Obama the Marxist

[Packo]

They could have voted against it, which, Repubs and Dems did. This pissed off Pelosi, Reid, and Bush to no end. It made most of America happy. The 3 afore mentioned assholes then berated those that voted against it, Pelosi and Reid forgetting to mention that 90+ Dems....BLESS THEIR HEARTS, voted with Republicans to stop this bullshit. Then after lots of arm twisting, it was approved. How friggin' sickening. I can't believe anybody, any more, believes in these assholes ON BOTH SIDES! We have a Reform candidate running against Sen. Lindsey Graham, who I used to like, and I'm voting for the Reform Candidate. If a Dem was running against him, I wouldn't vote for either. Oh, and to make matters worse, the original vote was about 700 billion. It went to 800 when approved. Dicks!

Pack

[darrels joy]

Obama Will "Spread The Wealth" To OTHER Countries

Rarely discussed part of the Obama "Economic Plan" is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights.

In 1966, with key help from the Soviet Union, the United Nations began promoting a monstrosity of a treaty known as
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It is chockablock with exactly the things Obama would say government must do on your behalf: provide housing, clothing, education, health care, employment, a living wage that accounts for comparative worth (meaning the government, under the guise of preventing discrimination, determines what you are paid), limited labor hours, paid vacation and holidays, paid parental leave, nearly unrestricted trade unionization, social security (including “social insurance”), “equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need,” and so on.

This treaty is all about redistributing the wealth WORLDWORLD Nixon and LBJ refused to sign it. Jimmy Carter did sign it. Since then it congress has refused to ratify it. But Senator Obama has said that he will make a renewed effort to get it ratified. With a filibusterer-proof Senate that will not be difficult.


Read more about this treaty (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm) and see how your rights will be limited IF Obama is successful in pushing it through:

Obama’s ‘Redistributive Change’ and the Death of Freedom
Beware the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

There should no longer be any dispute that Barack Obama’s aim is to socialize the American economy — as he vaporously puts it, to bring about “redistributive change.” The real question is how he’ll go about it. Very likely, the
answer lies in a potentially cataclysmic treaty that has gotten virtually no attention during the campaign: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

To rewind, Obama expressly endorsed “redistributive change” in a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview. Lamenting that
the Warren Court (the tribunal that spawned a revolution in criminals’ rights) “wasn’t that radical” after all, Obama sought to prove his point by citing the justices’ failure to take on “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

It was an early iteration of the socialist philosophy Obama recently made famous in an exchange the radical Chicago New Party (ACORN’s electoral arm with ties to the Socialist International).

By 2001, as he eyed national office, Obama put on mainstream airs. He couched his radicalism in soothing euphemisms.
“Economic justice,” however, is simply the finance angle of “social justice,” the with Joe Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the
Plumber.” Of course on the latter occasion, when Obama spoke of planning to “spread the wealth around,” it was a slip.

The candidate is far more guarded now than he was in 2001, just as he was more coy in 2001 than in his mid-Nineties
incarnation — when he first sought to represent an extremely left-wing district and embraced his endorsement by idée fixe of Obama and his coven of Change-agents — like Michael Klonsky, the communist educator who ran a “social justice” blog on Obama’s official campaign website. Such radicals give the Warren Court high marks on non-economic rights, but flunk the justices on redistribution: the purported right of society’s ne’er-do-wells to pick the pockets of its achievers through the coercive power of government.

OBAMA’S ANTI-CONSTITUTION
As Obama sees it, the Warren Court failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding
fathers in the Constitution.” The judges instead clung to the hoary construction of the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties” — one that says only what government “can’t do to you.” For Obama, economic justice demands the positive case: what government “must do on your behalf” (emphasis added).

True to form, Obama has twisted the most elementary points. First, the Framers viewed government as a necessary evil:
required for a free people’s collective security but, if insufficiently checked, guaranteed to devour liberty. The purpose of
the Constitution was not to make the positive case for government but for freedom. Freedom cannot exist without order, and thus implies some measure of government. But it is a limited government, vested with only the powers expressly enumerated. As the framers knew, a government that strays beyond those powers is necessarily treading on freedom’s territory. It is certain to erode the very “Blessings of Liberty” the Constitution was designed to secure.

Relatedly, the Constitution does state the positive case for government in its opening lines. Government is required to
safeguard the rule of law and the national security. These injunctions are vital: there is no liberty without them. Why, then, do Obama and other Leftists ignore them? Because they don’t involve picking winners and losers; they eschew social engineering. These guarantees, instead, are for everyone, uniformly: Government must “provide for the common general welfare” (emphasis added). The Blessings of Liberty are to be secured “to ourselves and to our posterity”—not to yourself at the expense of my posterity.

The question isn’t what government “must do on your behalf.” It is what government must do on ouragainstPace Obama,
failure is a part of life — there is no right against it.

The framers understood that there is no societal good in a government that “must do” for individuals and factions.

“Doing” is a zero-sum game. Government does not inherently have anything to give. What it awards you it must seize from me.

What it gives one faction it must deny to others. Such an arrangement is inimical to the Constitution’s purpose “to form a more perfect union.” It is, in fact, a prescription for disunion, for a house divided.

Freedom accepts that we are different. The endless variety of life assures that. I had every opportunity to become just as good a basketball player as Michael Jordan, but he has natural gifts and worked harder. If we played a hundred times, he would whip me a hundred times by about 500 points. No Change, no matter how rapturously framed, could alter that
result without chaining him to the bench and rendering the game no longer recognizable as basketball. That would be
perversion, not justice.

Yet, this is just what Obama’s “economic justice” envisions: that the government can hamstring Michael Jordan and give
me enough freebies that, despite his talent and industry, he can only play me to a tie, destroying his incentive to excel
while the Bulls go out of business, no longer able to afford even my mediocrity. Naturally, such an absurd system requires change. Redistribution smothers the freedom our Constitution is designed to foster. It is therefore antithetical to our law.

Obama knows this. Consequently, as he said in 2001, he is not surprised that courts saddled with such a Constitution
have not been a useful route to economic justice. What is surprising, at least at first blush, is that Obama doesn’t fret too much about that. As a matter of fact, in his estimation, the civil rights movement was too “court focused.”

This is because Obama is a true revolutionary. It’s not that he doesn’t want socialist economic policies; he does. And it’s
not that he doesn’t think the courts should impose “economic justice” just as the Warren Court imposed “social justice”;
again, he does. It’s that he believes the Warren era reliance on the judiciary as principal change agent led to the atrophy of more forceful and promising methods: namely, “the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Political and community organizing activities on the ground? Think of ACORN, Obama’s old comrades at the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now: engaged in massive (often fraudulent) voter-registration efforts to over-represent society’s bottom-dwellers; handing Leftist politicians a ready-to-enact legislative agenda of confiscatory
taxes, laws forcing banks to make home-loans to unqualified borrowers, “living wage” laws that kill jobs, corporate “exit
visas” to trap businesses in urban areas enervated by government’s central planning, “sustainable development”
regulations to redistribute wealth from the suburbs to the cities, global poverty relief to redistribute wealth from American citizens to the third-world dictators, and Leftist political indoctrination in the public schools.
defense” and “promote the behalf. In general, the positive power of government is for the body politic, not the individual.

Of course individuals have rights. But those rights comprise a sphere of personal liberty government. In that sphere, each individual Joe the Plumber is free to work hard, or not; to make of his life what he will, bearing personally the
consequences of his choices. Freedom, after all, includes the freedom to fail.

REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE: THE DEATH OF FREEDOM

Obama, the Leftist community organizer schooled in the radical methods of Saul Alinsky, recognizes that in the current
legal landscape legislation will be necessary to impose the injustice he calls “economic justice.” Lawmakers needn’t do all
the work. Politically unaccountable judges, many favorably predisposed toward Leftist schemes, can be a force multiplier.

First, however, they must be given just enough legislative license.

As luck would have it, a President Obama may be well positioned to give that license at the very start of his term, without the political risk inherent in proposing his own detailed “economic justice” program. The solution is ready to hand: all it needs is an election-day tide that swells the Democrats’ Senate majority.

In 1966, with key help from the Soviet Union, the United Nations began promoting a monstrosity of a treaty known as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It is chockablock with exactly the things Obama would say government must do on your behalf: provide housing, clothing, education, health care, employment, a living wage that accounts for comparative worth (meaning the government, under the guise of preventing discrimination, determines what you are paid), limited labor hours, paid vacation and holidays, paid parental leave, nearly unrestricted trade unionization, social security (including “social insurance”), “equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need,” and so on.

This economic-justice compact was so patently socialist that, even at the height of his Great Society and War on Poverty, President Lyndon Johnson declined to sign it. So did Presidents Nixon and Ford. But alas, there is always Jimmy Carter.

Thirty years ago, he signed the ICESCR, but it has languished ever since, never ratified. President Clinton lauded the treaty but shrank from prodding the senate, where staunch Republican opposition made the required two-thirds approval margin a pipedream.

Obama, by contrast, expects to have the wind at his back, at least for a time. Gone is the Republican Congress of the
Clinton years. Despite their appalling performance and historically low approval ratings, cocky Democrats expect to pad
their congressional majorities. They anticipate inching close to 60 seats, or beyond. With an assist from the usual GOP
moderates — who’d no doubt be anxious to join a charismatic new president in a bipartisan effort to “improve America’s
image in the world” — the 67 votes needed for ratification could be attainable.

The Constitution stipulates that, once ratified, a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land. No longer would Obama
need to worry about the “essential constraints” that relegate our fundamental law to “a charter of negative liberties.”

Federal judges would now be unleashed to direct the redistributions necessary to ensure a “living wage” and the
ICESCR’s remaining laundry list of economic rights. Congressional Democrats, egged on by ACORN and its hard Left
allies, would craft legislation to further codify, explain and expand on them.

Change will have arrived. At long last we’ll have realized Obama’s ideal of economic justice. But freedom, the ideal that
makes America America, will have perished.

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the FDD’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of
Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/...-to-other.html

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

US Ratification of ICESCR?
http://www.religionhumanrights.com/L...rat.icescr.htm

[Gimpy]

Andrew C. McCarthy? National Review?---------Surely you jest?


Notoriously known "neo-con" and the MOST right-wing national publication in the country, the National Review?


People (at least the SMART ONES) are FINALLY wising up to the fact that anything coming out of publications like that..... or the mouths of dingbats like McCarthy are either outright LIES or at best misinformation!


The past 28 years of Republican domination in national government has brought us to this.


Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither healthy competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia.


Instead, predation has become the dominant feature — a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; and it may be opposed by many (or at least a few) others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we now live. We are now in a "Predator State"! You can also thank Dick Cheney. He had a "plan" way back in 1989 as Bush 41's SecDef to "downsize" our military (remember the 'Peace Dividend"?) and open up millions of $$$$$$$$ for private firms like "Halliburton" to rape the Federal Treasury of funds that would have been going to a susbstantial military rather than greedy corporate raiders! Oh yeah, and THEN he went to work for Halliburton........you REALLY think this was just a "coincidence"? Nope----just good PLANNING by Cheney!


These facts now beg an important question:....... if conservatives no longer take free markets seriously, why should liberals? Why keep liberal thought in the straitjacket of pay-as-you-go, of assigning inflation control to the Federal Reserve, of attempting to "make markets work"? Why not build a new economic policy based on what is really happening in this country?


The real economy is not a free-market economy. It is a complex combination of private and public institutions, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education, the housing finance system, and a vast federal research establishment. The real problems and challenges -- inequality, climate change, the "two front" Wars we're now in, the infrastructure deficit, the subprime crisis, and the future of the dollar -- are problems that cannot be solved by incantations in and about the "market". They will be solved only with planning, with standards and other policies that transcend and even transform the "markets"


The cult of the so called "free market" has dominated economic policy-talk since the Reagan revolution of nearly thirty years ago. Tax cuts and small government, monetarism, balanced budgets, deregulation, and free trade are the core elements of this ridiculous policy, a policy deemed to be so successful that even many liberals accepted it. Man oh man, look how WELL that worked out, right?


But a funny thing happened on the bridge to the twenty-first century. While many liberals continue to bow before the free-market altar, conservatives in the style of George W. Bush have abandoned it altogether. That is why old time principled conservatives -- the Reagan true believers -- long ago abandoned George W. Bush.


First, all you need to do is dissect the stale remains of Reaganism and shows how Bush and company had no choice except to dump them into the trash.


And then explore the true nature of the Bush regime: a "corporate republic," bringing the methods and mentality of big business to public life; a coalition of lobbies, doing the bidding of clients in the oil, mining, military, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, insurance, and media industries; and a predator state, intent not on really reducing government, but rather on diverting public cash into private hands. Can you say "Halliburton"...or KBR? In plain English, the Republican Party has been hijacked by political leaders who long since stopped caring if actual reality conformed to their message.


We need to break the spell that conservatives have cast over the minds of not only liberals, but everyone else now for many years. It's all been a big damn LIE! The current conditions PROVE this without question!


And also continue to bust the "myth" of the Republican right-wing economic fundamentalism that has captured public atention in recent years, and offer a more cogent path and guide to the real future of our economy.


Something these "new" type of Democrats like Barrack Obama will do.


Time to change horses, AND "tactics"!


Gimp

[Gimpy]

this is my point.

You DON'T want to "debate"............or WON'T "debate"............just continually regurgitate and spout nonsensical "talking points" from right-wing idealogues or radical neo-con nincompoops from right-wing web sites and/or media outlets.

Can't you speak for yourself?

You're nothing more than a serial "copy-editor".............I had that job about 25 years ago until I finally got the notion that I could damn sure say things for MYSELF that were much more intelligent and to the point than the folks writing "copy" for me..............Kinda like what you're doing now, ya know?

Having OTHER DINGBATS use you for their "mouthpiece".

Just consider the "source(s)" of ALL your happy horsecrap........folks can see what folly you continue to attempt to amuse us with.

Pathetic.................


Gimp

[reconeil]

...AS USUAL.

Bush & Administration DID NOT determine, set the amount
& pass The Financial/Bank: "The Bail-Out" into Law of Land.

The DEMOCRAT MAJORITY CONTROLLED Senate & Congress DID.

Neil

[darrels joy]

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

[Gimpy]

THAT "STUPID"! Are you Reconut???

This proposal was orginated and first drafted by the Bush Administrations Secretary Paulson for God's sake!

The ONLY thing the "Dems" did was to offer up some revisions to HELP PROTECT this nations consumers AND taxpayers!

You surely CAN'T be THAT DUMB,.............or can you?????


Gimp

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by darrels joy

international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

i rest my case!...........see below!


Gimp

Originally Posted by gimpy

this is my point.

You don't want to "debate"............or won't "debate"............just continually regurgitate and spout nonsensical "talking points" from right-wing idealogues or radical neo-con nincompoops from right-wing web sites and/or media outlets.

Can't you speak for yourself?

You're nothing more than a serial "copy-editor".............i had that job about 25 years ago until i finally got the notion that i could damn sure say things for myself that were much more intelligent and to the point than the folks writing "copy" for me..............kinda like what you're doing now, ya know?

Having other dingbats use you for their "mouthpiece".

Just consider the "source(s)" of all your happy horsecrap........folks can see what folly you continue to attempt to amuse us with.

Pathetic.................


Gimp

[reconeil]

Stop being yourself and/or A Jerk for-a-change.

"The ONLY thing 'Dems' did was the revisions to HELP PROTECT this nations consumers
AND taxpayers" statement of yours was a lie & lame,...even by fork-tongued Democrat
Standards (actually no standards whatsoever). Wiser believing snakes than Democrats.

And besides Oh Lame-O,...only idiots could possibly believe that Democrats ACTUALLY
intend: "To HELP PROTECT this nations consumers AND taxpayers", by placing this MEGA:
"Bail-Out" back in the very same hands and/or same 2 YEAR DEMOCRAT MAJORITY Chaired
Oversight Committees ala inept & grifting Barney Frank style,...whom pretty-much fiddled
for 2 years and permitted The Debacle occuring in the first place.

That Chairman of The Banking & Finance Committee, Democrat Congressman Barney Frank
wasn't taken out & drawn & quartered or at least jailed, should tell people all they should
ever have to know about their glorious Democrat Big Brother Leaders & Wannabies.

People should be asking how come someone so inept at job like Barney Frank is still on
The Public Dole and/or Public Payroll, and also still pompously spouting same Democrat Political BULL as before?

Hell,...Willy Sutton could've handled America's Banking & Finance BETTER than Barney Frank.

Neil

[Packo]

The Republicans took over the congress in 1994, 14 years ago. The Dem's took it back, 2 years ago. That would make 12 years, 6 years of that with a Democrat President, not 28 years. Gimp....fuzzy math? Until 1994 the Democrats owned the government for 38 years. As you know, the President, either Republican or Democrat, basically does not legislate, the Congress does. I could be wrong, but you confused me with the 28 year thing. Was I asleep for a few? It's okay...correct me if I'm wrong. Oh, and Clinton had the same no bid contract with Haliburton as Bush did. I think these no bids are for in time of emergency. You see, after 27 years of Guvmint employment, I know how long the contract process is. There are only certain companies that can come up with stuff almost immediately. In War, if you wait for the normal process, the war'd be over before anything would be done. Believe me. How come you and I can talk without all the name callin'?

Pack