The Jarrett-Obama Gangster Government

Robert Romano, of Americans for Limited Government, has written an excellent article on Valeria Jarrett's role with Obama in providing us with Chicago-style gangster government.  Socialism provides government with arbitrary power, which is so easily turned to pure, vicious gangsterism.  See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez for other examples.

Fines for Refusing to Document Acceptable Health Insurance to IRS

Apparently, the socialist Democrat Congress is terrified that many Americans are going to refuse to document having an acceptable health insurance plan to the IRS.  Let us take a look at the 1990 page HR 3962 just passed in the House of Socialist Representatives.

If you do not buy one of the very expensive acceptable government health insurance plans, you will be fined $1900.  If you do not pay this fine and you do not prove that you have acceptable insurance, you will be fined $25,000.  If you do not pay this fine, you will be subject to imprisonment for five years and a fine of $250,000.  These penalties are so severe that it appears clear that the socialists are very afraid that many Americans will refuse to go along with this unconstitutional law.  Many will feel they are obliged to stand up for our Constitution, even if they will be fined or sent to jail.  If many do this, this already unpopular plan will crumble.  So, the penalties have to be so severe that all of the Constitution and individual rights defenders will be cowed.  These penalties are indeed so severe that it opens a new chapter in American history.

It is as if King George III had said he was going to draw and quarter any American colonist who rebelled.  Our Socialist Democrats say they will send any rebel to the Gulag and confiscate everything he owns.  This is a strong and blatant statement that they care not a whit for the value of individual lives.  This attitude that many American individualists are expendable, is very close to that of Mao, who is so much admired by so many close to Obama.

Apparently, I will be in the Gulag or dead in 2013, unless the Senate refuses to go along with this draconian tyranny or unless it is repealed subsequent to the elections of 2010 and 2012.  The socialist Democrats must be thrown out of both the House and Senate and the presidency by 2013, or this blog will end and I will be in the Gulag or dead.  That is a bit of a tall order.  I hope the American People are still American enough to be up to it.

Socialism - My Definition

Recently, a commenter was upset with the way I used the word "socialist" in my blog entry Tides Foundation Screed Against Capitalism in Schools.  The individual with no name and identified only by a negation did point out that

Socialism is defined by The Princeton WordNet as:

1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital

 The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says socialism is

1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration and distribution in the interests of all.

2.  A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

Most Americans reading definition 1. from either to these sources would say, oh, so socialism and communism are the same thing.  I am sure that some or maybe all real Marxists would say, not necessarily.  But let us check out the definition of communism offered by the OED.

1.  A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

This definition for communism is the same as that for socialism, except in the very last part.  Apparently socialism allows for a distribution which may be on a slightly different basis than according to everyone's wants, since it is to be in the interests of all.  Rather subtle difference and actually very academic, since by these definitions, both socialism and communism are impossible!

It is frankly impossible for a community to find any way to distribute production, capital, land, property, etc. in the interests of all.  It has never happened and never will, so socialism does not, has never, and never will exist.  Similarly with communism, no society has ever or ever will be able to distribute enough goods and property to satisfy everyone's wants.  That would be the end of economics.  It would require infinite resources and infinite free pools of labor and genius.

So, Not a Socialist is hardly a surprise.  There is no such thing, unless we allow for those who dream for the impossible, which in the real world we must do.  People are often subject to control by their irrational dreams, or even the irrational Dreams of My Father, in the case of one well-known socialist of our time.

Indeed, many people think they are socialists.  In addition to the Marxists and before Marx, the founders of New Harmony, Indiana, there have been many who have been socialists.  Mussolini and Hitler thought they were socialists, yet they did not advocate the end of all property.  Instead, they sometimes stole property, but more often they used government regulations and just plain commands to force private property owners to do as they were told.  They believed in control of the economy and the means of production, but not necessarily in the need to bother themselves with all the pains of actually owning property.  Besides, people would work harder for you if you allowed them the pretense that they had some control over their property.  But Hitler and Mussolini did claim to be running societies organized for the purpose of distributing goods and services to the people for their best interests.  They actually did redistribute the wealth with such popular aspects of socialism as government-run health care systems.

During and after WWII, it became an embarrassment to many socialists in the West that these fascists had been considered socialists.  It became very important to then try to define socialism in such a manner that the fascists were excluded.  As the Marxists and other varieties of socialists took over most universities, the dictionaries fell more and more into line with this effort to define the fascists out of socialism.  Despite this, in more recent years, many have come to be embarrassed to be called socialists, since almost everyone now understands the terrible evils of socialism in the USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, and elsewhere.  Now, these same people and those they have taught are more likely to be environmentalists or social democrats, or some other new fad.  Strangely enough, the policies these people favor are those of fascism.  It is not practical to have community ownership of all property and Americans do not like the idea of that anyway.  So, those who seek major redistribution of the wealth leave most property in the hands of the prior owners, but saddle them with extensive regulations and controls.

A much more practical and useful concept of socialism would be:  A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership or the extensive control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the government, and their administration and distribution in extensive measure as is favored by the government of the community.

Under this definition of socialism, everyone does not have to share the same toothbrush or at least put them all in one pot and pick one out with one's eyes blindfolded.  Socialism is a broader concept which some people might strive for and achieve.  It is not a desirable state of affairs at all in my opinion, but the concept has some usefulness in describing what people actually might do and can do.  By this definition, Obama, Pelosi, Mao, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Mussolini, and Hitler are all socialists.

Like it or not.

Obama's Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom Admires Mao Too

Jamie Glazov, in a WorldNet Daily commentary, quotes Obama's Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom as another of Obama's henchmen who admires Mao.  For the quote and the history of Mao's murderous ways, this commentary is well worth reading.

In addition to Obama's Anita Dunn, who I discussed here, he also lists some other leftist admirers of Mao.

Obama's Mao-Loving Interim Communications Director Anita Dunn

Glenn Beck's 15 October 2009 show put on a clip of Obama's Interim Communications Director Anita Dunn addressing high school students in June 2009.  In her speech, she said that the two people she turns to the most are her favorite philosophers Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa.  Now, I am not enamored of Mother Teresa and I believe her outlook is very deeply anti-life, but no one should be so bloodthirsty that they cannot see Mao Tse Tung as an unmitigated monster.  Mao killed 70 million people.  He killed between 16.5 and 30 million people in peacetime during the Great Leap Forward.  He said he was prepared to kill 300,000,000 Chinese for the sake of the Communist Revolution.

And he is Dunn's favorite philosopher.  She said she thinks of this man Mao all the time!  There was no indication that thinking of him all the time was a source of continuing nightmares.

Yet this woman is very close to Obama and has been for some time.  What is more, she has long been close to major figures in Washington in the Democrat Party.  She is a central figure herself in that party.  She started as an intern in the Carter White House working for White House Communications Director Gerald Rafshoon.  She then worked for Carter's Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan.  She worked on John Glenn's (D-OH) campaign and then for him as Senator.  She was a top adviser for Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and a chief strategist on his presidential campaign.  She worked on the staff of Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and the staff of Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD).

In 2006, Senator Obama hired her for his The Hopefund, which was to prepare for his run for President.  She was to direct communications and strategy.  She helped launch Obama for America, his presidential campaign organization.  She recruited many of the staffers she knew from the staffs of Senator Bayh and former Senator Tom Daschle.  Her husband, Robert Bauer, has been Obama's general counsel since January 2007.  She trained Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during the transition period.  60 Minutes called her a top adviser in an interview.  Newsweek said she and her husband were a "power couple" in 2008.

Anita Dunn has spent many years working for Democrat Presidents and Senators, while thinking constantly about her favorite philosopher Mao Tse Tung.  She has helped these powerful politicians select their staff and suggested ideas to them.  She has been constantly close to and influencing those in power.  It is highly unlikely that she ever reminded them of their limited power under the Constitution.  Indeed, she was surely very inclined to help them find many rationales for ignoring the Constitution.  What is such a pitiful piece of paper if it would stand in the way of the Communist Revolution?  Mao would not let any such paper stop him in his tireless efforts to transform China.  Why would Anita Dunn allow the Constitution to stop her and Obama from transforming America?  Neither of them would do that.  Obama sought out Marxist professors in college and Dunn reads her Little Red Book.  Obama complains about the Constitution and I am sure Anita Dunn agrees with him.

Van Jones and Anita Dunn and the Suppression of Free Speech Czar at the FCC, Mark Lloyd, and Obama are all deep admirers of Marxism and violent socialist leaders.  There really is something seriously wrong here.  When our Senators and Representatives and Presidents do not have time to write or read the legislative bills they vote for or sign, who do you suppose did write them?  In many cases, it was the people that Anita Dunn recommended be hired and other similar people.  In all the time that Dunn was associated closely and given very responsible tasks by these Presidents and Senators of the Democrat Party, do you really think that they were unaware that Anita was thinking about Mao all the time?  Yet, that was OK with them.

Anita Dunn has had many opportunities to influence the wording of legislation and to make arguments in favor of legislation which would further her agenda, which appears to parallel that of Mao in many significant ways.  This is a very serious matter.  It is no wonder that such people are working so hard to eliminate the private health sector in America or to cripple our economy with drastic and absurd energy reductions.  This is Revolution!!!  The destruction of the American economy and the hardship that will bring upon the American people is no more a terrible price to pay for communism and socialism than was Mao's Great Leap Forward.  You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.  You have to be prepared to kill a few hundred million people.  After all, there are plenty of people.  The Environmentalists even tell us there are far too many people.

Obama is full of apologies for America abroad.  He believes our past is little but arrogant impositions upon the rest of the world.  I am sure Dunn agrees.  In fact, if someone is obsessed with Mao and present in offices full of state and military secrets, can we have any confidence at all that these secrets are not being shared with the likes of the Chinese leadership, the Castros, and the Hugo Chavez's of the Marxist world?  It is a farce of a tragic nature that we have put such power hungry and bloodthirsty people into the bowels of the great American federal government.  Some of you may think I reach too far to say bloodthirsty, but no one can be an admirer of Mao who is not bloodthirsty.  Indeed, anyone who understands Marxism and where it must lead men must be bloodthirsty.  If they do not understand Marxism, then they are too naive to be present in the halls of the American government.  We must choose our leaders and their advisers better.