Bragging Communist, Van Jones Obama’s Green Czar in 2009 Brags about Black Vote

One of the open Communists hired by president Barack Hussein Obama to serve as Greens Czar,  Van Jones offers the following forecast regarding the upcoming November vote for president:

Van Jones: Obama Wouldn’t Lose Black Vote If He Came Out As Gay

from realclearpolitics:

“I think if President Obama came out as gay, he wouldn’t lose the black vote,” a cheerful Van Jones told MSNBC this afternoon.

“President Obama is not going to lose the black vote no matter what he does,” he added.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/van_jones_obama_wouldnt_lose_the_black_vote_even_if_he_came_out_as_gay.html

Obama Now Goes After the Supreme Court (It’s an “unelected group of people”)

 

Obama Directly Assaults Judicial Branch,

 Describes Supreme Court as an ‘Unelected Group of People’

Article sent by Lisa Rich in California.   Source unknown.     Article  and video below are  from realclearpolics.

“President Barack Obama used his press time today to launch a frontal assault on the judicial branch of the US government. Speaking to press in the Rose Garden, the president said “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

 

That “strong majority” came entirely from the Democratic Party, which was defeated in the 2010 mid-terms over dissatisfaction with the ObamaCare law. The majority of American voters did not support ObamaCare’s passage and still want the law repealed. So, the president’s call amounts to an appeal to keep an unpopular law intact just because his party passed it and he signed it.

 

The president continued: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years all we’ve heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example.”

 

That “unelected group of people” head a branch of the US government that is co-equal with the branch that the president heads. He appointed two of those unelected justices himself, one of which had a hand in formulating the defense of the law that is now under review.

 

The ObamaCare case is an example of judicial oversight in a case brought against the federal government by 28 state attorneys general. Overturning it would not constitute “judicial activism.” “Duly constituted and passed laws” get overturned by the courts routinely, if they violate the Constitution. The Congress and the president do not always get things right, nor do the courts that review those laws. But it is the system we have and it has worked mostly well for centuries. “Judicial activism” occurs when a court essentially legislates policy from the bench or finds ways to invent powers not expressly granted government in the Constitution. The president, a former adjunct professor of constitutional law, surely knows the difference.

 

“I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”

 

The president did not appear very confident, while assuring the press of his confidence. He went on to call on the Supreme Court to consider the “human element” in ObamaCare, and essentially abandon its duty to deal with the legality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.”

 

………….the following article and video  is from realclearpolitics:

 

OBAMA;  COURT STRIKING DOWN OBAMACARE WOULD BE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

 

 FROM  realclearpolitics:

 

“President Obama preemptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act.Obama was speaking at a trilateral event with the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico.Obama touted the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.”"I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress,” President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.

“I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said to the White House press.

“As I said, we are confident this will be over — this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency,” he said.”

Click below to view video:

 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/obama_supreme_court_striking_down_obamacare_would_be_judicial_activism.html

The AntiAmerican Dogmatic Marxist Obama Destroys The American Coal Industry

PATTERSON: Obama kills coal – as promised

Higher electricity prices will most affect those who can least afford them

by Matt Patterson     at the Washington Times:

 “If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.

Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned. This week, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency released a set of proposed rules designed to target greenhouse gas emissions. If enacted, these rules would virtually destroy the coal industry – just as President Obama once promised he would do.

Under the proposed rules, new power plants will be required to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity; coal plants average 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt. As Jordan Weissmann writes for theAtlantic, “Natural gas plants already meet this requirement. But if a utility wants to burn coal for electricity, it will need to install carbon capture technology – and that’s really expensive.”

Carbon capture and storage technology allows carbon-dioxide emissions to be stored in the ground instead of being released into the atmosphere. But the technology is, for many coal-energy producers, prohibitively pricey. Even assuming new coal plants are actually built under this regulatory regime, to whom do you think those new expenses will be passed on to? That’s right – energy consumers.

Rich people will be able to pay those extra costs, though they may gripe about it. But middle-class households will see a rise in their energy bills that will put them in even greater financial distress than they already are under in this abysmal “recovery.” Poor and working-class people will be especially hurt, of course, as is almost always the case when wealthy pencil-pushers hatch a brilliant plan to “save the planet.” Among the pencil-pushers is EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who crowed: “Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy.”

Will coal-power producers try to forge ahead with new facilities under these proposed regulations? Doubtful. Remember, this is an industry already groaning under the weight of a slew of new regulations imposed by the Obama EPA, including emission limits on mercury and sulfur dioxide, “which would require utilities to eventually upgrade old plants or build entirely new ones,” Mr. Weissmann notes.

True, the EPA is taking pains to stress that the new regulations would apply only to new plants. Gina McCarthy, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, assured lawmakers at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the agency has “no plans” to curb greenhouse gas emissions for existing plants. But no one believes that, not Republicans who grilled EPA officials at Wednesday’s hearing, nor environmental groups who have long sought the death of King Coal.

David Doniger, climate program policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council notes that the Clean Air Act likely will make it inevitable that the EPA will train its anti-carbon guns on existing coal-fired power plants. Just so we know where the council stands, Mr. Doniger promises, “We look forward to reaching an agreement with EPA on a schedule for completing the standard for new sources and developing standards for existing sources.” Doubtless, Mr. Obama’s EPA won’t need much of a nudge from Mr. Doniger’s group.

Unlike his promises to close the terrorist detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, keep lobbyists out of the White House, and oppose an individual mandate for health insurance, at least we know that Mr. Obama was true to his word when he promised to bankrupt an entire industry that employs tens of thousands of Americans.

Well done.

Matt Patterson is the Warren T. Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and senior editor at the Capital Research Center.

 

Sponsored Link: Three dollars doesn’t get you much these days. But did you know, there’s a unique type of silver coin – issued by the U.S. government – that’s available for only $3 right now? It’s the cheapest way we know of to buy real silver. Click here to learn more.

Barack Obama Re-election Campaign accepts donation from Adolph Hitler; Expresses Thanks

by Scott Johnson in 2012 Presidential election      at  PowerLine:

Dubious donations (2012 edition)

Barack Obama has proved the greatest campaign fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. In 2008 his campaign raised more than $750 million. The Obama campaign even went the extra mile to raise campaign funds by failing to adopt standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions and requires the disclosure of identifying information for contributions in excess of $200. Campaigns must accordingly keep running totals for each donor and report them once they exceed $200.

As we and others noted, the 2008 Obama campaign’s records revealed big contributors with names like “Doodad Pro” (employer: “Loving,” profession: “You”) and “Good Will” (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. I believe it was Pamela Geller who reported that some donations came from overseas — raising the question of whether Obama was accepting donations from foreigners.

All of which prompted an enterprising reader to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. He decided to conduct an experiment. He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name “John Galt” (the hero of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged). He provided the equally fictitious address “1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999.” He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed. Others repeated “John Galt’s” experiment, giving to Obama under such fictitious names as Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.

The Obama campaign was able to take these donations because it had turned off the standard Address Verification System that screens credit-card charges for matching names and addresses. (It can also screen cards issued by foreign banks.) The McCain campaign used AVS and provided a searchable database of all donors, including those who fell below the $200 threshold. The Obama campaign chose not to use the AVS system to screen donations. (The McCain campaign rejected such donations through the use of the AVS system.) You can find a good description of the AVS and CVV fraud prevention devices here.

I wrote about this in the New York Post column “Dubious donations.” The Post subhead observed: “Bam’s Web site invites fraud.” The Washington Post reported on the matter two days later in the story “Obama accepting untraceable donations,” by Matthew Mosk. Mosk quotes Obama campaign officials on their practices. According to them, everything was copascetic.

Urgent Agenda reader Adrian Murray wondered if the Obama campaign has become any more compliant this time around than it was last time. He conducted the necessary experiment and wrote Urgent Agenda proprietor Bill Katz:

If you go here you will note that credit card donations to the Obama election campaign do not require the credit card security code [i.e., the CVV code]. What they have done is disable the Address Verification System (AVS) which prevents credit card fraud. Yesterday, just to see what would happen, I submitted a donation and filled out the form as follows:

Name – Adolph Hitler
Address – 123 Nuremburg Way, Berlin, Germany
Occupation – Dictator
Employer – Nazi Party

After submitting, I received an email that began, “Dear Adolph, thank you for your generous donation….”

I then went to the Romney and Santorum websites and tried the same thing. Both rejected the donations with a message that the address could not be verified as belonging to the card holder.

Try it. Make up a name and an address and donate to Obama. Then try it with the other two. Only Obama will accept the donation.

Why is this important? Federal law prohibits any foreign nationals from financially contributing to any election in the United States. It’s on the FEC website and is one of our most important safeguards against foreign influence in our elections. But anybody in the world can contribute to Obama. Not only that, but they can do so anonymously. Not only that, they can contribute an unlimited amount since there is no record of who made the donation. I could contribute $49 every day for the rest of my life by just changing names every time I reach $2,500 and no one would be the wiser.

I haven’t repeated Mr. Murray’s experiment, but I believe the situation is as described in the words of the Talking Heads: “Same as it ever was.”

Mitt not Losing Women’s Vote, but will Need to Corral them in Greater Numbers by November

 

False Reports: GOP Not Losing Women in Contraception “War”

By David Paul Kuhn – April 2, 2012     at RealClearPolitics:

New York Magazine’s Frank Rich argued last week that there is, indeed, a “full-fledged Republican war on women.” Rich asserted that this latest cultural debate is costing the likely Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, women’s support. He cited a single poll to prove his point. In March, Barack Obama ran ahead of Romney among women in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 55 percent to 37 percent. That does look bad. But what share of women supported Romney before the debate over contraception coverage in the new national health care law? Essentially the same share. In mid-January, the NBC/Journal poll found that women favored Obama over Romney, 54 to 38 percent. It was a statistically insignificant shift.

Rich’s mis-analysis is hardly unique. Sans evidence, CNN reported on March 6 that “the gender gap has been widening, with the president winning more women’s support since this contraception controversy has become an issue.”

Three days later, The Washington Post gave the story front-page treatment. The article began: “The fragile gains Republicans had been making among female voters have been erased, a shift that has coincided with what has become a national shouting match over reproductive issues.” Except the trends did not coincide.

The Post cited the same poll as New York magazine. Thus, it too wrongly reported that Romney had lost women’s support over the course of this debate. The Post also referenced another question in the NBC/Journal survey: Which party would you like to see control Congress? The Post reported that Democrats’ four-percentage-point advantage on the generic ballot in the summer had widened to a 15-point advantage in the most recent poll. That was one way of framing the facts. It was just not an accurate way.

Democrats’ margin with women was indeed four points in August 2011. It was 16 points in October (13 in December, seven in November). Instead of cherry-picking a date, we should consider the time span that actually coincided with the contraception row. In the most recent NBC/Journal poll, which the Post cited, Democrats on the congressional ballot actually polled 14 points ahead among women. What about before the debate began? Democrats’ had a 15-point advantage with women in the same poll, on the same question, in mid-January. The Post’s big story was wrong in every way.

The day after the Post story, The New York Times ran a piece headlined “Centrist Women Tell of Disenchantment With Republicans.” The reporter, like Rich, cited a singular poll to prove Romney was losing women over the course of this debate. She noted that Romney’s female support stood at 37 percent in the mid-February CBS News/New York Times poll. But a month earlier, Romney performed only two percentage points better with women in the same poll — a shift also within the margin of error. By mid-March, on the other side of the contraception debate, Romney’s standing with women returned to precisely where it was before the controversy, 39 percent.

The contraception firestorm concerned substantive differences over women’s health policy, feminism, religious liberty and abortion. But the heated debate over women’s issues did not cost Republicans women’s support. Quinnipiac and Public Policy Polling (D) exhibit the same trend. Gallup found that Romney actually improved with women between mid-December and mid-February, a few weeks into the contraception debate. Obama’s job performance rating with women, in the Gallup poll, has remained steady throughout the debate, bobbing around 50 percent since the beginning of the year.

The pillars of our print media are especially prone to these mistakes on social issues. The data is misreported on subjects ranging from immigration policy to substantive, and sometimes silly, analyses of the gender gap.

The mistakes are not uniformly one-sided. Sometimes it’s conventional wisdom that endures despite the facts. “Obama risks Catholic vote with birth-control mandate,” went a Reuters headline early in the debate. There has not been a “Catholic vote” for decades in American politics. The rate of attendance at church, not what church Americans attend, strongly relates to modern voting. Religious Catholics vote more like religious Protestants than other Catholics. Yet, more often than not, poor analysis on social issues colors leftward. One reason, as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said at the outset of this latest bout, is that the media have a blind spot on cultural issues.

Republicans should be concerned. The GOP nominee cannot win with only 37 percent of the female vote. Yet early head-to-head polls are not historically predictive. George W. Bush, like Romney, earned only 37 percent of the female vote in the CBS poll in February of 2000. But Bush won 43 percent of women on Election Day.”

Comment:   By Nature the human male is driven to be a problem solver and seek liberty to satisfy that basic drive.  

The human female, by nature is not driven by the  problem solving  instinct  leading to inventions, discoveries and other unravelings of the unknown.   Unfortunately for America she, especially in the single state, is not at all interested in problem solving, but seeks security.     Like my ex, so many see government as their reliable husband and become infatuated with Marxism and its dictatorship for protection and security.  

The female  drive to be protected  is a curse for democratic government everywhere.

1 | 2 | Next Page››

Communist Sympathizer Anita Dunn and the Obama White House

Anita Dunn was selected by Barack Obama to be his White House Communications Director in 2009.    She served from April through November.

The most heinous mass murder in world history is not Adolf Hitler…….nor is it Josef V. Stalin.  

It is Chairman Mao of the Peoples Republic of China, that is, RED CHINA.    Mao Tse Dung, as it was spelled in English during his ruthless hours, is credited with the mass murder of between 60,000,000 and 100,000,000 persons in his Marxist devotions to force and maintain equality in his “Peoples” Dictatorship.  

Leftist, especially those at Columbia and Harvard have long admired this murderer.

Citizens of the United States from their liberal educations are ignorant of World History especially  the part that includes the Mao Tse Dung years in China.     They presently are taught equality…..that there is neither good nor bad in the world only within the United States of America.

Barack Obama could also be ignorant of  world history as well.    Why not?   He hides his collegiate years  transcripts.   He was and is  a fan of radical racists, so he may have carried Mao’s little red book along with him while at Columbias or Harvard.

The 44th America president has had other radical affections as well…..terrorist  Marxist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright racist  preacher at Trinity Church in Chicago, Obama’s father figure for twenty two years.   

Please read the following article from the Obama File.    I do not know the background of this site, but  the following article and printing of Anita Dunn’s “address” to the  graduating class is absolutely accurate.    The woman is at best a stupid lefty flake, or a Communist nut who happens to be an activist in the Obama administration to this very day:

The following article is from the Obama File.com.

Obama administration communications director Anita Dunn commended the wisdom of mass murdering Communist Chairman Mao in her address to high school students this past June.  Dunn cited Mao and Mother Teresa as her two favorite political philosophers.  I wrote about Dunn’s address here, John here; both posts include video of Dunn’s address.  Dunn said to the assembled students: A lot of you have a great deal of ability.  A lot of you work hard. Put them together and that answers the “why not” question.  There is usually not a good reason.  And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers:  Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices.  You’re going to challenge.  You’re going to say why not.  You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.   But here’s the deal — these are your choices.  They are no one else’s.  In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army.  They had the airport.  They had everything on their side, and people said, “How can you win?  How can you do this?  How can you do this, against all the odds against you?”  And Mao Zedong said, “You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.”  And think about that for a second.  You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK?  It is about your choices and your path.  You fight your own war.  You lay out your own path.  You figure out what’s right for you.  You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.  You fight your war.  You let them fight theirs.  Everybody has their own path.   And Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply, “Go find your own Calcutta.”  OK? Go find your own Calcutta.  Fight your own path.  Go find the thing that is unique to you.  The challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else’s challenge.  One of the things that we see the Obamas, both of them, Michelle and Barack, came out of backgrounds as community organizers, working. Among Dunn’s explanations of her citation of Chairman Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers is that she was kidding.  Watching the video of Dunn’s speech, however, we can see with our own eyes that she takes Mao seriously indeed.  We can now also observe that that she lies like a rug.

A Maoist in the White House

PajamasMedia.com lists them.  Jeremiah Wright. William Ayers. Van Jones. Where does the rogues’ gallery of Barack Obama’s radical friends end?  These people are not liberals.  They are not “progressives.”  They are radicals who hate America and in many cases have advocated or even perpetrated violence in an effort to destroy it.Thanks to Glenn Beck, the American public has now been introduced to yet another radical member of Obama’s inner circle: Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, former top advisor to Obama’s political campaign, and wife of Obama’s personal lawyer, Robert Bauer.In a speech before high school students last June, Dunn spoke passionately about her two favorite political philosophers, “the two people I turn to most” for answers to important questions like “how to do things that have never been done before.”  Who are these paragons?  One was Mother Teresa.  Dunn didn’t have much to say about her.  Most of her enthusiasm was lavished upon her other favorite fount of political wisdom: Mao Tse-Tung. Mao Tse-Tung.  That would be the deviant monster who, quite apart from his disgusting personal life, engineered the mass murder of anywhere from 50 to over 100 million people.  Estimates vary so widely because murder on that wholesale scale is difficult to tabulate, especially in a country as backwards as China was under Mao’s long reign.  But there is little doubt that Mao has the grisly distinction of being the greatest mass murderer in history. Yet this is the man that one of Obama’s closest advisors commends to an audience with warmth and enthusiasm.  In 1947, she tells her audience, Chiang Kai-Shek seemed to hold all the cards: he had the army, the air force, and yet Mao went on to victory, telling people, as Anita Dunn told her listeners, “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.”  Don’t believe me?  Watch and listen:

Communist Van Jones and the Obama White House

Van Jones and His STORMtroopers Denounced America the Night After

9/11

By Matthew Vadum

 

Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.

The reason this is important is because Van Jones is now President Obama’s green jobs czar. He does not appear to have distanced himself from his past communist activities and is now part of the Obama administration’s push to turn Sept. 11 into a National Day of Service focused on the promotion of the radical environmentalist agenda.

The vigil was reported by World Net Daily which excerpted parts of a history of the now-disbanded group.

Apparently, after the WND article was posted online, the website on which the original document was posted was overwhelmed by visitors and unavailable. I found the article in the “Way Back Machine” website (web.archive.org), an archival resource. The 2004 document, called “Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM),” may be found on the archival site here. (In case that becomes unavailable, the document “Reclaiming Revolution” is available at the link embedded in this sentence.)

Jones also founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which joined in the vigil according to an Ella Baker Center press release from 2001. The press release contained this passage that quoted Jones:

“Anti-Arab hostility is already reaching a fever pitch as pundits and common people alike rush to judgment that an Arab group is responsible for this tragedy,” said Van Jones, national executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. “We fear that an atmosphere is being created that will result in official and street violence against Arab men, women and children.”

“Reclaiming Revolution” also blamed the U.S. for 9/11. A passage on page 45 (27 of the PDF file) reads:

That night, STORM and the other movement leaders expressed sadness and anger at the deaths of innocent working class people. We were angry, first and foremost, with the U.S. government, whose worldwide aggression had engendered such hate across the globe that working class people were not safe at home. We honored those who had lost their lives in the attack — and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.

Michelle Malkin discussed STORM and “Reclaiming Revolution” on the “Glenn Beck Program” on Aug. 25.

President Barack Hussein Obama selected Van Jones as his Administration’s Green Jobs  Czar on March 10, 2009.      http://www.alternet.org/environment/131108/van_jones_joins_white_house_as_green_jobs_advisor/

For a far more complete background of Communist Van Jones and his  Post in the Obama Administration click below:

http://theobamafile.com/_associates/VanJones.htm

The Differences between Americans and the university Obama-Pelosi Anointed Elite….Thomas Sowell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VvliKHA1u8&feature=colike    from the Thomas Sowell Reader:

The above is such a short unimpressive address.   But no other address available can more clearly define the distance between Americans and the Obama administration elite, the  anointed followers at university, the mainstream media  and elsewhere.

One of the most gifted scholars of the modern American setting is  economist  Thomas Sowell.    Dennis Prager has often interviewed Mr. Sowell on his radio show and I think it correct to write that Mr. Sowell is one of Dennis’ favorite Americans.   The video above is a reading from the Thoms Sowell Reader.

Marxism is the religion of elites.    Its followers  are certain God does not exist and therefore mankind, Marxist mankind must become God to lead humans to create Heaven  on Earth.    The goal of this anointed class is to force the international to  local tribal flock to be made equal, think, do, possess, express, speak, hear,  eat, drink, as Marxist see fit for the betterment of mankind and to enforce  the measurements of equality….which usually means a dictator and  his Kommisariat directing massive numbers of bureaucrats.

Although history’s pages tell us these dictators have been male, Marxism is particularly romantic among single women anointed with education.   It is the human male, not the female who traditionally values liberty.

Again, the Thomas Sowell Reader address:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VvliKHA1u8&feature=colike