Class warfare according to Barack Obama, Karl Marx

I know wealth envy and class warfare have been with us from the beginning of history … but now we have the leader (“ruler” in the words of his associates) of the free world promoting class warfare with a vengeance. In his speech yesterday Obama said “This is not class warfare, it’s math.” It’s clear, then, that Dear Ruler and I are operating with a different definition of class warfare. So here’s a definition we might use: “[T]he antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class.” That definition is from Karl Marx. Barack Obama is the one engaged in the antagonizing, pinning ailing seniors against wealthy Americans, pinning college hopefuls against corporate profits.

On almost a daily basis, Barack Obama is engaged in an effort to demonize the wealthy (bourgeoisie) in order to drum up support from the proletariat. Remember that it was John Drew who wrote about meeting a young Barack Obama. At the time, Obama was coming to realize that he could have a better shot at a “revolution” if he went about through government and politics: “Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism.”

Moving right along .. a few more things about Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s contributions to the theory of class warfare included his belief that class conflict was a life-and-death struggle impossible of peaceful resolution. This is actually where I believe that Barack Obama differs from Karl Max, based on John Drew’s encounter with him at a young age. I do not believe that Obama wants to incite violence, but I do believe that Obama is using the bully-pulpit to antagonize voters and drive a wedge between two sectors of society that he believes are not mutually exclusive: the evil rich and the middle class or poor. To Barack Obama, a wildly successful wealthy segment of society only exists because that money that was taken from other people who are not wildly successful themselves. Their gain is someone else’s loss. This collective idea of wealth is exactly what we should be fearful of, and is exactly the reason why Barack Obama has no clue how to grow our economy. Wildly successful Americans can exist while growing the size of the economic pie for everyone, not just redistributing the size of the current pie.

The other contribution of Marx to class warfare theory was the concept that membership in a class is essentially permanent and hereditary. This is exactly the opposite of what some, like yours truly, believe to be the American Dream: the opportunity to work hard, earn a living, raise a family and make a better life for yourself than your parents. In other words, just because your parents mow lawns or clean houses for a living doesn’t mean that you have to do the same. In America, you can make anything of yourself, so long as you work for it. The opportunity is there. Well apparently this concept is fading. We are turning from an American-idea of opportunity toward a Marxist-idea of opportunity. From the Wall Street Journal …

Before 2007, Americans generally opposed higher taxes on the wealthy because they thought they would be wealthy too some day.

Not anymore. One reason President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” (applied to those making $1 million or more a year) may be politically popular is that most voters no longer see themselves reaching the $1 million mark – let alone $1 million a year.

According to a new poll from the Associated Press and CNBC, 79% of Americans say it’s unlikely they’ll have $1 million or more in assets over the next 10 years. Fully 61% said it is “extremely” or “very difficult” to become a millionaire in the U.S. today…

What’s even more surprising is that the U.S. no longer leads the world in its hopes for upward mobility. Australians are more optimistic, though only slightly: 72% of them said it’s unlikely they’ll become millionaires.

Here we are in Barack Obama’s America … sliding toward Marxism, whether we realize it or not.

If Obama fails, does America fail?

We are starting to see a growing trend among libs and progs. The trend is this … If you do not want to see Barack Obama succeed, then you are against America and want our economy to fail. The issue stems from a comment made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He said in an interview somewhere, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Now Democrats like Steny Hoyer have latched on to this, interpreting it as: “”The leader in the Senate said his principal objective is to defeat Barack Obama, and therefore — and this is important — what follows is that America needs to fail over the next 14 months.”

No, Steny. You’re wrong. Obama needs to fail for America to survive. It’s not all that difficult a concept to master. Obama said that he was going to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Americans have seen enough of his fundamental transformation, and they want his agenda halted. Obama is a cancer. If a doctor says “the single most important thing we want to achieve is to defeat this cancer” that doctor is not saying that he wants the patient to die. He wants the patient to be cancer-free so he will survive. Defeating Obama wouldn’t make America cancer-free. There’s still malignancies known as Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and others … but it would be a nice start.

Then we have Palm Beach County Commissioner Burt Aaronson. I told you about this prepuce yesterday. Aaronson says that Republicans should be thrown in jail for trying to destroy the country in order to defeat Obama in 2012. His comments came at a Democrat fundraiser over the weekend: “They’re throwing our country, and they all should be put in jail for what they’re doing, because they’re destroying our country, because they said at the beginning our one mission is to get rid of President Obama. That was their mission. They don’t care how much they destroy other people. They don’t care whether you go to work. They don’t care about anything.

I would love to see Barack Obama succeed if it meant to govern this nation in a way that fostered job creation and economic confidence and protected our liberties. Most Americans do not want to see Barack Obama succeed if it means growing the size of government, increasing taxes on the job creators, increasing government regulations, decreasing our economic liberty and destroying our free market system. Republicans do want to see Obama fail because he is pushing for policies that will assure America’s failure. By fighting Obama’s agenda, Republicans are doing what they can to salvage this nation, in hopes that he can’t do too much more damage before 2012.

So being against Obama does not mean that you are against America. It means that you are against the Obama idea of a European socialist/fascist welfare state America.

Government shut down threat

Here we go again. Democrats were so quick to pound Republicans for scaring Americans by calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. It’s not nice to scare the little people, is it? Like when Obama says that people with wrinkles won’t get their Social Security checks if the evil Republicans shut down the government. Well guess who’s talking about a government shutdown now? A Democrat – one of the biggies. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is saying that if the Republicans don’t cooperate with him, we could see a government shutdown.

Here’s the issue this time around. The Congress must pass yet another continuing resolution by September 30th in order to fund the government through mid-November. However, since Congress is on vacation next week, they really want to get sucker passed by .. err .. Thursday night. If possible. So the issue is over funding for FEMA. The bill to be taken up in the House today contains $3.65 billion for FEMA. However, the Democrats in the Senate want more like $6.9 billion for FEMA funds. So Harry Reid says that if the House sends him a bill with only $3.65 billion, he will amend it to include the increase in funds, which would then send it back to the House. If the House refuses the increase …..

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell assures us that there will not be a government shutdown over the FEMA funding issue. But Harry Reid says, “I’m not that sure” there won’t be a shutdown. “I am not as certain as McConnell.”

One other thing I want to point out in this story … Thundering Harry held a press conference yesterday on this issue, calling the GOP bill “inadequate” and “wholly unprecedented” and blah blah blah. I’ll tell you what is wholly unprecedented ….. the fact that the Congress has not passed a budget in over 800 days … but that’s another issue entirely. Anyway, Harry Reid is standing up there at this press conference and next to him is Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu. Mary Landrieu stands up and in about 13 words sums up the Washington mentality that has so many Americans frustrated. Are you ready for it?

“We will eventually pay for it, but we can argue about that later.”

– Senator Mary Landrieu

Spoken like a true Washington hack. It’s no wonder our country is in the shape that it is in.

%d bloggers like this: