More On Obama And His Fast And Furious National Socialists

Obama 2012?

Update to previous post: How Fast and Furious 2011 is like the Reichstag Fire 1933


Actually, the current crop of National Socialists running the United States are worse than the National Socialists of old.  Worse in obscuring the execution of their pathetic, transparent plots to grab more political control, and worse in the safety of execution.

Fast and Furious vs. Reichstag Fire: Safety

Comparing Fast and Furious to the 1933 Reichstag fire on the safety front, nobody died in the Reichstag fire, but at least one police officer, Bryan Terry, and who knows how many others have died in Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious vs. Reichstag Fire: Execution

By execution, I mean pulling a violent political stunt and turning it to the advantage of the party that will benefit the most from it.  In the case of Fast and Furious, it is most certainly the Democrat party of the United States that stands to benefit the most from the scheme, had it been kept secret.

It is still uncertain of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, aka, Nazi Party) set the fire, or if the International Socialists of the Communist Part Of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands – KPD) set the Reichstag fire.  We do know a Communist was convicted of setting the fire, he said he acted alone, and was murdered (purged) by the Stalin in 1940.  This sort of indicates that it was indeed a Communist plot, if only plotted by one, that resulted in the demise of the KPD, which probably upset Stalin a little too.

The event was used to great advantage by the NSDAP to limit the rights of citizens and consolidate one-party-rule in Germany.  Remember a motto of the Socialist, never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Shifting to the modern day, a United States Democrat regime lead by Barrack Hussein Obama, hatched a scheme to let Mexican drug lords buy guns in the USA, (who are more lethal than radical Islam) in order to curtail the rights of Americans to own guns, and then they blame the people who defend the rights of citizens.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA

The first wave of the propaganda war has been launched, spearheaded by Democrat Hank Johnson, of Georgia:
Via The Daily Caller:

Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson accused the tea party movement and the National Rifle Association of creating an “manufactured” controversy over Operation Fast and Furious Thursday.

Johnson’s comments came during an interview with The Daily Caller outside the House Judiciary Committee hearing room. Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before the committee about Fast and Furious — a Justice Department program where Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents facilitated the sale of about 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels.

“I think this is another manufactured controversy by the second amendment, NRA Republican tea party movement,” Johnson said.

This is the same Georgia Democrat who thinks the Guam might flip over if any more American troops are stationed on the American island.  He also takes the Socialist view that the "promote general welfare" wording in the preamble of the United States Constitution is a mandate on the Congress to provide National Healthcare.  If you watch the second video link, you will see that Johnson's Town Hall Meeting security will eject anybody who asks a question on the Constitution, they will be ejected.  Representative Johnson is obviously a Socialist and it does not really matter if his flavor is National or International.

Without much mainstream media fanfare, which is no surprise since the MSM is nothing more than the public relations branch of the hard Left in the USA, National Rifle Association (NRA) officer Wayne LaPierre responded to the absurd notion that the NRA was responsible for the Obama administration plot to sell guns to Mexican drug lords:

More from the Newsmax story:

"Over a period of two or three years they were running thousands and thousands of guns to the most evil people on earth. At the same time they were yelling ’90 per cent… of the guns the Mexican drug cartels are using come from the United States."

"That was a phony figure from the very start. Even the Wikileaks cables from our own State Department prove they are coming from Central America, they are not coming from the U.S. Every police officer will tell you that they’re coming from Russia, they’re coming from China, most of them are coming from Central America and a lot of them are coming from defections from the Mexican Army,” said LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and CEO.

But LaPierre said that President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were determined to make it appear that most weapons used by the Mexicans came from north of the border, “so they could stick more gun legislation on honest American gun owners of the United States.”

The bottom line is simple.  Fast and Furious is a botched attempt by the Obama administration to limit the rights of all Americans and they are still trying to salvage this operation to restrict the rights of Americans to own and purchase guns.  They are attacking licensed gun dealers, even those that were cooperating with the government, and they are using this as a propaganda device to blame Mexican drug war violence on innocent Americans.

What Kind Of Socialist Is Obama?

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg visited this topic in May, 2010:

In many respects, Barack Obama’s neo-socialism is neoconservatism’s mirror image. Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society. In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice. While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphere—mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the family—neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government. Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obama’s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.

Is Obama a Nazi or some other kind of Socialist?

“I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed,” he told CBS’s Katie Couric. “But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

Whereas Ronald Reagan saw the answers to our problems in the private sphere (“in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”), Obama seeks to expand confidence in, and reliance on, government wherever and whenever he can, albeit within the confines of a generally Center-Right nation and the “unfortunate” demands of democracy.

As with Webb’s Fabian socialism, one will never be able to say of Obama’s developing doctrine, “now socialism has arrived.” On the night the House of Representatives passed the health-care bill, Obama said, “This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction.” Then, speaking specifically of another vote to be taken in the Senate but also cleverly to those not yet satisfied with what had been achieved, he added, “Now, as momentous as this day is, it’s not the end of this journey.”

Under Obama’s neosocialism, that journey will be endless, and no matter how far down the road toward socialism we go, he will always be there to tell the increasingly beleaguered marchers that we have only taken a “critical first step.”

He discussed the topic with Will Cain too. "Jonah Goldberg tells Will Cain that Barack Obama is a socialist. But he is (obviously) not a Stalinst, not Pol Pot, not a Nazi, and not a Marxist. Jonah says socialism comes in many forms and Obama seems to be taking the US in the direction of Western European social democracy - a strain of socialism."

Goldberg takes the position that Obama is some flavor of Social Democrat-type Socialist or Corporatist.  Sort of like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR, but certainly nothing like Mao or Stalin.

I am not so generous.  As soon as Obama and his fellow travelers got to DC and were sworn in, they immediately engaged in tactics indistinguishable from pre-World War Two National Socialists.  After testing the waters a little, he took the bold step of nationalizing two of the three major US auto makers without any congressional action asked for or given, and got away with it, down to the detail of firing the CEO of GM and installing his own puppet.

Obama: Il Duce of General Motors

He continued through 2008 and 2009 in a slow-motion version of Mussolini in n1920s Italy, taking executive power to places it had never been in the USA, again with little or no congressional expansion of executive power.  With the help of Congress, he nationalized the healthcare industry and was given sweeping executive powers to administer it, including the power to force citizens and businesses to purchase healthcare plans against their will.  In typical leftoid calculus, the fine for failing to purchase healthcare was set lower than the cost of currently available health insurance policies.

Remember, one thing that applies to Socialists is if they tried a bad idea before, they will keep trying new ways of getting away with it until they succeed.  These tactics are not new on the American scene, but they have been under the dust heap of history for a while.

• Progressive Party Teddy Roosevelt included National Health Care in his 1912 campaign, modeled after a German system.
• President FDR suggested, but the American Medical Association (AMA) successfully opposed it.
• Harry Truman dusted off National Health Care, wanting to force all Americans to purchase health insurance.  He was stopped by a Democrat House and Senate, as well as the AMA.
• In 1962, President John F. Kennedy proposed National Health Care and was blocked by a Democrat House and Senate.
• In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid act, passed by the Democrat super-majorities in both houses of Congress.
• In 1971 President Richard Nixon began a Socialist squabble with Senator Ted Kennedy over just how socialized American Health Care should be.  With Nixon proposing the FDR/Truman/Hitler National Socialist tactic of forcing businesses to provide the service under penalty of law.  Kennedy took the full-on Marxist, International Socialist approach, proposing that National Healthcare become a federal government function.  Neither became law.
• President Carter proposed national healthcare in 1976, but was ignored by both Democrat controlled houses of Congress.
• Between 1986 and 1988, under President Reagan, Medicare was expanded so much and surcharges of wealthy recipients raised so high that a portion was repealed by the 101st Congress (both houses Democrat controlled) in 1989.
• Bill Clinton, in 1993 dusted off a Nixonian National Health Care proposal, nicknamed "Hillarycare", which failed to get widespread support, nor legislative support in the Democrat controlled Congress.  He succeeded with his 1997 State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) proposal, with the help of a Republican Congress.
• In 2003, President Bush (43) pushed for and a got from a Republican Congress, the Medicare Modernization Act, which socialized and bureaucratized (but I repeat myself) prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients.
• Jump to 2008, and President Barrack Hussein Obama, with the help of a Democrat Congress.

In my humble estimation, Obama employs National Socialist tactics in most of his efforts to nationalize/socialize American enterprise.  Also note that there was a distinct Left-shift to Socialism by the Democrat party in 1968, with incremental moves in that direction until in 2008 when they imposed National Socialism on the US healthcare and automobile industries.

Does Obama display International Socialist traits?  Not exactly.  Some people see any "internationalist" leanings of avowed Socialists as signs of Communist/International Socialist belief, and he does have some of those.  Not necessarily true.  The National Socialists of old did engage in technology transfer (see also), as well as ideology "transfer," to other countries.  They invaded countries they viewed as "backward" in the twisted belief that it was a benefit to them.  Kipling called it the "White Man's Burden" when the US invaded the Philippines.  Mussolini used the same justification for invading Ethiopia and Libya.  Now Obama is in Libya under the same pretense, only the wording has changed.

Socialists (International, Communist, Social, Democratic, International, etc.) are the false-altruistic busybodies who are doing everything "for you", but for some reason they keep getting rich and the people who slave under their regimes die in squalor.

Fun Propaganda Tweet Of The Weekend

Noticed this little gem this AM:

@Truseattleite Truseattleite

@JohnTagliaferro If you were any type of educated man you would know there is a difference between communism and socialism. try research.

18 Nov via TweetDeck

Hitler and Stalin

The  Twitter-length answer is that: Communism (International Socialism) is a subset of Socialism.  What is hilarious every trip of the train is how the Socialists (National, International, Scientific, Democratic) all pipe up that anybody who notices this needs more education.

No, little Ninja, we do not need any more education.  We usually arrive at this realization by examining the facts in spite of the propaganda from the Western Education Industry.

They might be different in rhetoric, but in practice they are the same.

Obama has some catching up to do if he is going to be a hero of the Left.

PS. @Truseattleite, if Socialism is somehow divorced from Communism and you #Occupy urchins truly believe that you are something different from Communists, you might want to direct your education advice at the folks making your posters:

By-the-by, that "power fist" goes back to the 1860s or earlier.  The Democrats opposing Lincoln used it in their posters.

Taiwan vs. That Other China

Less Socialism Equals More Freedom and More Prosperity

A Mao Fan-boy

If you read and believe folks like Thomas L. Friedman, you would think that everybody in China now makes $40,000 per year and that their embrace of "Capitalism" done right brought them there.  Well, Friedman and his cronies are right, but not in the way that they think.  You must give them a little leeway.  They live in a world where Mao is a hero, "The Great Leap Forward" is viewed as a stroke of brilliance gone awry, "The Cultural Revolution" is a great awakening, and Chiang Kai-shek was the fly in the ointment who prevented a 'superior' International Socialist Utopia from emerging in Asia.

For many Chinese and other normal folk, the real government of China is in Taipei, Taiwan. Some hope that any day now the Maoist writers in the West will realize that true freedoms and commerce exist in Taiwan and the wise thing to do is spread that wiseness to the mainland.  Some of us are not holding our breath.  After all, the per capita GDP of Taiwan was $37,209 in 2010, with 1% inflation and less than 1.2% of the population below the poverty line.

A Maoist

Now, the China that Friedman and his lemmings think that they are talking about has some not so shining stats: GDP (PPP) $8,289, 4.1% unemployment and almost 3% below the poverty line.  The last two statistics are questionable.

The People's 'Republic' of China just began allowing private property in 2007 and the state still owns all land.  Proponents of the PRC's recent growth cite the adoption of "capitalism" in the same way that they throw other words around: without meaning or substance.  Sure, China has invited in corporations from the rest of the world and supplied slaves to work in the new factories as China becomes the biggest crony capitalist regime since Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.

Granted, Red China set some incredible records in the 20th century.  During Mao's "Great Leap Forward" Red China produced more unusable steel than all of the other nations of the world combined.  In the process, they destroyed forests (in the manner that American tree farms are falsely accused of) and starved tens of millions of people to death.

A Nationalist

In the mean time, that other China, Taiwan, endured a state of Martial Law, necessary to repel the Red Chinese military incursions that lasted well into the 1960s.  When the state of emergency eased, so did Martial Law, which was replaced by a democracy in the 1980s, that endures to this day.  Something key throughout the evolution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) was something known as the Taiwan Miracle.  This "miracle" was commerce, ownership of private property and a gold standard currency.  Taiwan 'suffered' the same "fate" as Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong.

A phrase I have heard a few times in the past from Socialists is "You are not more free, you just have more stuff."  In a tragic way, this backwards comment describes the current Red China perfectly.  It is a dictatorial regime without the simplest of freedoms, but the slaves have a bountiful choice in consumer goods.  George F. Will expressed some needed concern about this state of affairs on the Charlie Rose Show in 2008.  That a prosperous, market allocating, semi capitalistic economy and an unchanged oppressive regime is quite dangerous.

For some reason, to the likes of Friedman and others, Taiwan is invisible to them at best and the 'reason' for Red China's problems at worst.  It is as if Taiwan is the Israel of the Pacific for all of the failed Socialists to blame their problems.

Senator Joseph McCarthy Was Right And The Elite Left Knew It All Along

The fakes were drawing the cartoons.

If this 'revelation' is new to you, then shame on you.  Even the most pedestrian of the Lenin/Stalin/Mao t-shirt wearing academic crowd should know this by now.  Getting them to admit to it is like getting them to admit that the Rosenbergs were spies, rather than victims of Jewish bigotry or that Alger Hiss really was a spy for the Soviet Union.

At the time of this writing, several Red Diaper Babies as diverse as David Horowitz and Carl Bernstein have corroborated that Joe McCarthy was correct.  The Venona decrypts of secret Soviet communications and the Soviet archives have confirmed it too.  What other evidence do you people need?  Point your favorite search engine at the topic and look it up yourself.  This one is too easy to find to require help.

As for my charge that the elite Left knew it all along, well, they were part of the plan and they were read into it.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt had his diplomats warn the Soviets of their tapped phones after being presented with evidence of Soviet infiltration of the US government, including the military.  He himself packed the Pentagon full of Soviet agents and sympathizers.

FDR's successor, Harry Truman was informed of the extent of Soviet infiltration and blew it off as ammunition that the Republicans might use against him, in typical Democrat fashion.

This lunacy of fiction, that the Soviets were either so adept at infiltrating the US government that not a single one was caught, or conversely, that the Soviets were really nice guys who would never spy on an ally or an enemy, has infected our history so deeply that even the Pentagon tour guides describe the courtyard hotdog stand in this manner:

“Rumor has it that during the Cold War the Russians never had any less than two missiles aimed at this hot dog stand,” Brett Eaton, an information and communications officer for Washington Headquarters Services, said while standing in front of the building. “They thought this was the Pentagon’s most top secret meeting room, and the entire Pentagon was a large fortress built around this hot dog stand.”

Reportedly, by using satellite imagery, the Soviets could see groups of U.S. military officers entering and exiting the hot dog stand at about the same time every day. They concluded that the stand was the entrance to an underground bunker. “They (Soviets) thought the officers were going to get their top secret briefings in a protected area, but really they were just going to get lunch,” Eaton said with a chuckle.

The legend surrounding the hot dog stand is even spun by official Pentagon tour guides during public tours of the building. “It's rumored that a portion of their (Soviet) nuclear arsenal was directed at that building, the Pentagon hot dog stand,” tour guides tell visitors as they pass the stand. “This is where the building earned the nickname Cafe Ground Zero, the deadliest hot dog stand in the world.”

Satellite imagery to see the rank insignia on the shoulders of military personnel?  US current satellite imagery could not even identify bin Laden with that level of confidence in 2001-2011.  when one targets anything with any size munition. center mass is where you are supposed to aim, exactly where the hot dog stand is located and it was common to program multiple warheads on important targets, just in case some do not make it to the target.

Instead of admitting the obvious answer, that has been out there for everybody to know including those in "the commanding heights of society", a big long story base on bullshit had to be spun.

Mind you, those who spread the "academic research" and "media research" that McCarthy was on a "witch hunt" are the same people who blow off The Red Terror.  The same people who excuse "The Great Leap Forward" in Mao's China and ignore the 67 million deaths that were the result.  The same people who do not bother to inform anybody that the Cultural Revolution was a destruction of Chinese culture.  The same people who blame Stalin's extermination of Ukrainians on a "famine" and refuse to equate it with the Nazi Holocaust.

Yes, the same people who try to further the falsehood that National Socialism was the "polar opposite" of International Socialism and that Hitler was worse than the French, Soviets, Red Chinese, Communist Vietnamese, and the rest.

Again I ask the academics and news media, show us a polar opposite of Socialism that was brutal, even a little mean.  There must be some actual "Right Wing" laissez-faire regime somewhere that they can point to with honesty, right?

Conventions

I have always taken issue with fascism and National Socialism being used interchangeably. The biggest problem comes in speech, when one says Fascism but they mean fascism, Yellow Socialism, or National Socialism It is similar to the confusion between an asymmetrical airfoil and a symmetrical airfoil. Using symmetrical and non-symmetrical clears that up nicely. So does using National Socialism for what it is, Socialism with a nationalistic marketing plan, no matter if it is Germans, Israelis, Italians, Spaniards, or Americans doing it and leave the Fascism to Mussolini era Italians.

One thing this convention does is it removes a bad rhetorical 'weapon' from the Socialists who want to confuse the issue. For example, when they call people fascists when they mean Nazi. Now, no member of the National Socialist Worker's Party ever called himself a fascist and no Italian Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) member would ever call himself a Nazi, and neither would sit still to be called one either. However, every member of each group is in fact a Socialist and a National Socialist. Similarly, the International Socialists are Communists, be they Leninist, Stalinist, Marxist, or any of the others. Trotskyites do seem to fall in the National Socialist camp of the Marxists, for now.

The Socialists get a bit irate when one lumps them together. Similar to when various members of religious factions are misidentified. The Communist takes offense at the label Nazi, even though they were allied and voted with each other in the German parliament (Bundestag). Also quite similar to an American baseball Cincinnati Reds fan who takes offense at being called a Boston Red Sox fan. In fiction, the Monty Python players captured this in their film, The Life of Brian, through the use of political satire.

In my upcoming book, Would You Like Borders With That Socialism? I try to stick with the convention of a fascist being a Fascist of Italy, and a Nazi being a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party. All are National Socialists and all Socialists. The differences appear to be with their marketing strategy and body count.