A new leftist era?

It certainly looks like Obama is handing over Central America to commie dictators. But then what do I know? On the other hand, Tom Hayden seems convinced. He seems to believe that Obama is in league with the commies in our southern hemisphere. At the very least he believes Obama is highly sympathetic to the cause of global communism. But maybe he just sees what he urgently hopes for.

Apparently, Obama and Chavez have had lengthy (friendly) talks.

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano.

What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present. ~tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

Couple this with the fact that Obama has erroneously backed a leftist ally of Chavez who attempted to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and what you have is an apparent preference for 21st century socialism.

The idea that the left here in this country defends Obama and the would-be dictator Zelaya should be a caution. Is this something the left would approve of here in the US? The left views our own consitution as a, 'flexible,' 'living document,' that can be reinterpreted as they see fit for every 'new era.'

Meanwhile Obama (and his news media) is silent about Chavez's threats to invade Honduras to install Zelaya as a puppet of the new socialism. In fact, Chavez even printed the illegal ballots for Zelaya's overthrow of the Honduras constitution.

What I think this reveals is that Obama is a stealth candidate whose purpose must remain mainly concealed from the general public because his true leftist policies would be completely rejected by a majority of Americans.

Thus Obama has to rely on doublespeak and alternating liberal and conservative messages about his policies. He says one thing while doing another. He claims to be for fiscal responsibility but then increases the deficit by a trillion dollars. He claims a, "fierce moral urgency," in ending indefinite detention but then continues the policy. He claims not to be hostile to capitalism but then begins nationalizing the auto industry and begins the nationalization of the heath care industry.

Chavez, Zelaya, Castro, and Obama, captains of a new era.

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 10, 2009 9:03 PM
Comment #284326

What a wonderful argument. You don’t have to offer real evidence that Obama is a communist, because of course he’s a hidden communist, right, and he’d be hiding it, so there wouldn’t be any outright evidence.

So, we can blow up small little Republican disagreements with him into claims of being a friend of Stalin’s.

If this is the Republican’s way back to the top, it’s going to be a long way down.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2009 12:44 AM
Comment #284328

Appears rejection of the notion of threatening any regime not a mirror image of our own failing democracy, would constitute a commie-loving president to some Republican supporters who need no logic, reason, or evidence to resurrect the McCarthy red scare era. No wonder the Party of NO has so much NO fuel to keep them down and out of the majority.

Too bad, too. Because America needs a viable competitive party to constrain the excesses of power of the Democratic Party. But, alas, there is only the Party of NO! No reason, no logic, no evidence, just a sound belief that anything not reflected in their mirror is wrong, bad, evil, or communist and should be bombed out of existence to increase the profits of investors in our industrial-militaristic based economy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2009 1:47 AM
Comment #284338

Oh, and as for a new leftist era? “You betcha” as one prominent Republican would say. But, who do we have to thank for that? The Republicans. They are the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats with Palin, Ensign, Sanford, Rush, Hannity, Malbach, or whatever her name is.

And we can’t forget that President which everyone not a Republican, and many Republicans, thanked some almighty for term limits on: good ole Mr. Peter Principle, GW. These and some others like Abramoff, Cunningham, and DeLay are to thank for Democrats having their way in fashioning a new leftist era. Not a new era, a new Leftism.

It is rare that a party oversees two recessions during its reign in power. Republicans pulled it off. Now they are paying the price along with the rest of Americans. And it wouldn’t matter if the Martian Party were in office today, the cost of putting our humpty dumpty economy back together again would mandate enormous deficit spending and increases in our, already doubled, national debt under Mr. Peter Principle.

Sorry, eric, but, the GOP doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They need Viagra just to sit up.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2009 11:22 AM
Comment #284342

David Remer, what excesses of power being conducted by the Democrats need to be constrained by the Republicans?

How about the public healthcare option. From what I have been hearing, Obama has already taken that offensive excess of the Democrats off the table and is begging the Republicans and the Senate Democrats to help him.

How effective were the Democrats at countering the excess of the Republicans during the last eight years? We are just now learning that the Bush surveilance program was far more invasive and far less effective than we were led to believe. Good job Democrats, you really constrained that excess of the Republicans.

Despite the rediculous commie retoric of the Republicans, the only things being suppressed are progressive ideas.

It seems to me that the primary things being labled government excesses are those things that threaten the corporations bottom line.

Posted by: jlw at July 11, 2009 12:03 PM
Comment #284346

jlw, how about the pork-laden bills they have been passing? Seems like GW took the veto pen with him !

How about all the meetings and compromises with the corporate heads, some even attempted as secret, by WH personnel, and canceled when discovered.

How about the excessive immigration at a time when unemployment is nearing 10%? Pretty excessive.

How about amnesty legislation BEFORE the border barrier construction is completed?

How about AIG’s bonuses, AGAIN!

How about taxing the poorest in America through cigarette tax hikes of $1 per pack. Pretty excessive, especially considering not a cent is being spent by the tobacco companies or the government to provide smoking cessation medical help. Purely punitive toward the poor and poorest, and some middle class.

How about all that Foreign Aid at a time when our future is being bankrupted under mountains of debt? I’d call that excessive extra-national prioritization.

For the most part, the Democratic majority didn’t even try to curb the excesses of the Republicans. They figured giving Republicans all the rope they wanted was smart national policy. WRONG!

Sorry, but, the Obama administration is suppressing a whole lot of crap as secret and top secret for pure expedience. Same as GW Bush. It is suppressing investigation and prosecution of crimes against the Constitution, treaties, and laws of this land under the Bush administration, and now under the Obama administration (a few CIA agents still working for the Obama admin after having violated Constitution, treaty, and law.)

And how about Obama’s quiet little exercise in maintaining civilian surveillance of America citizens?

It is not just things threatening corporate bottom lines. Not at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #284348


“Couple this with the fact that Obama has erroneously backed a leftist ally of Chavez who attempted to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and what you have is an apparent preference for 21st century socialism.”

Does the fact that the takeover was condemned by virtually the whole planet make all of the countries that condemned the coup “socialist”?

Gee, dude, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean everybody isn’t out to get you.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 11, 2009 12:58 PM
Comment #284349

As far as I’m aware, Obama walked Rahm Emmanuel off the claim that the public option was off the table, and he and others are trying their best to keep it in. And perhaps with good reason: The Public Option costs less than the alternatives, to the tune of 150 billion.

David R. Remer-
Could you provide us with example of the pork-laden bills so we could more properly discuss this?

Also, be careful about your assumptions. From what I hear Enforcement is up, and the illegal immigration is going Going down.

As for a border barrier?

I’ve told you this before, in a day and age in which international trade, especially with Mexico and Canada, is thriving, and information technology makes it easier to attain and fake papers that make ones movements appear legitimate, no physical barrier will prove adequate. People will come in through legal and seemingly legal channels, and once in the country, they will find it none too difficult to stay.

Internal enforcement is crucial for this reason, and I applaud the steps that the Obama administration has taken. No wall, in an age of fast boats and aircraft, can keep out folks who are encouraged by economic prosperity to come here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2009 2:04 PM
Comment #284355

As a matter of the Rule of Law how is it possible to charge a man before he breaks the Law? For say what you want about the Idiot wanting to change the constitution of his country, without the smoking gun (i.e. signed piece of paper) did not his opposition use Preemptive Law Enforement to kick him out of the country?

Yes, I agree the man should on been impeached and put in front of the Courts of the Land; however, the idea that a group of people can play Judge and Jury based on one voicing their political opinion goes way beyind even President Bush wanting to use preemptive strikes because he believes someone has WMD’s.

So, why I am happy to see that you have just noticed that the Democratic Party today is not the same party as their Parents and Grandparents of the 70’s. To say that President Obama believes in communism or socialism when he and Congress has not told the Automotive Companies or Banks that they will do X.Y, and Z is false to say the least.

True, he would rather look out for the best interst of Big Business and the Institutions of the Establishment instead of promoting the Individual American taking control and learning how to become Self-Sufficient by cutting their cost through the use of renewable resources. Yet, given that the No-Nothing Party would rather keep Americans enslaved to forgien oil and 20th Century technology so only a few of their Chosen Few can act like they have it all. I have to wonder if they do not hide in support of the leaders of Iran ruling with an iron fist. For with the motto “My Way or the Highway” fresh in the minds of the American Public, I wonder what the Conservative Leadership would do if a thrid party would attempt to fight them over who represents the second political party in America.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at July 11, 2009 11:06 PM
Comment #284382

Stephen D., three weeks before Emmanuel made his revelation, I heard that the Administration had taken the public option off the table. Emmanuel just made it public knowledge and got slapped on the wrist for doing so. Cost is not the controlling factor. Profit is.

David R. My question to you was, what excesses of power being conducted by the Democrats need to be constrained by the Republicans.

Your answer was a litany of Republican excesses that are being continued by Obama and the Democrats.

Why would the Republicans want to constrain the Democrats from continuing Republican excesses?

I agree with you completely on every issue that you mentioned and if you examine them closer, you will notice that nearly all of them have a corporate connection.

I warned you, before this past election, that Obama was no Messiah or even a revolutionary. I warned you that Obama and the Democrats would maintain the corporate statis quo no matter what.

The American people with their zelous desire for inattentiveness have goten themselves in a terrible mess with their two party system and no matter which way they turn, there is no relief.

BEWARE of liberals, especially the ones wearing progressive clothing. They are the worst because they are lying to you and they know it.

BEWARE of conservatives, especially the ones wearing populist clothing. They are the worst because they are lying to you and they know it.

Bush lied. Obama lied. What’s new?

Posted by: jlw at July 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Comment #284397


I’m sorry but the evidence is mounting about Obama’s true intellectual and philosophical beliefs.


Well, if you believe that Capitalism is the problem, I suppose you would favor Obama’s policies. But I happen to think that government is a symbiont that shouldn’t get bigger than it’s host. Else, the host may die. But then that may be the ultimate goal here afterall???

Posted by: eric at July 13, 2009 12:12 AM
Comment #284404


You forgot to use the word pinko, in your pre Vietnam-Korea era rant.

Posted by: gergle at July 13, 2009 2:15 AM
Comment #284418

You know, you can convince folks on the Red Column, but people like me are the same people you accuse of being socialists and communists, and we know we’re not socialists or communists.

So, why would I trust your assessment, being one of the people who believes your assessment of Democrats in general is erroneous? Why would anybody like me believe it, for that matter?

You talk for people’s ultimate goals in spite of what they themselves say, and according to your logic, we have to believe what you say about them, being a hardline conservative, rather than what they say about themselves, being whatever they are. What makes you folks so special, that everybody must take your word for it?

You want people to judge other’s proposals and actions based on your politics. You want to win the argument before it’s even had, rather than let people see things for themselves. You don’t trust them. You see them as targets for manipulation, one way or another.

At the end of the day, free will is a necessity of this system. Manipulations have a tendency to entangle and ensnare the manipulators. If you don’t respect people’s right to see and choose for themselves, that will come across, bit by bit, until it becomes obvious to people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 13, 2009 4:23 PM
Comment #284452


“At the end of the day, free will is a necessity of this system. Manipulations have a tendency to entangle and ensnare the manipulators. If you don’t respect people’s right to see and choose for themselves, that will come across, bit by bit, until it becomes obvious to people.”

stephen, i don’t think you realize just how truely prophetic this statement is. i hope you’re right.

Posted by: dbs at July 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Comment #284466

I didn’t know Central America countries belonged to Obama to hand over to anyone. Aren’t they sovereign, in their own right? Aren’t their people responsible for who leads their country’s government? Or, as eric seems to postulate, does the whole world belong to America’s president’s to do with as he wills?

Preposterous on its face, the opening to this article.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #284485


“does the whole world belong to America’s president’s to do with as he wills?”

Don’t you see?
It all fits with the hegemonic desires of those that supported the last administration.

According to;


The United States already has nearly 1000 military installations throughout the world.

Following Eric’s theme;
Isn’t it amazing just how much Obama has been able to accomplish in a mere 5.5 months to personally take over the world?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 14, 2009 10:42 PM
Comment #284511

Eric, in the past, many of our presidents, both Republican and Democrat, were actively helping South American leaders. You know, back when most of them were right wingers that our corporations loved working with.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #284513

Just to put a death nail in the birth certificate conspiracists’ coffins:


Posted by: gergle at July 15, 2009 2:50 PM
Comment #285211

All the left wants is someone to pay for their free lifestyle. Basically, they want all of the hard-working upper-middle and upper income Americans to finance them. Their only argument -for wanting free rent, free insurance, and free rent - is that they “deserve it”.

It is time to stop Welfare, NO FREE HEALTH, and no free lunch.

Let us get back to America when you had to work hard and earn a living. The harder you worked the better you lived. Even, Sotoliberal, worked her way up from nothing. This should give all of the bleeding heart liberals hope that they too can get off welfare and back to work.

Why should I have to give up my earned income for someone else to have health care? Those who are whining about not having health insurance would not give up their lifestyles so I could have a new car. I would bet that they are just looking at the word “free” and thinking it means “less work”. Well in fact it does. Less work for the free-loaders and more work for you and I who were smart enough to work hard for gainful employment and college degrees.

Posted by: LeftisWrong at July 28, 2009 3:14 PM
Post a comment