History will look at those who speak out at the Townhall meetings as heroes who seek to preserve the remaining greatness of America.

As Obama moves with his dictatorial health care "reform", which would allow him to decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they get, the American people are rising up to say no to his dictatorial Socialist health care agenda. Barack Obama is the antithesis of the greatness of America.Those courageous Americans who speak out against Obama's dictatorial Socialist health care agenda are heroes. History will remember them as heroes.

Those courageous Americans get called all sorts of names. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called them Nazis. Another top Democrat bureaucrat Harry Reid called them evil doers [he, Pelosi, Obama and the other Democrat bureaucrat who push for Socialism are the real evil doers]. The American government is full of incompetent imbeciles who can't even run Cash forKlunkers. Now, the Obama bureaucracy wants to control health care and who can live or die. Obama's wife Michelle Obama and many people who now serve in the Obama Administration ran a clinic in Chicago that was notorious for patient dumping people. Now, we [Americans] are being asked to give the same people control of our health care system. Except it'll be her husband who runs the health care system.

As Sean Hannity said, Obama seeks to nationalize our bodies. Obama's goal is to have more control of the country. He seeks to control who can live or not. The heroic Americans who speak out at the Townhall meetings seek to preserve the remaining greatness of America, the very greatness that Obama seeks to eradicate. Obama told the conservative opposition to shut up. I give my [sarcastic] apology to President Obama for exercising our democratic right to oppose his Socialist reforms, which would mean the eradication of the greatness of America.

Those who speak at the Townhall meetings are the result of the awakening of the American people to Obama's Socialist agenda, as well as his anti-life Socialist dictatorial health care "reform". Obama wants control over who can live or die. The American people have said,"Enough is enough". January 20, 2009 is doomsday because that's when we got a really crappy president in the White House.

My heart goes out to all those at the Townhall meetings who stand up to the Socialist agenda of the democrat bureaucrats. Obama's health care "reform" is one of the major reasons why I hope Obama fails.

By Benyamin Solomon
For raising up against the same type of tyranny his ally Zelaya sought to impose on Honduras that he imposed on Venezuela, the Venezuelan Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez threatened to invade Honduras. If Venezuela does invade, the international community, instead of bullying Honduras, should isolate Venezuela and impose sanctions on that country. The international community incuding the UN and the OAS should make that clear that that's what they'll do to Venezuela if Chavez does invade Honduras. The US has a duty to lead that effort and to make it clear that it won't tolerate any invasion that Venezuela launches against Honduras. Unfortuantly, with the pro-appeasement Obama in the White House, that is not going to happen. It won't happen since the international community is bullying Honduras and is ignoring Hugo Chavez's vile threats to that country for choosing democracy instead of Chavez-like tyranny.
The US, with Honduras's permission, should even fight to drive the Venezuelan invaders out if Chavez does make the desicion to launch the terorrist invasion. Chavez invaidng Honduras is very much like the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary and Czecklosovokia, in which the USSR oppressed the pro-democracy demonstrations in those countries. Like the USSR's invasions of those countries [they were part of the Soviet Union], it would mean a totalitarian Communist country invading a country for choosing democracy over Communist tyranny.
Venezuela has no moral or legal right to invade Honduras. When South Africa had those racist Apartheid policies toward the black majority in that country, the international community rightly condemned it and imposed sanctions on that country. If Chavez does invade Honduras, the international community, especially the USA, has a moral duty to make it clear that they would have the same policies to Venezuela that the international community including guys like Desomond Tutu had toward Apartheid South Africa and even the same policies that George Bush Sr. had toward Saddam's Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. The response needs to be harsh in order to send a clear message to Chavez to back off. The international community, especially the USA, needs to send a clear message that that will be their response if Chavez does invade Honduras. The international community needs to make it clear to Chavez that any invasion of Honduras would be very costly and would have harsh consequences. The USA, which lead the free world [though that may no longer be the case with Obama in the White House], has the biggest duty to make that clear. The USA and the international community has to, through word and deed, make it clear that any Venezuelan invasion of Honduras is unacceptable. And the victorious Communist propaganda on Latin America that makes it look heroic has  to shut up. It's about time that the international community including the USA says no to that propaganda and make it no longer victorious. I'd say that if Chavez does launch any invasion of Honduras, Venezuela should be suspened from the OAS and even treated more as a rogue state. The international community [especially the USA] has to make it clear that that would be their reaction if Chavez does invade Honduras. If Chavez goes ahead with the terrorist invasion, the international community [especially America] has to act on it and make it clear that they won't tolerate any Venezuelan invasion of Honduras.

By Benyamin Solomon
 The reaction to the "coup" in Honduras showed that the victorious Communist propaganda in Latin America, which is believed by Obama and his former pastor Jerimiah Wright, has gotten out of control. For saying no to a Chavez-like agenda from the dictator Manuel Zelaya, the international community including the UN and the OAS are bullying Honduras. Those who are leading the anti-democratic bullying agression against Honduras are Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, all of whoma re [or were] Communist dictators.
Even our disgraceful President Barack Obama, who shook Chavez's hand, joined in the international bullying of Honduras for saying no to Zelaya's anti-democratic agenda. It's done in the name of democracy. It isn't democratic one bit. It's basically the international community struggling to impose a Chavez-like dictator on Honduras.
Hugo Chavez threatened to invade Honduras just for saying no to the lawlessness of his ally. Obama, who took days just to give an actual condemnation of the Iranian regime's oppression on the pro-democracy demonstraters, denounced the "coup" hours after it happened. The White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the US won't accept any leader but Zelaya. Secretary of State Hiliary Clinton accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" for having the "coup", which she stated "should be condemned by all." The OAS, which allowed  Cuba back into as a member of the body, is threatening to suspend Honduras for defending its democracy from the lawlessness of the Chavez-like Zelaya. Hiliary Clinton should know that it's Cuba that violates "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" as you can see from the testimony from guy like Armando Valladares and many Cuban-American who are victims of bigotted abuse by the "tolerant" left and who are called "worms" by them. Let me say that the real "worms" are guys like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Manuel Zelaya and many other Marxist dictators who are praised by the victorious Communist propaganda on Latin America, which I found myself opposing about a year ago [to be exact, it is months before that]. In this blog, I already stated the hypocrisy of the OAS for allowing Cuba back despite its human rights violations, its support of terrorism, and its aim the same spreading Communist tyranny that was imposed in that country and for threatening to suspend Honduras for saying no to the Chavez-like lawlessness from Zelaya. Obama is the biggest gift these Marxist totalitarians in Latin America like Chavez, Castro and Ortega could ask for. Under Obama, America's policy toward Latin America would be just as idiotic as it was when the US abandoned the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters, who got close to freeing and democratizing Cuba.
Many nations are threatening retaliation if any of their guys are attacked. The new Honduras government is courageous in its stand to defend the rule of law and democracy in Honduras. The ymade it clear that the only way to get Zelaya back is an invasion. If Hugo Chavez does launch an invasion, he should be severly punished and isolated. If Chavez does launch a terrorist invasion of that country, Obama would not condemn it, since his policy toward Latin America is pro-Marxist. Obama thinks America is arrogant. Obama, you are MAKING our country arrogant. When democratic institutions rise up against Chavez-like Marxist-like lawlessness, America should support the democratic institutions, as it did under Ronald Reagan. Reagan understood the brutalities of the Sandinistas and that they're a proxy of the Soviet Union. He supported the Contra freedom fighters who fought to free their country from Sandinista brutality. Unlike Obama, Regan didn't buy into the victorious Communist BS on Latin America. Why is it any of America's buisness to make sure that Zelaya is back to being the President? Why? What US interest does that serve? I'll tell you. NONE!
Honduras is courageously standing up to the bullying abuse by the international community for saying no to the Chavez-like lawlessness of Manuel Zelaya. If we had any Reagan-like President in the White House, the US would stand with the democratic institutions of Honduras and their struggle for democracy and the rule of law in that country in the face of the bullying by the international community including the UN and the OAS. But Obama is the antithesis of Regan. So Obama is now a big time accomplice of the bullying of Honduras. He even sponsored a UN resolution along with Chavez that condemned Honduras for the "coup" that restored democracy and the rule of law. That is arrogance, Obama. Obama is the best gift anti-American dictators could ask for. When it comes to the struggle of Honduras for democracy and the rule of law in the face of the bullying it puts up with, Obama is on the wrong side. When it comes to the struggle for democracy and the rule of law in Honduras, the world including the UN and the OAS are on the wrong side.

By Benyamin Solomon
The Organization of American States [OAS], which allowed Cuba to be a member, now condemns Honduras for courageously defending its democracy from Chavez-style Marxist tyranny.
What happened in Honduras is not a "coup" nor a "military coup". In fact, the army didn't even take over. Usually in a coup, the new leadership kills anyone in the same party as the overthrown leader. That did not happen in Honduras. In fact, to the contrary, the interim leader Roberto Macheletti, who was from the same political party [that is the Liberal party] as Zelaya, was put in as President until the elections in January 2010.
Zelaya tried to make himself the dictator of Honduras. He tried to set up a referendum to determine weather to violate the constitution in allowing him to run another term for President or not. The Honduras democratic law states that the referendums have to be approved by the congress. However, it was not approved by the congress. The Supreme Court declared it illegal. In fact, the army didn't want to violate the law. So when the military commander stated that he won't violate the law, Zelaya fired him. Zelaya sends mobs of supporters to attack the military headquarters to get the ballots. The military complies in order to avoid a violent confrontation. Hugo Chavez, the ally of this Marxist dictator, shipped the ballots from Venezuela, since nobody in Honduras was willing to break the law.
These Chavez-like guys, once in the executive power, get out of control. They have a my way or the high way attitude to their agenda regardless of whether it's legal or not.
The Supreme Court ordered the army to get rid of Zelaya. The army complied. What happened in Honduras was that the forces of democracy rose up and overthrew the Chavez-like Marxist dictatorship that Zelaya sought to impose.
The OAS now took a hypocritical attitude. While allowing Communist Cuba, which is a bloodthirsty dictatorship that sponsors terror, kills and tortures their own citizens, back in the OAS, the same body threatens to suspend Honduras because the democratic institutions said no to Chavez-style tyranny. The Inter-American democratic charter, the charter of the OAS states that the OAS "recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention".
Yes, allowing Cuba back in the OAS while suspending Honduras for taking its democracy back is a wonderful way to promote democracy. Isn't it? Yes, good old democratic Cuba tortures and kills its citizens for speaking out against the communist regime, as well as having civilian mobs attack the protesters. Good old Cuba even seeks to spread its totalitarian Communist system and supports Communist terror groups like FARC, which seeks to replace the democracy in Columbia with Communist tyranny and which is unpopular among the people in Colombia. Is that hypocrisy or what?

By Benyamin Solomon, Newsflavor

June 30, 2009

 This is a critique of Obama’s Socialist agenda on health care.

With his Socialist plans already getting into place, now President Obama, the god of the liberal left, now is imposing a Socialist agenda known as Universal health care. Obama’s Socialist agenda costs trillions, billions, millions and thousands of dollars. According to the CBO, Obama’s Socialist health care plan costs 1 trillion dollars. 

Horror of Universal Healthcare

In countries that have universal health care, newspapers ran headlines about people having to wait in long lines and being denied treatment, headlines like this one “The cancer divide: Men are most at risk because the NHS prefers saving women, says cancer expert” and this one “Women `denied’ anti-cancer drugs NHS `skimping’ on cancer drugs”. The summary of the first column is:

As it’s revealed they are 40 per cent more likely to die of it, our foremost cancer expert blames NHS bias in favour of saving women victims. 

This article starts off as:

Over the centuries, women have often complained about the inequality between the sexes - and justifiably so. 
With better paid jobs, less responsibility for household chores and by far the best end of the deal when it comes to the pain of childbirth, men have long enjoyed what seems to their female counterparts to have a more blessed existence. 
Yet now comes news that, in one area of life at least, women are the more fortunate sex. 
This week, the charity Cancer Research UK published a report about the different survival rates of the two sexes when it comes to this much-feared disease. 
It revealed that among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60 per cent more likely to develop the disease and 70 per cent more likely to die from it. 

When all forms of cancer are taken into consideration, men are 16 per cent more likely than women to develop cancer in the first place, and then 40 per cent more likely to die of it if they do.

The government-run British health service the NHS [National Health Service] seems to be taking a sexist attitude on treating cancer victims. It’s just as bad as if insurance companies in America denied treatment to people because they were black. In fact, if that was the case, I think we would know what would be the reaction of the liberal left. But a universal health care system denying people in Britain the treatment to cancer because of their sex seems to be okay for the liberal left. That article was written by Karol Sikora,  professor and chair of the Department of Cancer medicine at imperial college, former chief of the World health cancer program, and leads CancerPartnersUK, an independent cancer network in the UK. Yet, according to Mr. Sikora, the left’s precious health care service in Britain, which we are told works fine, is to blame for the fact that 40% of men are more likely to die from cancer because the “perfect” healthcare service in Britain is biased in saving women victims of cancer. 

Even the healthcare service that’s biased in its treatment of women victims of cancer even denied breast cancerpills to women with breast cancer because the pills are too expensive. That’s what the second article reported. It started off as:

More than half the women suffering with advanced breast cancer in Britain are being denied new, effective drugs because they are considered by local health managers to be too expensive.

This is the “great” healthcare service of Britain. The political left wants to make Cuba seem like it has a great health care service. When it comes to discussion about the Castro brothers’ human rights violations, we are told that at least Cuba has a great healthcare system. Micahel Moore’s pro-Castro and pro-Socialist health care service propaganda film “Sicko” even states that Cuba has great healthcare. Cuba does have great healthcare in the hospitals in the tourist areas, which until last year, were persona non grata to the average Cuban. After the ban was lifted, the Communist regime then made everything in the tourist area too expensive for the average Cuban. Pictures of the Real Cuba even show pictures of the hospitals for the average Cuban. Here are some of the pictures.

These photos are pretty disgusting. Aren’t they? When the health care service in Cuba is exposed, we then get told about Canada and European countries like France, Holland , Germany and Britain where universal health care supposedly works. In this article, I exposed some of the problems of the universal health care service in Britain. 

Let’s look at some of these other countries. The BBC ran an article about how bad the “wonderful” health care service is in France. Here’s where you can go to get more insight on the problems of universal health care. 

Don Surbor wrote this:

The Canadian system is supposedly one of the main models upon which the coming American health care revolution will be based. And yet this wondrous Canadian system seems to be more and more incapable of providing relatively common medical procedures to Canadian citizens, even in Canada’s most populous province. Because the system is controlled by a bureaucracy, it doesn’t respond to market pressures (goodness knows that most of the time, bureaucracies barely respond to political pressure) and in fact can’t even figure out what the market is demanding. All of this results in the Canadian government relying on the supposedly inferior US system to provide lifesaving care in many instances. No wonder 3 out of 4 Canadians live within easy driving distance of the US border.

Surbor argues that the US socializing health care will kill Canadians. Many people around the world from countries with socialized health care come to America for health care. America has one of the best health care systems in the world. 

America’s health care system is imperfect. Insurance companies don’t always make the right desicion. The solution is not to put our health care system under government bureaucracy. Many politicians are souless and corrupt people who care about power. Congressmen and women are wasting the American people’s money on some of the most wasteful projects. They shouldn’t control America’s healthcare service.

Conclusion - Why I hope Obama fails

The title of the conclusion will give me devil ears and a pitchfork to the eyes of many leftists. My hope that Obama fails comes from wanting to save this great nation from a Socialist nanny state. If Obama was to continue with tax cuts and free-market Capitalism, I hope Obama succeeds. That’s not what Obama is doing. 

I hope Obama fails at imposing Socialist control on the health care service and on wasting the American people’s money for his Socialist agenda. He seeks to distract people from what’s going on and keeps saying that he inherited a crisis. Obama and his liberal leftist friends do their favorite task, blame Bush for every problem. Yet it’s Obama who is dramatically increasing the deficit to anything unseen in the Bush years. Before Obama started with his health care “reform”, the CBO predicted that his economic policy would be 1 trillion per year and 10 trillion in ten years. The CBO showed how expensive Obama’s Socialist policies are. His health care “reform” is going to help increase the deficit, as well as Obama’s other Socialist plans. I say this again to Obama:

You keep your change. We keep our country.

By Benyamin Solomon, Newsflavor

June 17, 2009

Senior leftist propagandist for the Obama mania media Paul Krugman now defends the Stimulus plan. Krugman started off his column “Stay the Course” as saying:

The debate over economic policy has taken a predictable yet ominous turn: the crisis seems to be easing, and a chorus of critics is already demanding that the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration abandon their rescue efforts. For those who know their history, it’s déjà vu all over again — literally.

Krugman still spreads the same fear mongering the Obama administration spread in order to get the “Stimulus” bill pass.Krugman mentions the Stimulus plan and says that the economy is recovering. Yet Krugman fails to mention that the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] stated that though the Stimulus plan will help the economy in the short term, it’ll be disasterous in the long term.

Krugman said:

And Republicans, providing a bit of comic relief, are saying that the stimulus has failed, because the enabling legislation was passed four months ago — wow, four whole months! — yet unemployment is still rising.

Yet Joe Biden said that during the time when Obama was spreading fear mongering vis -a-vis Stimulus plan, that everyone was just wrong. He said that it saved jobs, when a few million jobs were lost since January. Furthermore, even Krugman admitted it. Krugman still says the same thing Obama said and the same thing that everyone supposedly wrongly believed according to Joe Biden.

Krugman said:

On one side, the inflation worriers are harassing the Fed. The latest example: Arthur Laffer, he of the curve, warns that the Fed’s policies will cause devastating inflation. He recommends, among other things, possibly raising banks’ reserve requirements, which happens to be exactly what the Fed did in 1936 and 1937 — a move that none other than Milton Friedman condemned as helping to strangle economic recovery.

and:

What about the claim that the Fed is risking inflation? It isn’t. Mr. Laffer seems panicked by a rapid rise in the monetary base, the sum of currency in circulation and the reserves of banks. But a rising monetary base isn’t inflationary when you’re in a liquidity trap.

Yea, spending thousands, millions, billions and trillions on every little pet project is not going to cause inflation on planet Krugman. The CbO estimated that Obama’s economic policy is 1 trillion per year and 10 trillion in ten years. Yet Krugman wines about the “inflation warriors” pointing out these facts. Krugman said:

And Republicans, providing a bit of comic relief, are saying that the stimulus has failed, because the enabling legislation was passed four months ago — wow, four whole months! — yet unemployment is still rising.

Hey, Krugman. Maybe tell that to Joe Biden, who really needs some claim to be made in order to not look stupid when admitting the truth that doesn’t make Obama look his best. Obama promised that the passing of the Stimulus plan would have unemployment by 8% at the most. Now, it is at 9.4%, which is about the same amount Obama claimed that it would be if the Stimulus plan wasn’t passed. Hey, Krugman, do you want to see real comical relief? hy not watch Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs making fools of themselves or Obama without his telepromter? Why needs comedy when you can just listen to to good old Joe or Gibbs? Comedy is when you take the telepromer away from Obama during his speeches. That’s the real “comical relief”. With the Obama Administration robbing from younger generations with his Socialist policies, you can always get a good laugh listening to Joe, who admitted that the Obama Administration would waste some money, or Gibbs.

Krugman said:

The first example of policy in a liquidity trap comes from the 1930s. The U.S. economy grew rapidly from 1933 to 1937, helped along by New Deal policies. America, however, remained well short of full employment.

Yet scholars actually debunked the liberal myth that the new deal helped the American economy during the Great Depression. All yo have to do is google stuff like new deal disaster and you’ll find at least three results. There are plenty of more scholary analysis on how the new deal helped make the American economy worse, as scholarly analysis from sites like the FEE [Foundation for Economic Education] show. Even the Treasury Secretary for FDR Henry Morganthau said this about the New Deal:

We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!

Krugman concludes:

To sum up: A few months ago the U.S. economy was in danger of falling into depression. Aggressive monetary policy and deficit spending have, for the time being, averted that danger. And suddenly critics are demanding that we call the whole thing off, and revert to business as usual.

Those demands should be ignored. It’s much too soon to give up on policies that have, at most, pulled us a few inches back from the edge of the abyss.

Let’s ignore the opponents of Obama’s Socialist thievery and just increase the deficit. I know the liberal story. Under Bush, the deficit is bad. Under the “god” Obama, we need a deficit. No liberal even said that we [America] needs a deficit in order to recover when George W. Bush was President. When Obama is President and dramatically increases the deficit [this is contrary to what he said on the campaign train when he speaks out against the deficit and pledges to cut it in half], we need a deficit. This article is just Krugman providing the real “comical relief”, something that you’ll get a lot of from listening to Biden or Gibbs. It’s something you can get a lot out of when Obama doesn’t have a teleprompter. It is something a lot of people could’ve had and/or got when they listened to Obama mentioning a non-existent language called Austrian.

By Patrick J. Buchanan,  The American Conservative

June 8th, 2009

Despite his boldness, Barack Obama seems as fated to fail as were Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. And for the same reason: a belief in his own righteousness and moral superiority, and a belief that his ideals and his persona count mightily in the modern world.

Wilson declaimed about America’s fight to “make the world safe for democracy” when in harness with the British, French, Russian, Japanese and Italian empires, all slavering to feast on the carcasses of the Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Ottoman empires.

By 1920, Wilson was a tragic failure, mocked by ex-allies and reviled by former enemies for having dishonored his own 14 Points.

Jimmy Carter declared in 1977 that “we have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism that caused us to embrace any dictator who shared in that fear.” So, we undermined Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza and the Shah, and got the Sandinistas and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

As for Barack, he behaves on the world stage like some Ivy League kid ashamed of the people he came from, letting one and all on campus know that he is nothing like his benighted family with its sordid history.

In Cairo, he confessed that America had a hand in dumping over the regime in Iran in 1953. He did not mention that the United States forced the retreat of Joseph Stalin’s army from Iran in 1946.

For the 100th time, he declared, “I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”

Is Obama unaware that Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia run prisons that make Guantanamo look like The Breakers at Palm Beach?

How many Guantanamo inmates plead to be sent home to Muslim countries?

In Trinidad, Obama sat for 55 minutes enduring Daniel Ortega’s diatribe against the United States for mistreatment of Castro’s Cuba and for the Bay of Pigs. Obama protested that he could not be held responsible for something that happened the year he was born.

Why could not he say to Ortega: “We also intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1965 to block a communist takeover, and in Grenada in 1983. The only problem with the Bay of Pigs is that we should have done it right and removed the odious Cuban dictatorship, and put Fidel, Raul and Che up against that same wall where so many patriots perished and spared the Cuban people 50 years of tyranny and the prostitution of their island into a base camp for the greatest despotism of the 20th century.”

What is the matter with Obama that he cannot defend our Cold War conduct and Cold War presidents like Ike and JFK?

Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history — of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.

Obama is determined to make the requisite apologies to show the world he does not condone the sins our fathers committed.

Thus, as Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation has cataloged, Obama has apologized to Europe for our having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” He apologized to Latin America for our having been “disengaged and at times … sought to dictate.”

He told the Turks that we are “working through our own darker periods in our history. … Our nation still struggles with the legacy of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

Obama, however, did not ask the Turks to confess to their own “darker periods,” which might have taken some time.

Obama is the anti-Reagan. Where Reagan ever spoke of the greatness and glory of America, her history and heroes, her capacity to make the world all over again, Obama is like a dismal parson, forever reminding us — and everyone within earshot — of our own and our fathers’ sins.

Obama is not only demoralizing Middle America, he is driving away the God-and-country patriots who are sick of hearing this rot from professors and journalists, and prefer not to hear it from their president. He is ceding moral high ground to regimes and nations that do not deserve it.

If Obama believes he can build himself up by tearing America down, he is mistaken. Cynical foreigners will view it with snickering contempt, patriotic Americans with disgust. What kind of leader is it who talks down his own country on foreign soil?

America’s performance in the Cold War was hardly flawless. But does anyone deny that we were on the right side, that the Soviet Empire and Mao’s China and communist Vietnam and Castro’s Cuba were on the side of tyranny — and that the neutrals were by and large irrelevant or worse in that great cause?

A nation is an extended family. While families fight and quarrel, often bitterly, you do not take the family quarrel outside the family.

You don’t hang the family’s dirty linen on the communal clothesline.

Obama, however — like some Hollywood actress seeking sympathy and public approbation with her tell-all biography detailing how she was abused by her father — trolls for popularity with America’s adversaries by reciting for the benefit of the world all the sins his country has allegedly committed.

When did this become the duty of the president of the United States?

By Benyamin Solomon, Authspot

Feb 23, 2009

The most prominent figures in Communism such as Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were all mass murderers.

The most important lesson in the Cold War is that Communism is a screwed up ideology that led to the deaths of millions of people all over the world. Wherever the Communists took over, there was bloodshed and lack of freedom. Communism states to impose this ideology using any means necessary. It calls for absolute government control over the economy. Under Communism, people are lucky to at least own their own houses. 

Communism is the economic version of Fascism and is incompatible with democracy. Democracy means people have freedom of expression and the right to choose their own government. In a democracy, the government doesn't have control over individual life. Under a democracy, there are different political parties and the government has three branches, which are Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

The most prominent figures in Communism such as Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were all mass murderers. In the Soviet Union, even the "moderate" Soviet leaders were mass-murderers who simply put a human face to the Soviet regime. They still carried out their killings and tortures on political opponents and still ran the gulags.

The problem is that many Communists and even some non-Communists leftist loons like Naomi Klein are sore losers and can't accept the fact that the Cold War shows that Capitalism rocks. Of course Capitalism is not perfect. No economic system is. Capitalism is the best system out there. 

Soar loser Communists who can't put a human face to brutal dictators like Stalin and the Pol Pot say that they wasn't a real Communist because all those innocent people were killed. Stalin and the Pol Pot imposed the Communist system. They were real Communists. Communism leads to the killing of many innocent people because it can only thrive on some of the worst forms of tyranny. 

My message to Communists is this:

Wake up. Your BS bloodthirsty totalitarian ideology failed.   

By Benyamin Solomon
"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," joked Venezuela's Communist tyrant Hugo Chavez.
That was being made after Obama imposed Socialist control on General Mortors [GM], which filed for bankruptcy. Obama's Socialist control for GM produces more bad than good. It'll help get the economy even more down the tubes.
This joke is chilling because Chavez is the Communist dictator of Venezuela. Chavez is allied with Communist Cuba. Fidel gave the position as Communist dictator to his brother Raul in 2008.
Fidel Castro's Cuba was a proxy state of the Soviet Union during the Cold-war, which was an ideological struggle between Capitalist freedom and Communist tyranny.
Chavez supports Communist terrorist groups such as FARC, which is a Colombian terrorist organization that seeks to impose a Communist dictatorship on Colombia.
It's chilling of Chavez to suggest [even jokingly] that he and Fidel, the latter of who was a proxy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, would be to the political right of Obama.
Rahm Emanual, Obama's Chief of Staff, said,"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
That's exactly what the Obama Administration did. They used it to impose Socialism. They pushed for the Stimulus bill and then the Omnibus spending bill, both of which contain wasteful projects. The Omnibus spending bill has pig odor research. Both the Stimulus and the Omnibus bill contains millions of dollars for building bridges in small towns that already have bridges. Those two bills alo have many other wasteful projects. Obama used fear mongering to pass those two bills. The Democrat beaurocrats in congress voted for them without reading the bills.
Obama then moved his Socialist policy even more by taking control of banks and big corporations. He dictated how much CEO pay they can have and fired CEOs. Obama did that even with companies that didn't recieve bailouts. While his predessesor George W. Bush had the bailouts because of fear of having the banks and big corporations go under and because of fear of what the consequences may be, Obama used the bailouts in order to impose Socialist controls.
In a 2001 interview, Barack Obama called on the courts to have redistribution of wealth. Obama was a community organizer i.e. leftist radical during his political career and was one of the most leftist senetors. During his presidential campaign, Obama sought to downplay his far-left activism and associations and campaigned as a centeralist.
Obama won the 2008 elections. As president, Obama seeks to impose his Socialist agenda. With GM, Chavez made a chilling joke. It's chilling for a Communist dictator [jokingly or not] to say that he and his Communist ally Fidel Castro are to the right of any US president. Chavez made that joke while making his usual anti-Capitalist and pro-Socialist rants.
Chavez was turning Venezuela into another Cuba. He turned Venezuela into a Communist dictatorship. He imposed Communist control on the economy, with his nationalization of at least most sectors of Venezuelan economy. Chavez also arrested and/or killed his political opponents. Look at the caracus nine. They're nine victims of Chavez's terrorist dictatorship. Chavez also fired upon demonstrations who demonstrated against him. That was the reason why the first victim who was among the Caaracus nine, by the name of Francisco Uson resigned as the Venezuelan General. He was unjustly arrested by Hugo Chavez.
Chavez also sought to nationalize the media. He wanted to get rid of independent media. He shut down Radio Caracus TV [RCTV]. His goons violently attacked employees for another Venezuelan TV station Globovision.
Chavez's joke is chilling. Chavez's ally Fidel turned Cuba into a Communist dictatorship. Chavez oppressed his political opponents by arresting and/or executing them. Fidel put his opponents in labor camps. He also sent his goons in civilian cloathing to violently attack demonstrations from any demonstration that he does not like.
Obama should keep his "change" and his "hope". The "change we believe in" is disasterous. It's a Socialist path that's the antithesis of  the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers sought to establish a free Capitalist democracy, where people have individual liberty, not a Socialist state. Obama's Socialist vision is the antithesis of Reagan's vision. Reagan, during his presidency, made America's economy prosperous with his free market Capitalist ideals. When Reagan got in, America's economy was in shambles. He then made it prosperous with less government meddling and free market Capitalism. When America's morale was in shambles and with many people believing that the Soviet Union could win the Cold War, Reagan changed that by putting America's morale right back up. He got America right back up to Superpower status. He got America to win the Cold War and liberated millions of people in eastern Europe.
Now, Obama has a Socialist domestic policy and a Carter-like and Chamberlain-like foreign policy. Chavez's joke is just chilling.

Peanut Ramby is already the editor of Socialism Watch. He will help to edit my posts. All final fixes will still be approved by me.

By Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President's comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this... It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won't work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.