Posted on 02/22/2009 11:26:27 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Loyal to Liberty THOUGHTLET
What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.
Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.
Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit www.LoyaltoLiberty.com!
Go back and study a little history from the era of our Founding Fathers. Do you think all the people of the time gathered in a big circle and sung happy hymns? No, a lot of the founders of our Constitution were called “Nuts” and if they existed today, would have been called worst.
We are in desperate need of the Truth and I’ll support anyone who shouts it from the roof tops. BTW... most peoples lives would not look so “picture perfect” if they had the microscopic focus of the news media on them. Especially when you add a generous portion of one sided reporting and FLAT OUT LIES to the pot.
We should all Pray for Wise Leaders to lead our Country out of this cesspool we’ve found ourselves in.
That’s it.
Actually, Alan Keyes just may be the sanest man in America.
Keyes-Obama debate, October 12, 2004
MODERATOR: Would you please assess where the U.S. stands diplomatically? Do we have a bad reputation now?
OBAMA: Well, I think that this administration has not been very good at what’s been called the exercise of “soft power.” You know, all of us recognize and reserve the right of the United States to exercise its military power in the national interest and for our national security—but we also have to recognize that a lot of our power comes from our ideals, our belief in freedom, our belief in democracy, our belief in the ability to work things through in a manner that comports with whatever frameworks of international law that have been shaped. And I think that, unfortunately, this administration has tended to be dismissive of any international efforts—and in his campaign, I think you witness it with a general disdain for, quote unquote, “globalism.” In some cases, this is just a function of us trying to have conversations with our allies so that we can move more effectively.
KEYES: See, I think the great problem is that you cannot give a soft response to a hard threat. It would be kind of like trying to meet a bayonet with a spaghetti noodle. And it’s not going to help the people of this country to survive.
After 9-11, we were faced with a hard threat. We had lost thousands of people, and we had to move aggressively. The belief that Afghanistan was enough is a belief based on a failure to understand the global infrastructure of terror—so that you deal with the threat that has hit you instead of with the threats that will hit you later if you neglect to preemptively move against their bases of support.
It is precisely in order to create a situation in which maybe people who would be otherwise supportive of this bloodthirsty threat will respond a little better to your overtures that you move with decision against regimes like the Iraqi regime that had shown itself disposed to support terror, to fund terror, to be part gleefully of the global infrastructure of terror—and to act against them before they have the opportunity to act against you.
Bill, I imagine the Founding Fathers would look Keyes in the eye, shake his hand, and say “How are you, brother?”
I imagine Keyes differs slightly from them slightly, exactly how I’m not sure. But the only major difference is that Keyes was born much later than they were. The Founders wouldn’t see his color as an issue.
New tagline...
“It is, in short, exactly as we warned on FR throughout the presidential campaign.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
We, the people, needed the press to responsibility report it as well, and alert their viewers to what we knew.
Oh, please. Don’t compare Alan Keyes to the Founding Fathers. Keyes may be right on this, but he’s a loon.
More often than not, Keyes is right on with this one!
Your tactics are straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook.
Why do you feel so threatened by Alan Keyes?
He’s entertaining but he’s lost every election he’s run on, including here in MD. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and attack. BTW: I think Obamas a Marxist
Keyes makes accurate but scary points.
If that's your measure of a man, I'm sure you love Obama, since the opposite is true of him.
Is that what you're after, to be "entertained"?
Yeah, he’s one of a few that have filed lawsuits challenging him to give up his birth certificate.
That’s a pretty neat story.
He’s a good man. His enemies, who always try to invent some comic book version of him are clueless.
I hear ya.
I don’t understand why they would try to discredit the person, rather than what they’re trying to say.
If people see you obsessively trying to attack a person, rather than shooting as many holes in their argument as possible, wouldn’t they then start to believe that the first party’s argument is weak?
Actually, if Barry keeps pushing the country towards communism, I would not be surprised if some dems. tried to start a third party, just to save THEIR asses.
Here in CA, where the livin' is gooood, there are many districts with dem. reps. who could be in trouble if "Redistributing the Wealth" reaches their electorate.
A communist is just a socialist who really means it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.