Looking Closer at Obama’s Marxism

I recently received a thoughtful comment from a reader which I wish to share:

“It seems worth noting that, although perhaps a democratic-socialist, Obama is by no means a Marxist. Strict Marxists are quite unhappy with his policies and politics. I find it odd that a wordpress search for the tag “marxist” is filled almost entirely with posts regarding Obama. This is not to say that critiques can’t be made, there are certainly areas of his policy that I wouldn’t necessarily agree with, but merely that the integrity of the conversation requires work to accurately portray the situation. And Obama is simply neither a Marxists in Marx’s sense, nor a Marxist in the Soviet sense. Thoughts?”

Thank you for the thoughtful and polite comment.

Obviously I cannot project into the Mr. Obama’s brain or soul.   To what degree he is a dedicated Marxist, officially, practically, or religiously, one cannot tell.    There are no such lines of degrees of dedication in human behavior  anyway…..only the horror of the results of what Marxist dreamers and tyrants of the past have caused.

Was Josef V. Stalin a dedicated Marxist?   Only a romantic Marxist?  How about a strict Marxist?  Shall we try Pol Pot, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin,  or Fidel?

These, including Obama, are authoritarians who gained power or wanted to gain power  preaching sharing the wealth….class warfare pitting the masses against the few in the wealthy set.

To what degree of Marxist  does one become when authoritarians  begin to use terror and mass slaughter as standard state policy?   To what degree of Marxism is a Progressive when always progressing to….well what?????  Marxism of course.

Obama is a class warfare guy but at present,  with limited acts of authoritarianism, a guy  who pays little attention to Constitutional  restraints which are supposed to separate the Presidency from the Congress.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is a class warfare guy strictly confined to the present 2012 presidential election.  

I don’t believe it for a moment when one learns about his background of mentors ranging from “Goddamn America” Jeremiah Wright, his religious and family spiritual guide for 22 years, and, as Obama has warmly expressed in writing, “his father figure”,  and Saul Alinsky, Obama’s community organizer star from the Chicago past.    Keep on adding the college figures around whom he ‘hung’,  one does get the clearer picture of Obama’s clearer romance of things Marxist…..and I haven’t yet even mentioned his romance with forced equality among  people over whom he rules,  with government top-down rules of control by force of law and punishment.

Mr. Obama clearly  opposes private enterprise.   He prefers to be secretive and devious about this basic Marxist tenet, but he is so blabby especially when caught ‘off guard’,  when his ego drifts to the big-time amid the cameras, he forgets himself again and again and slips into class warfare enthusiasm.   It is at the core of his re-election campaign.

Our nation is facing financial ruin in the very near future.   Obama is not concerned.   He acts as if  the crisis doesn’t concern him……  He is concerned about his re-election.   There is no expressed  concern for the state of the country over which he presides…..only words filled with Obamabull.  He even has boasted about not leading…..claiming he leads from behind.  That he might be simply incompetent is one thing.    The fact the country’s financial and economic condition might be a disaster has absolutely no visible effect upon this non-American.  He seems to ignore it all.

Where do we get the idea about what Marxism is or isn’t?   Almost solely from social science propagandists at university…..nearly all lefties…..of  the Marxist kind who insist the only thing that matters in human affairs  is economics, and therefore  the government must dictate and control   the  distribution of citizen wealth, which they believe in total ignorance of the romantic kind, or from doctrinaire class envy, or both for they must not know the consequences.

The religon fundamental to Marxism is atheism.     There is absolutely nothing in President Barack Hussein Obama that suggests he is a pensive man about Western mankind’s religious curiositisies and revelations.   He is completely COLD on the topic for, I believe, he has no vocabulary from which he can  draw that allows him to enter throughtul Christian conversation about beliefs, episodes, memories, and such of any religious experience.

The man is dead cold …..unable to exress himself honestly about  matters beyond himself…COLD.   He can politic, lie, offend, be snied,  insinuate, mock, distort, and pretend knowledge at teleprompter time or in other controlled conditions, and can even pretend to be congeneal….but the man is dead cold ourside of his world of self interest…..to lead without restraints, America to a dictatorship of the equal with Barack running the controls.    

He fits well the criminal profile, as they say.

I quote the following from a commonly used modern American dictionary, the definition of Marxism:    

“Marxist’s theories…the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies   2.  Politics based on Marx’s theories political ideology based on the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

and the definition of  Marxist: 

 Follower of Marxism….somebody  who supports or practices Marxism….or implementing Marxism.

My graduate degree was in Soviet Studies.   I became at one time,  fluent in the language with perfect pitch and tone, and on two occasions, in 1966 and in 1990  visited this great empire  of Marxist dogma based on forced equality….when it was decaying but in top form, and later when it was truly rotten……but no longer seemed to interested in killing or exiling millions.

In the twentieth century when intellectual romance with Marxism and its drive to dictat equality and  will over others cost the lives of over 100,000,000 persons.    It is only the ignorance which has been gifted to the American student by university ‘studies’  and professors of the social sciences over the past fifty years that has resurrected this debauchery with the politics of  Barack Obama, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, etc, etc, etc.

Unlike Nikolai Lenin, Obama does not seem to be interested (yet?) in the more aggressive evangelizing of the nonMarxists.   But, in America, 2012, how could he dare  be in public conversation or debate running for public office proud of Marxism’s contribution to destroy such numbers of  Earth’s human population?    Marxism still has a smelly name among older Americans, especially conservatives who have believed in the American dream from both church and public school educations in the past?

There is no doubt all in my mind tht Barack Hussein Obama is a Marxist…….at least his buddy, neighbor, and fellow coordinator terrorist Bill Ayers, proudly and openly  boasts of his Marxism, at least in public.

The furtive Obama exposes very little in public but blabbings of ‘nice’ sounding  words, except when his calculations for Marxist America begin to carry him into the clouds and he begins to slip into his Marxist memory.

Is it within his Marxist agenda a design to cause the collapse of the American economy?

I don’t know…….How close to George Soros DO YOU THINK HE IS?

Do We Really Want Lefty Atheism to be our AMERICAN STATE RELIGION?

With the re’election of Leftwing, Muslim sympathizer, the devious and dishonest Barack Hussein Obama, the growth of State Atheism will continue to expand its power in every aspect of American governance…..for it is the only religion university ‘educated’ are taught to embrace.

Mark Waldeland, a God-fearing, conservative and retired public school teacher sent me the following video of a better president during a better American time than our American world under Barack Hussein Obama.

As you listen carefully to the comments made by this American president, do understand that the Leftwing Democratic Party advertisers of his day announced that the speaker featured in the video  was the dumbest of the simple mindeds  from the primitive God-fearing crowd of the moronic conservative world,  too mentally  crippled to deal with modern day enlightenment……..the enlightenment one would learn from university.

And the university gave us Barack Hussein Obama and the wordl of today’s America!

Click below to compare our presidents, our times, our America…..

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OvN1jTkzXbY?rel=0

Mark Ritchie, MN Lefty Sec. of State practices Slight of Hand with Marriage Ballot

Joe Soucheray:

Ritchie meddles to help own agenda

on marriage, voter ID

By Joe Soucheray

 

http://www.twincities.com/soucheray/ci_21044945/joe-soucheray-ritchie-meddles-help-own-agenda-marriage

 

By Joe Soucheray

 

 

 

Minnesota’s secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, acting in concert with the state’s attorney general, Lori Swanson, a Democrat, intends to change the titles of the constitutional amendments regarding marriage and voter photo ID.

Ritchie believes, apparently nudged by Swanson, that he has found state law under which the secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for ballot questions. Legislative attorneys believe that Ritchie’s perceived authority would only come into play when the lawmakers do not provide a title.

Well, let’s see. Did the Legislature offer titles?

For the so-called marriage amendment, the language passed by the Legislature is: “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”

You would think that a secretary of state who has preened as much about clarity and simplicity on behalf of the voter as Ritchie would have found that title about as clear and simple as even lawmakers could have made it. But because he fears that it might pass, Ritchie wants to change it to “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”

Proponents of the amendment find that to be muddying and obfuscating. The word “limiting,” for example, might give one pause, for we certainly don’t want to be limiting anybody’s rights, however real or imagined.

Opponents of the amendment find that a dose of muddying and obfuscation is just what the doctor ordered, and in Ritchie they have a doctor with advanced degrees in

 

mischief. Remember the Franken-Coleman recount when a precinct in Minneapolis “lost” 133 ballots and a precinct in Maplewood had 171 more ballots to count than their totals from election night? The lost ballots got ignored and the newly discovered ballots got counted.Made you want to say “hmmmm.”

Monday, Minnesotans for Marriage, joined by several Republican lawmakers, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court saying, essentially, “Hey, wait a minute here; this guy just can’t whimsically change a title that was already as clear as a bell.”

Ritchie might also get sued for his changes to the photo ID amendment, the word “photo” the clarifying distinction of the amendment.

The Legislature wrote: “Photo Identification Required for Voting.”

Ritchie again looked into the heart and mind of the voter and thought he could be helpful. His title is: “Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots.”

Makes you want to say “hmmmm.”

By removing the word “photo,” which is the only reason the proposed amendment exists in the first place, he has manufactured a complexity that serves only his purpose, to get the amendment defeated.

Ritchie is a self-professed DFL activist — it’s all over his bio — and DFL activists reject the idea of marriage existing only between one man and one woman and they reject the idea of requiring a photo ID to vote because they contend that would disenfranchise too many voters who can’t get a government-issued photo ID.

Fair enough.

Friends and foes of both amendment questions have already marshaled their forces; in fact, we haven’t seen anything yet because the advertisements haven’t even started in full. But foes, ahead of the advertising blitz, seem to be enjoying the additional manipulations of a secretary of state whose meddling has nothing to do with keeping things simple for the voters, as the Legislature intended, and everything to do with his particular brand of ideology.

Ritchie reminds me of my days when I played “Go to the Dump” or “Old Maid” with the kids and I would highlight the one card in my hand I wanted the kid to take. But I was only trying to confuse one kid, not the whole electorate.

 

 

 “Minnesota’s secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, acting in concert with the state’s attorney general, Lori Swanson, a Democrat, intends to change the titles of the constitutional amendments regarding marriage and voter photo ID.

Ritchie believes, apparently nudged by Swanson, that he has found state law under which the secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for ballot questions. Legislative attorneys believe that Ritchie’s perceived authority would only come into play when the lawmakers do not provide a title.

Well, let’s see. Did the Legislature offer titles?

For the so-called marriage amendment, the language passed by the Legislature is: “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”

You would think that a secretary of state who has preened as much about clarity and simplicity on behalf of the voter as Ritchie would have found that title about as clear and simple as even lawmakers could have made it. But because he fears that it might pass, Ritchie wants to change it to “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”

Proponents of the amendment find that to be muddying and obfuscating. The word “limiting,” for example, might give one pause, for we certainly don’t want to be limiting anybody’s rights, however real or imagined.

Opponents of the amendment find that a dose of muddying and obfuscation is just what the doctor ordered, and in Ritchie they have a doctor with advanced degrees in

 

mischief. Remember the Franken-Coleman recount when a precinct in Minneapolis “lost” 133 ballots and a precinct in Maplewood had 171 more ballots to count than their totals from election night? The lost ballots got ignored and the newly discovered ballots got counted.Made you want to say “hmmmm.”

Monday, Minnesotans for Marriage, joined by several Republican lawmakers, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court saying, essentially, “Hey, wait a minute here; this guy just can’t whimsically change a title that was already as clear as a bell.”

Ritchie might also get sued for his changes to the photo ID amendment, the word “photo” the clarifying distinction of the amendment.

The Legislature wrote: “Photo Identification Required for Voting.”

Ritchie again looked into the heart and mind of the voter and thought he could be helpful. His title is: “Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots.”

Makes you want to say “hmmmm.”

By removing the word “photo,” which is the only reason the proposed amendment exists in the first place, he has manufactured a complexity that serves only his purpose, to get the amendment defeated.

Ritchie is a self-professed DFL activist — it’s all over his bio — and DFL activists reject the idea of marriage existing only between one man and one woman and they reject the idea of requiring a photo ID to vote because they contend that would disenfranchise too many voters who can’t get a government-issued photo ID.

Fair enough.

Friends and foes of both amendment questions have already marshaled their forces; in fact, we haven’t seen anything yet because the advertisements haven’t even started in full. But foes, ahead of the advertising blitz, seem to be enjoying the additional manipulations of a secretary of state whose meddling has nothing to do with keeping things simple for the voters, as the Legislature intended, and everything to do with his particular brand of ideology.

Ritchie reminds me of my days when I played “Go to the Dump” or “Old Maid” with the kids and I would highlight the one card in my hand I wanted the kid to take. But I was only trying to confuse one kid, not the whole electorate.”

No Innovation When Health Care becomes A Factory Business

Innovation Unable to Thrive in U.K.’s NHS

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, has enacted a truly innovative approach to patient care. Inspired by the precision and exactitude of a BMW factory, the hospital’s administrators purchased and installed the Prescribing, Information and Communication System (PICS for short) in each patient’s room, tracking patient care and health outcomes and looking for instances of neglect, says The Economist.

The system encourages the hospitals workers to be more precise and efficient by paying greater attention to small details. Years into the health care experiment, the implementation of PICS is being lauded as a boon to patient care.

• The system has allowed hospital workers to more quickly assess the benefits of treatment, cutting down on readmissions and wasted prescriptions.
• A report by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concluded that mortality rates had fallen, and noted that the new system had helped reduce the sort of errors that lead to poor patient care.
• Attracted by its results, some hospitals with poor outcomes in fields like esophageal cancer have contracted out their treatments to Birmingham.

It is at this point, however, that the implementation of a potentially lifesaving technology comes to a screeching halt. By removing rewards for innovation and undercutting the benefits of competition, Britain’s National Health Service squelched the growth of PICS before it began.

• The NHS is preoccupied by austerity: it must find £20 billion (about $30 billion) worth of efficiency savings by 2015.
• Further, the health service is still reeling from a failed central-computer project that has ended up costing over £12 billion (almost $19 billion).
• Most importantly, innovations do not spread in Britain’s health sector because the NHS has no mechanism for ensuring they do, or for rewarding the inventive.
• The service is centrally funded and emphasizes the universality of its care rather than its results.
• As a result, the system is likely to prove better at controlling costs than at encouraging good ideas to thrive.
• Additionally, because hospitals do not directly compete with one another (nor are they allowed to acquire one another unless they are in dire financial straits), PICS is not likely to be unilaterally adopted by other institutions.

It is the motivation for a competitive advantage that spurs innovation in other health systems, and it is the absence of this motivation in Britain that will harm health outcomes.

Source: “From Petrol to Prescriptions,” The Economist, June 16, 2012.

For text:

http://www.economist.com/node/21556924

For more on Health Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16