Saturday, October 17, 2009

Karl's Weekend Reading

Today's American Thinker has an incredible 3.5 page piece on the origins and aspects of Marxism. Kelly O'Connell writes, If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe? Not a hit piece, as the title may suggest. And, differing from the 'He's Not a Socialist' articles of late, O'Connell actually starts with definitions of Marxism, Communism and Socialism, and a term new to us, Neo-Marxism. Refreshing, in a dark way.

Critics warn reborn Marxism is exceedingly dangerous since it is delivered below the radar, and represents a devious bloodless communist assault, a polar-opposite of the violently murderous Bolshevik and Mao uprisings.
Marxism is a violently revolutionary doctrine. Marx claimed capitalism's Armageddon was inevitable, but followers should bear arms to hasten change. Since the rich will never give up their capital voluntarily, it must be taken by force. After this, the arduous task of rebuilding society begins. Lenin's "New Man" is created by education. Those who don't adapt can be eliminated to purify the whole. But capitalism must be destroyed before healing can occur.

Charles Krauthammer writes about Obama's foreign policy mishaps - "amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity" - at Townhall, Debacle in Moscow.

Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."

But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?

Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.

Rush Limbaugh warned David Checketts that if he joined the other investors interested in buying the Rams, some of those soulless lefty liberals progressives communists would attempt to derail the acquisition. Checketts said he's stand by Limbaugh. The efforts to paint Limbaugh a racist were echoed by Washington Post's Michael Wilbon, CNN's Rich Sanchez and NFL's union leader DeMaurice Smith. Limbaugh responds in today's WSJ, The Race Card, Football and Me:

My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.

James Taranto has a 4-page behind-the-scenes summary on the ACORN-Pimp story. How two 20-somethings not only brought down a nationwide corrupt organization, but who they went to for help and how they chose to release the story in 5 videos to expose and exacerbate the MSM bias. Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex'.

No comments: