
Obama's Grand Strategic Error
The American Thinker ^ | November 03, 2010 | Christopher Chantrill
So President Obama really is a socialist after all. According to Stanley Kurtz in Radical-in-Chief the young Obama went to socialist conferences in the 1980s and then became participant in the extensive socialist community in Chicago.
In the aftermath of the historic midterm elections it's safe to say that, whether the president really is a socialist or not, Americans don't care. Whether or not he walks and talks like a socialist, they just don't hold with a president in the White House that governs like a socialist. You can judge the depth of their displeasure for yourself by comparing the 2010 midterm election with other notable midterms at usmidtermelections.com.
Of course, the socialists that young Barack Obama palled around with in Chicago didn't call themselves socialists. They called themselves radicals, communitarians, and community organizers; they didn't want people to know who they were. Ron Radosh in National Review:
"As Kurtz reveals [in Radical-in-Chief], the socialist theorists openly talked about what they called 'stealth socialism' or 'incremental radicalism,' small steps that move the nation forward until the ultimate goal of a socialist transformation is obtained."
The grand strategy of the Chicago socialist community was Leninist: the worse the better. Lefty thinkers at the Midwest Academy dreamed up plans that would destabilize capitalism and then destroy it. Community-organizing outfits like ACORN would bully the banks and flood the mortgage market with dead-beat borrowers. Same thing on health care. They would load up the insurance companies with mandatory benefits and crash the health care industry. A frightened populace would demand a government takeover of housing or health care, and bingo: full socialism in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
1 comments:
The crucial point your are missing is the massive, unprecedented, electoral fraud perpetrated by the Communists.
Whether it is O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, or Fiorina, the only reason for their loss is electoral terrorism by the communists.
The US Army and US Marines do not stand for this in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Why do they stand aside here?
Post a Comment