seize all private bank accounts, so that their contents can be equally distributed amongst the masses. Banks are thus unnecessary. Beck should know this, and he should have realized that Obama’s financial corporate “bailouts” are counterintuitive to communist doctrine as well.
Perhaps what troubles Beck most is Obama’s universal healthcare plan. For years conservatives have argued that universal healthcare is the first step toward communism. But this—saying that one proposed measure, if implemented, is but the start of a long train of abuses on the road to destruction— is also a fallacy. Logicians call it “slippery-slope”. Thus, it should be rejected. That conservatives still trumpet this fallacy is bizarre, given that most European democracies—like Britain and France—have established a “public-option” plan without abandoning their capitalist system or market competitiveness. Additionally, as U.S. Senator Al Franken has observed, all studies suggesting “public-option” option healthcare is ineffective in meeting patient needs are based on ideologically-driven, “cherry-picked” statistics.
Enlightenment philosopher John Locke—a darling of conservative intellectuals—is credited for establishing man’s right to private property in Western culture, thus Locke provided the cornerstone to capitalism. But in his Two Treatises on Government, Lock also said that, “every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself.” In other words, an individual’s own body is his own personal property and his alone. And in so far as the U. S. government has “socialized” fire departments to protect private property, in the form of homes and possessions, why should it not follow Locke’s argument to its conclusion and ”socialize” healthcare to protect the other form of private property: a citizen’s own body? To do so—and to support Obama in this matter—would be firmly in the spirit of capitalism.
To these claims, Beck may ask us to wait and see. Sooner or later, the gulags will come. But have they not come and gone already? When George W. Bush’s administration transformed the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay into U.S. torture camps, where was Beck’s rhetoric, condemning these totalitarian practices? Conservative critic Andrew Sullivan observes, in his 2005 article, “The Abolition of Torture”:
Pentagon reports found widespread and severe abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere that has lead to at least two dozen deaths during interrogation. Journalistic accounts and reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross paint an even darker picture of the secret torture sites in Eastern Europe and innocent detainees being murdered.
Now that Obama is closing these prisons, somehow Obama has become the dictator. The absurdity of Beck’s logic here would be laughable, if only he and many conservatives did not accept it as gospel. The only truth Beck has espoused here is found in his statement to Horowitz: “It sounds crazy. And it’s almost like these things are ghosts, you know? It’s—it’s like you’re chasing ghosts.”
Indeed, Mr. Beck, it is crazy. The communist conspiracy that you are chasing is a “ghost” of your own creation.
About the author: Stephen Dufrechou is a new contributor to the NEWS JUNKIE POST. He is a college professor based in Memphis, TN. You can write to him at stephen [at] newsjunkiepost.com.
I don’t think it is a red “scare”, I think it is a red FACT!
Obama and his cronies are determined to bring about the destruction of freedom. They want socialism and I sure as heck don’t. I am proud of Glenn Beck for pointing out the evil of the Obamanation, and I support him 100%.
Keep up the good work Beck!
Nice attempt to troll, but nobody’s going to fall for it.
This “so-called” college professor is what’s destroying our youth. To imagine jerks like this and, Gates alike, are all in our colleges today! No wonder why Obama got elected president. With the help of the dumbing of America by Democrats and groups like Acorn this sounds like the end of this country as we once knew it. What a shame. Unlike Michelle, I was once proud of my country, but now I am not. I am very ashamed. Only Fox News and talk radio speak the truth until they too are shut off by the whacko liberal nut jobs running the country to the end.
Please give one example where any freedom is destroyed?
How exactly how has any college professor destroyed our youth?
You guys are all rhetoric and no substance.
FOX news was friendly to the previous administration and hostile to the current one, don’t you find that behavior rather odd coming from a news agency?
Hi… I think this author has a REAL OLD SCHOOL version of commune-ism imprinted on his brain. Communalism, dude! No seizing of anything. Instead, the abolishment of the phenomena called ownership, and the removal of economies, money, pricetags, law suits, insurance, advertising, etc. Its looks VERY MUCH like the USA military supply/survival system, or the USA public library system. No more competing… only cooperating. No more parental policy reversal from share share share, to fight fight fight… when kids turn 18. And no more “nestkicking” of children into “out there” (pull your weight, earn your keep, own two feet, etc). No more situation where SOME children are born set-for-life and some are born set-for-servitude. No more pyramids/hierarchies, only level grounds/equality for all. No more courtrooms designed like pyramids… no false-deity judges dressed in robes, on high. No more litigants low, jury medium-height, judge aloft BS. Go back to military tribunal all-level, no church-simming. No more dollars with freemason/illuminati pyramid scheme symbols on the back. The change would NOT be heading towards “your grandfather’s communism”. This would be loving Christian socialism, potlucks, barnraisings, love thy neighbor, etc etc. Catch up. There’s more than one kind of communism and socialism. This time, it’d be Christian. Try putting nuns in charge of your government, USA. Watch the wonderfulness that happens. Three of the very best words/phenomena are communion, community, and communication… all based-upon the word/phenomena “commune”. Where HAVE YOU been?
Now, for a paste-o-thon MaStars campaign poster…
You haven’t addressed the REAL problem. Economies themselves. As long as the masses believe “There’s nothing wrong with making a good profit”… nothing will be solved.
Think about the inequal rationing of these wellbeing coupons (USA money) that have the pyramid scheme symbol on the back. Think about the massive and easily-seen servitude-infestation within capitalism. Think about capitalism-invented pricetags, blockading the survival supplies… making it so ONLY free marketeers can get survival supplies and luxuries/toys. Think about the parental policy reversal from share, to fight, when children turn 18 and are sharktanked into “out there”. “Out there” is where we’re (do as we’re-) told to COMPETE… but while “in here”… we shall cooperate. What IS “out there” and what IS “in here” and why does this border, or ANY border… exist?? See how out there/in here phenomenon… sets-up the US/THEM civil wars? Folks on the very same planet as each other, fighting with folks on the very same planet… over wellbeing… and empowerments (entitles of ownership of property/money).
Money, entitles of ownership, pricetags, all products of the felony church-o-competers… called capitalism. Where is the church of cooperators (Christianity)? Why don’t THEY have a currency that’s legal tender TOO, and handed-out lovingly like leafs falling from trees? Where are potluck dinners and barnraisings and communes? Do we all need to read the story of Stone Soup and learn its lesson again?? Do we all need to go back to view the repeated failings of childhood pyramids? Remember how, when we stacked the children in the playground into servitude-infested pyramids… how the upper 1/3 was momentarily “heads in the clouds” while the kids on the bottom got crushed by having the weight of the world’s knees in their backs??
Its all caused by… inequality… ie. pyramid schemes… such as capitalism is. Why isn’t EVERYONE in EVERY COUNTRY given the same wellbeing as each other? Why not equal pay and equal ownership of ALL land, supplies, and luxuries? Why do capitalists and former Christians operate in a COMPETING environment instead-of in a “we’re all on the same team” cooperating environment? Until these questions and problems are pondered and addressed, you can spew theories about inflation until you vomit, and you have solved NOTHING.
Until one understands spirography (what goes around… comes around… once handed-on a thousand times) and until one understands the capitalism BS of “pull your weight, earn your keep, stand on your own two feet, make a living” etc etc (bandwagoning/railroadings/traditions)… you can’t address the problem. The “yay America, yay capitalism” self-BSing is too ingrained, the con/sham is too bought-into. Until one scrutinizes the immorality and illegality of servitude/inequality systems such as the felony pyramid scheme called capitalism, nothing will advance. Profiting causes inflation, its as simple as that. Every profit, leaves a hole. For every winner, there’s a loser… in capitalism. And until the toybox tug-o-warring, cookieplate-chasing capitalists… are willing to examine the reason for the huge pile of dead bodies at the exhaust pipe of their “everyone climb aboard the bandwagon” Earth-mowing/harvesting machine… nothing will be accomplished. As long as servitude and competing is the theme of the century (forcing 18 year olds to work FOR others instead of WITH others in equality)… we’re all doomed. The ONLY way to fix the problem… is to outlaw economies (and thus outlaw pyramid schemes).
Prepare for the collapse of a pyramid! Its a GOOD thing. It allows loving Christian socialism supply/survival systems… another chance to happen. Look to the USA military supply system, as well as the USA public library system… for proper monetary-discriminationless wisdom and morals. And while we’re at it, we need to quit doing the unlevel architecture in USA courtrooms. They are currently church simulators and fear chambers… and look NOTHING like a level military tribunal. Sick. Fix inequality on ALL fronts, and clean-up the statistics page at the World Health Organization. Do that, and we’re on our way. Right now, capitalism has caused a massive forsaking and negligent homicide festival… via NOT paying attention to the far-reaching ramifications of pyramid schemes-o-servitude. There’s more criteria than just monetary worth… to measure the value of things-with. There’s nobody to lynch for the FreeMason/Illuminati pyramid scheme… they’ve all died of old age. We just need to escape the thing now… by outlawing and abolishing economies.
Take care, everyone!
Larry “Wingnut” Wendlandt
MaStars – Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right
(anti-capitalism-ists)
Bessemer MI USA
Neither Beck nor Dufrechou know the first thing about communism, socialism, or marxism.
While I agree that Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, and the rest are all paranoid retards, Obama supporters such as Dufrechou who pass off a mish-mash of received *conservative* rhetoric about Marx’s thought as a legitimate summary are equally crooked.
You don’t get it. Clearly the author is not a fan of Glenn Beck’s rhetoric. However, not one word of bone fide support for Obama’s presidency or agenda in Dufrechou’s article was spoken. He wrote it with logical objectivity and careful reasoning in order to test Beck’s claim that Obama ’s agenda equates with an ultimate communistic take-over. In doing so, he cites not his own “opinion” but actual documentation from the source: Marx’s own writing & Obama’s political policies, Lenin’s & Stalin’s fatal contribution. He even uses a conservative’s evaluation of communism. By comparing and contrasting Marx’s theories, the politics of Lenin (who twisted Marx’s theories and created Bolshevism dictatorship), with Obama’s public policies recently enacted or awaiting political action, Dufrechou, therefore, makes a logical proof that Obama is not on the course of slipping in communism behind our backs. He uses logical facts that cannot be disputed, not rhetorical heresy, ad hominems, or absurd “it does not follow” nonsequiturs, as does Beck.
=== popurls.com === popular today…
yeah! this story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
Approximately 90% of college professors are Liberals. Would I believe what he says? No way would I believe a word of what he says over Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck does the investigation, and then puts it out for all of us to see. He does what the “Fringe Media” should be doing, but they are in the pocket of Obama and his cronies. You people that don’t see what is going on will one day wake up from your stupor and say “what the hell happened”?
Wow 90% ehh? Where did come up with those numbers…
Not only is this article totally true, Beck knows it. He doesn’t believe what he spouts – he’s just being a “shock jock” for the ratings, the fame, and the money.
Marx never said that violence couldn’t be condemned at all. He did it often enough- he and his followers voted Bakunin out of the International because Bakunin advocated terrorism.
He said the conflict shouldn’t be impeded. Conflict doesn’t mean violence- strikes are a part of conflict.
If you’re goint to pretend to educate people, to tell the truth about communism, then you should do that. What you shouldn’t do is misrepresent Marx in order to defend Barack Obama, it’s no different from Glenn Back misrepresenting Marx in order to attack Barack Obama.
OBAMA is a MARXIST! And a biased brainwashed dunderhead.
Dangerous to the MAX. LIVE WITH IT. You cannot deny or change it.
When Castro, Chavez, Quadaffi et al are praising Obama and calling him a brother and cackling that he is pushing America into socialism, I’d say there is something there.
As for Beck not providing any proof, that’s not true. He provides lots of proof, but all he does is ask questions. He doesn’t make claims. That is the point his critics fail to grasp.
You’re right, Beck does ask a lot of questions. But he does not provide logical proof for any his conclusions (suggestions?). He uses innuendo and implication to prove his points. Any first year philosophy major could tear apart his arguments, because they’re not based on sound reason. Just because you agree with his conclusion, doesn’t mean his argument makes any logical sense.
Asking questions in itself isn’t a problem, but how he asks them does raise some concerns. If I asked the question, “is there a FIRE???” in a crowded room, and people only heard the word fire, did I do anything wrong? I was only asking a question – nothing more. So what if people only held onto the last word, and because of that a panic was started? I didn’t make any claim to there being a fire.
And yet we know there is something wrong with this. It may not be illegal, but that doesn’t make it right.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with Obama – I certainly don’t agree with him on a number of things. But agreeing with the arguments of Beck, Hannity or O’Reilly is borderline insane. Those three in particular are so prone to making false statements, and using common devices that strain logic and reason to support their arguments that they should have no credibility.
There is no problem in agreeing with their conclusions, but to say they are supported with proof is just silly.
It is staggering how completely you’ve misrepresented Marxism in this article.
Having no objective basis for morality doesn’t mean that anything goes.
I’m an atheist, like Marx, and so have no objective moral standard. Does that mean I advocate violence? No, of course it doesn’t. It means I have no objective moral standard, and that’s all it means.
Marx’s famous “If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist” springs to mind, because it was a quote made about people who did advocate unrestrained violence.
Marxism posits that once the liberal revolution of society is complete (as opposed to protectionism, of which we have much still today- immigration controls are still considered sacred to all first-world societies, which Adam Smith hated as illiberal, for example), two antagonistic classes will be left, and the institutions of socialism will be formed in the struggle- just as the institutions of capitalism were formed in the struggle between nobility and bourgeoisie.
Class struggle is social, it’s political, it’s economic, it’s cultural- revolutions are cultural, social, economic, political. If you think struggle is just violence you’re at odds with Marxists, who don’t.
Lenin took a non-Marxist turn when he tried to build socialism over the top of an already totalitarian, feudalistic regime. Marx was put in a similar position as Lenin during the German revolution, and chose to oppose the communists and support liberalism- because he thought that true socialism could only be built by the workers in liberal society.
Hell, Glenn Beck claims to advocate a Free Market (he doesn’t)-
“Is that to say we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat.”
Glenn Beck is such a Marxist.
The topic of focus was the ethics of soviet communism, not of Marxism, in all of its manifestations and interpretations. If the exegesis were broadened to that point in the article, everything from psychoanalytic Marxism (as per Slavoj Zizek, et al) to Marxist literary theory (e.g. Terry Eagleton’s work) would need to be introduced. That would exceed beyond the scope of an article.
That’s the problem. Marxism is a very broad and very misunderstood body of thought and practice. What this article has done is reduce it to a (not very well developed) parody that’s been handed down by the anti-communist tradition in the U.S. for several generations. And nowhere is it clear in the piece that what is being described here is an “ethics of soviet communism.” It’s just that people can get away with equating communism with the history of the USSR and thus totalitarianism because the mainstream historical view of communism (and hence Marxism more generally) is that it was and can only ever be a colossal and terroristic failure. In any case, as MikeSC said above, you don’t need to misrepresent communism to prove that Obama isn’t a communist. Just point out his voting record as a senator, his actions as President, and his intimate links with Wall Street’s golden children.
That’s not what it says. What it says is- “This is what Marxism is, and this is what Obama’s politics are. See, completely different.”
But the Marxism bit is wrong. If he’d have done it right it would still be completely at odds with Obama and more in line with Glenn Beck- so the only reason he has for getting it wrong so spectacularly is to mislead.
If he wants to condemn the Soviet Union, fine. But what he says is “Marxism” this and “Marxism” that. If he wants to use that term he should know what Marx thought on the matter.
We are a nation of Media propaganda Ignorants. I cant stand reading these comments anymore!
When your ONLY source of information is a “news” channel(FoxNews), you are a slave of their bias propaganda.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mercypolitics: Glenn Beck And The Red Scare Revival http://bit.ly/1mZZvy #glenbeck,#foxnews,#media,#propaganda,#njp,#digg,#digguser,#p2, @doloresMbernal…
Speaking of back door, middle of the night politics, will they be repealing the unlawful internet gambling enforcement act any time soon?
Beck, Limblah, Hannity, O’reilly, Boortz….the list goes on, too many mouths of hate speak to count.
who can listen to these pig headed blowhards and not see that they are the ones creating this fear filled reality that is waterboarded into the eyes and ears of those who unfortunately listen to it, literally 24/7 with no end in sight?.
whining armchair commentators acting like meth addicts on a haunted house tour that never ends.
Motzart -”Glenn Beck does the investigation,” HAHA!!
you actually believe he does any investigation???
tally up his hours on air and tv and then all of that quality family time and church meetings his moral messiah must have to attend to – and tell me – please tell me, where does he find the time to investigate his findings?
alright im a junior in highschool and i can see messed up logic in all of this communism is a serious word and just like mcarthy beck is throwing around claims without any substantial or insubstantial evidence not one shred of proof besides gut feelings and twisted logic admitedly he can say whatever he wants protected under the constitution but this and things like this are ridiculous when senators and leaders throw stuff stuff like this around they have an audience every eye is on them minds as moldable as mine are on the line if they want to spread countrywide ignorance and restore their precious country to a group of uneducated citizens, teachers, leaders and politicians by all means allow them to restore the policies of the bush administration i for one speak for the youth of this country when i say a future in a strong proud country whose bark equals its bite whats the point of a militarty and superior weapons if we have no strategy to use them by think before u speak or make claims that is all thank you
Your argument is well stated except for the fact that you either left out or forgot the details of the people the President has chosen to surround himself with, those unelected people with more power than an elected official, amongst them are self-confessed Marxist’s and Mao supporters along with the Chicago political machine that is the poster child for neoptism and single party rule by a single family and their cronies, Castro hands off power to a Castro, Kim Sung Il will hand power off to his son, Daly passes power to a …..Daly. Many of those people are in key positions to carry out policies that the world has seen all socialist states take – control of what we hear, watch and read.
Perception is everything in these matters and if you put self-avowed socialists in charge of key areas of government then you are going to be accused of a plot to bring about a socialist system
It is those people who Beck point’s to on a regular basis and often prefaces his statement with the fact that while the president is not a proven socialist we should remember what we tell our children about choosing friends wisely and that we are often judged by the people we associate with.
Alan Shutler says:
“…the Chicago political machine that is the poster child for neoptism and single party rule by a single family and their cronies”
that sounds a lot like the Bush family and their cronies!
gimme a break – this Obama commie fear syndrome is all conjecture force fit into a hastily sculpted conspiracy theory created by the republican league of disinformation.
a muslim.
let’s list some of the misinformation spouted out by the fear mongering right.
Obama is
1) a nazi
2) a socailist.
3) a communist.
4) not an american citizen.
5) the antichrist.
6) a racist.
7) the messiah.
9) a gangster.
all of these calculated lies were created out of thin air by the right
they are chasing their tails, gnashing their teeth,
lost in fear, and acting like those 8 years of Bush were filled with nothing but pure americana. when instead Bush’s reign was exactly what they are blaming Obama of doing.
Obama’s support for Zelaya was troubling, not because Chavez also endorsed it, but because Zelaya was a Chavez wannabe who was attempting to circumvent the one unalterable tenet of the Honduran constitution, i.e., presidents may only serve one term. Zelaya’s power grab coincided with his suddenly very close friendship with Chavez, and the majority of Zelaya’s own party were against his unconstitutional maneuvering, as well as against his alliance with Chavez.
There is ample evidence Obama and his administration are admirers of any brutal dictator whose ideologies are similar to their own; the end justifies the means. Once this is understood, health care, climate change, and Acorn all clearly become simply means to an end. We could debate whether Obama’s power grabbing tactics (propaganda via the NEA and Hollywood, the Acorn thuggery, his debts to big labor unions, unnatural trysts with global corporations like GE and Goldman Sachs, and his corporatist rush to nationalize the auto industry, the financial industry, and health care) will inevitably lead to fascism or communism, but either way it will be totalitarian state.
The most disturbing thing about Obama is his dishonesty. Some may argue that it is simply politics, but I would contend that’s the problem with politics, and wasn’t Obama supposed to be all hopey and changey? Rather than using telerprompteriffic platitudes to avoid frightening the unwashed masses, can we please hear Obama seriously discuss his true beliefs and agenda? Why must the individual planks of social justice, economic justice, and environmental justice all be relegated to secret hidden video clips, when the broad platform of international socialism is obviously what this administration has in mind. Why are we not having public discussion and debates about this? Vladimir Lenin defined “socialism” as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism – are socialism and communism so hard to defend, intellectually, that they must be foisted upon us surreptitiously?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Video-proof-Obama-wants-a-single-payer-system-52699182.html
Here is the real fallacy in this article, its not the so called “non-sequiter” arguments beck makes, but the “non-sequiter” arguments the author makes. He states first about Marxism, then the terrifying methods that the Communist Lenin used to gain power through his “power politics” , as if this were the only approach to communism! Not at all true. American’s simply would not respond to a takeover such as what happened in Lenin’s Russia, so a new kind of takeover, more sneaky and subversive in nature, would need to take place in America!
Now, if we take a look at the core of Marxist theology, we see the loss of private property as its biggest requirement. How do they deprive people of thier property? Whether they call it taxes or nationalization, Obama has done some of both. The welfare system we have of taking property from the rich and giving it to the poor is one major step towards communism. As we see the government raising taxes and taking more private property, and raising the debt of the american people, we see a government that is slowly (or not so slowly) heading towards this very goal- The seizure of private property. So, Stephen Dufrechou, get your head out of Obama’s ass and see the truth okay?
Your point about fire stations is off target. The federal government has no constitutional authority to establish fire stations. That’s what we run our country off of, remember?
Suppose a president wanted to promote universal fire protection. Glen Beck and other constitutionally minded Americans would oppose this soundly, yelling, spitting, name-calling, and logical fallicies with a cherry on top. Why? Because it’s out of bounds, it’s not allowed by our constitution.
You’re right, it is a great idea….. for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PRIVATE CITIZENS! Read the 10th amendment. Thanks for making our point
The federal government, republicans and democrats, think that they have all the power to do any good they want to. I’m sorry, most of that power was rightly delegated to the individual states. The founding fathers decided what the enumerated powers of the legislature are for a reason, concentrated power takes freedom away, even with their benevolent reasons