Obama is a Communist? Please debunk...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama's a communist? No kidding....

So as of January 21, 2009 the Republican party will be outlawed, all religion will be outlawed, all private guns confiscated, and all businesses taken over by the state?

Is that what the Obama fear mongerers think is going to happen? Cuz that's what communists do.
 
I never said he did. I didn't put that in quotes. I did put in quotes what he actually said in my posts. You should have been able to understand that the last part of what you quoted by me was a sarcastic aside. You are being overly picky ... perhaps because that's the only real way you can defend the likes of William Ayers. Are you an admirer, gdnp?

Gee, I'm too picky when you make an unfounded claim and I call you on it...and then, because I caught you lying about Ayers and called you on it, I am automatically an Ayers defender. :rolleyes:

Guess what? I have not read Ayers books. I have not read his wife's books. I'm not really that interested. He is not relevant to the Obama administration.

Ayers, Obama, AND OTHERS INCLUDING REPUBLICANS worked together on the Annenberg education program. They had a 100 million dollar budget. You have referred to it repeatedly, generally focusing on its failure to improve achievement. There must be some records of their activities. I assume you have read them. Can you provide any evidence that Ayers and Obama used this program to indoctrinate Chicago's youth with communist ideology?

And no, kindergartners asked to share toys doesn't count.
 
The Obama 'wealth redistribution' in historical context:

thum_225849068c2b6ba87.jpg
 
Guilt by association. Gotcha.

Well, my mother always told me that you are who you hang out with. Smart woman, my mother.

Let's not, unless you can explain to us first why this has any relevance to the topic of the thread, which is whether Obama is a communist.

You were the one who questioned the evidence that Young was a communist. Just thought I'd help you out. :D
 
Well, my mother always told me that you are who you hang out with. Smart woman, my mother.
evidence?

You were the one who questioned the evidence that Young was a communist. Just thought I'd help you out.

As usual, you are mistaken. I pointed out that you used an unproven accusation by the unamerican activities committee as evidence that someone was a communist. If you recall, at the time I brought it up I did not even recall who the person was about whom you had made the accusation, which was not important to my point. The purpose was to demonstrate the low quality of your evidence, which is all innuendo, suppositions prefaced with phrases like "it is not unreasonable to suspect..." and guilt by association: Obama knew X who worked with Y who was accused of being a communist.

I'm still waiting for that evidence of communist indoctrination funded by the Annenberg foundation. :D
 
Gee, I'm too picky when you make an unfounded claim and I call you on it...and then, because I caught you lying about Ayers and called you on it, I am automatically an Ayers defender.

Not true. I claimed Ayers said certain things. IN QUOTES. And based on various sources (including very liberal media) it appears he did say those things. And he hasn't denied saying them. I claimed he, his girlfriend at the time, his current wife, and the organization he helped found were involved in building bombs whose purpose was to kill hundreds of people. And based on sources from liberal media, statements from his own book, and sworn testimony by someone who was there at the time, he was involved. I claimed his wife was a murderer. Even Ayers seems to have admitted that. Your desperate attempt to label what I wrote a lie, based SOLELY on a letter Ayers MAY have written in 2001, is obviously nothing more than a red herring on your part or a display of utter gullibility. And why else would you engage in such a tactic unless you are an Ayers defender? At one point you even claimed that the bomb Ayers admits was intended to kill people wasn't intended for that purpose. That is the degree to which you appear willing to defend Ayers and thus Obama.

He is not relevant to the Obama administration.

That's obviously untrue.

Ayers is a man who worked closely with Obama on multiple projects over more than a decade ...

Who as a co-chair with Obama even ran the largest single project of Obama's career up until the time he ran for President ...

Who it's admitted regularly emailed and phoned Obama to share ideas (presumably radical ones since those appear to be the only ideas that Ayers has) ...

Who appeared with Obama at academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss Ayers' book ...

Whose wife (Dohrn) mentored Obama during the time he interned at a law firm with strong ties to the Ayers' family ...

Whose wife (Dohrn) was also a personal friend of a principle at another law firm that Obama worked for at one time ...

Who has lived within blocks of Obama the entire time ...

Whose house was used for the gathering (of communists) where Obama was introduced into politics for the first time ...

Who has endorsed Obama multiple times for elections ...

And who coauthored several radical books with a woman who was the top education advisor to Obama during his Presidential campaign.

That is most certainly relevant ...

Especially when Ayers is an unrepentent terrorist who organization at one time formally declared war on the US.

Especially when Ayers chief focus is on education of a most radical kind.

Especially when Obama and his campaign have clearly lied about and hidden the nature of their relationship.

Ayers, Obama, AND OTHERS INCLUDING REPUBLICANS worked together on the Annenberg education program.

First of all, only Ayers and Obama were co-chairs on that project.

Second, let's see the names of the republicans that you claim worked on CAC, what part they actually had in it, and whether they actually had contact with Ayers.

In fact, the truth is that CAC was criticized heavily by conservatives from its outset.

They had a 100 million dollar budget.

Actually, it was more than a 100 million dollars that they wasted. Somewhere between $110 million and $160 million depending on what you read.

You have referred to it repeatedly, generally focusing on its failure to improve achievement.

A study done by the Consortium on Chicago School Research concluded "among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."

Can you provide any evidence that Ayers and Obama used this program to indoctrinate Chicago's youth with communist ideology?

In the first year of it's existence, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge gave $175,000 to a group (Small Schools Workshop) that Ayers created and then turned over to Mike Klonsky, a former member of the SDS and maoist. All in all, CAC gave nearly 2 million dollars to this group (over a million under Obama's watch). Here's a story on one of that effort's small schools, what they teach and how they go about teaching:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/doster

"The parents kept saying they really wanted our school to teach the values of peace and struggle," says Rito Martinez, the principal of Social Justice High School ... snip ... One of four small schools housed on the campus, Martinez's social justice school was specifically created to foster basic skills and literacy--as well as critical inquiry--through projects and problems centered on race, gender and economic equity. ... snip ... While the history of LVLHS's genesis is unique, its approach is not; the movement to link education, social justice and activism is appealing to a growing number of educators and community organizations around the country. ... snip ... Conservatives, with the New York Sun and City Journal leading the charge, have denounced the movement for indoctrinating public school students with leftist politics at the expense of general education.

You read the description in that link and try to convince us that isn't a description of indoctrination in socialist and communist ideas. In his schools, the teacher preaches “social justice” and that American capitalism is a racist, materialist, imperialist and unjust. Try to convince us that is not indoctrination into the communist ideology that Klonsky has advocated for nearly 40 years.

You keep in mind that Klonsky's father was an American communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. You keep in mind that in the 1960s, Klonsky teamed with Ayers, Dohrn, and other radicals to form the SDS and it was from the SDS that Ayers and Dohrn founded the Weatherman. You keep in mind that Klonsky formed a Maoist organization, first called the “October League,” which became the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist).” He was among the first Americans invited to visit Communist China. This is a hard core communist, and he was given millions by CAC and Obama to educate our youth.

And finally, you keep in mind that Obama's campaign gave Klonsky a blog on the official Obama campaign website to spread his ideas of “social justice”. It was only shut down when a conservative started pointing it out to the media. Then all traces of Klonsky were scrubbed from the campaign. Do you understand that Obama was trying to hide this association from voters? Do you see why? Do you begin to understand why Obama's past associations are important? Or are you still so clueless as to claim this is irrelevant despite the fact these people will very likely be controlling the education of our children under Obama's administration?

Here's another example of the extremist, racist, anti-capitalist ideology promoted by CAC:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=

In the winter of 1996, the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago’s] South Shore (CIESS) announced that it had received a $200,000 grant from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

... snip ...

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric “rites of passage movement,” a fringe education crusade of the 1990s.

... snip ...

To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.”

... snip ...

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to “rites of passage,” but also because SSAVC’s faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the “rites of passage movement.” For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

... snip ...

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey....” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

... snip ...

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking ... snip ... many prominent thinkers from Carruthers’s Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included.

... snip ...

Discretely waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy. The book will be published by Third World Press, a press set up by Carruthers and other members of the ASCAC.

... snip ...

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to “rites of passage” and “Ptahhotep,” dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

... snip ...

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed “Collaborative” to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as “awful.” ... snip ... Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

Here's another article describing in detail the funding of very radical organizations and projects by groups where Obama was a board member ... like the Wood Fund and the Joyce Foundation, CAC and the Small Schools Workshop being two of the recipients.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=78106

And although not about CAC, specifically, here is an eye opening source that talks at length about Ayers' and his like-minded colleagues' efforts to indoctrinate our youth and those who will shape our youth with their communist derived notions of "social justice" and wealth redistribution.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html

Some excerpts:

The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug

Sol Stern

Teaching for “social justice” is a cruel hoax on disadvantaged kids.

... snip ...

Future teachers signing up for Ayers’s course “On Urban Education” can read these exhortations from the course description on the professor’s website:

... snip ...

“In a truly just society there would be a greater sharing of the burden, a fairer distribution of material and human resources.”

For another course, titled “Improving Learning Environments,” Ayers proposes that teachers “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.”

The readings that Ayers assigns are as intellectually stimulating and diverse as a political commissar’s indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies.

... snip ...

In 1997, Ayers and his mentor Maxine Greene persuaded Teachers College Press to launch a series of books on social justice teaching, with Ayers as editor and Greene serving on the editorial board (along with Rashid Khalidi, loyal supporter of the Palestinian cause and the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University). Twelve volumes have appeared so far, including one titled Teaching Science for Social Justice.

Teaching science for social justice? Let Teachers College professor Angela Calabrese Barton, the volume’s principal author, try to explain: “The marriages between capitalism and education and capitalism and science have created a foundation for science education that emphasizes corporate values at the expense of social justice and human dignity.” The alternative? “Science pedagogy framed around social justice concerns can become a medium to transform individuals, schools, communities, the environment, and science itself, in ways that promote equity and social justice. Creating a science education that is transformative implies not only how science is a political activity but also the ways in which students might see and use science and science education in ways transformative of the institutional and interpersonal power structures that play a role in their lives.” If you still can’t appreciate why it’s necessary for your child’s chemistry teacher to teach for social justice, you are probably hopelessly wedded to reason, empiricism, individual merit, and other capitalist and post-colonialist deformities.

... snip ...

So why do education professors who claim to care for the poor continue to agitate for instruction that holds back poor children? Either the professors are stupid (possible), or (more likely) they care more about their own anti-American, anticapitalist agendas than they do about the actual education of children.

:D
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well, my mother always told me that you are who you hang out with. Smart woman, my mother.

evidence?

Well put it this way. There sure are a lot of people who say that or something akin to that. Didn't YOUR mom? :D

I'm still waiting for that evidence of communist indoctrination funded by the Annenberg foundation.

Stop being so impatient. Isn't that one of the problems with socialists and communists? Their impatience? Isn't that why they are always so ready and willing to force others to do what they want NOW? :D
 
Just read his platform. There is nothing Communist in it. One might argue that he is more slightly-socialist than the also-slightly-socialist Republicans, but hardly Communist.
If I may refer to the stated principle of a founding practitioner of Communism:

The goal of socialism is communism.

-- Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov, aka Lenin. --

So, where do you want to go from here? Any pro socialist is at risk for sliding, perhaps blindly, too far and ending up communist, or even worst, pure Statist which is short of communist, with all the bad parts and none of the good. See also how any capitalist is at risk for sliding, perhaps blindly, too far into predatory, laize faire capitalism/robber-baronism.

We can take the position that the communism thesis will always be opposed, resulting in a form of socialist synthesis, which will vary with the strength of the capitalist antithesis to communism, granting the two as generally opposed forces. The risk with socialism as a solution set is that a socialist balance can reach a tipping point beyond which Statism cannot be recovered from. At that point, you are in the land of tyranny as dictated by the practitioners, the self appointed elite, still waiting for either Godot or Commumism to arrive, in vain. It's a risk, not a certainty.

Or, we can go somewhere else. Down the street for a pint may be a better choice.

DR
 
Last edited:
Stop being so impatient. Isn't that one of the problems with socialists and communists? Their impatience? Isn't that why they are always so ready and willing to force others to do what they want NOW?
No, I think you are confusing them with the laissez-faire capitalists, who want it all for themselves NOW, the hell with anyone else and the hell with the future. :D

BTW, just spent half an hour slogging through your last diatribe. I would summarize it as a bunch of right wing sources claiming that various education programs, some related to Obama, some not, were tainted with left-wing politics. Which you translate into Marxist indoctrination, just as you translate Ayers statement that he didn't do enough to stop the Vietnam war into his wish to have killed more innocent people.

Is that the best you can do? No examples of specific curriculum items indoctrinating the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois and install a communist dictator? ;)
 
Is that the best you can do?

http://ednews.org/articles/30304/1/...arolinas-flagship-education-school/Page1.html

The “Social Justice” doctrine preached by radical educators such as William Ayers has infiltrated North Carolina’s flagship education school

... snip ...

Social justice,” in its broadest definition, is the extension of the principles of “justice” into every aspect of human existence. Depending on its implementation, such an idea could possibly have merit. But in all of its various American implementations and offshoots in America today, it is nothing more than a justification for Marxist and radical-left designs.

... snip ... The movement’s philosophical foundations are derived from the writings of the Brazilian Marxist educator Paolo Freire. Its American version was influenced greatly by Columbia University education professor Maxine Greene. The pedagogy’s best known popularizer is William Ayers, Greene’s protégé ... snip ...

... snip ...

Social justice pedagogy is most clearly revealed in UNC-CH’s graduate school curriculum, because original sources are used, in contrast to the undergraduate education courses, which use generalized textbooks. However, given the widespread adherence to the philosophy by faculty members, social justice principles are certain to be embedded throughout the undergraduate curriculum as well.

One place where social justice’s presence is most apparent is in the educational leadership program, one of four areas of concentration in the graduate School of Education. The program’s mission statement reads: ... snip ...

There is nothing subtle about this statement: it states that the most important thing in the program is to create “learning communities” that are strategically positioned to support the social justice agenda. This agenda includes changing the way candidates for advanced degrees think. ... snip ...

She also wrote that “y exposing candidates to information and ideas they may resist and by assisting them to stretch beyond their comfort zones, a critique and transformation of hegemonic structures and ideologies can occur.”

How can this be anything other than political indoctrination? Students are force-fed ideas that they might initially “resist”; then authority figures guide them to criticize their old “ideology” until they adopt a new one (that conforms to politically correct standards). This has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with helping students become more adept at teaching or administering a school.

... snip ...

In the same 2004 article, Brown openly urges professors to embed such ideological manipulation into every class, writing that “professors need to retool their teaching and courses to address issues of power and privilege—to weave social justice into the fabric of educational leadership curriculum, pedagogy, programs and policies.”

... snip ...

And it is just not Brown’s leadership area that has been corrupted by a Marxist philosophy. One course recommended to students seeking a master’s degree with an emphasis in the Culture, Curriculum and Change area of concentration is EDUC 678: Cultural Studies and Education, taught by James Trier. Trier spends much of the course using popular films to illustrate the major ideas of communist theorists, including Antonio Gramsci, Theodor Adorno, Georg Lukacs and Max Horkheimer.

The inclusion of these particular communists is very significant—it was they who, in the 1920s, initiated the movement to weaken the capitalist countries of the West from within via gradual cultural change, rather than trying to incite a revolution of the workers more directly. ... snip ...

Gramsci and Lukacs both “concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order.”

... snip ...

Lukacz, Adorno, and Horkheimer were the major founding members of the Frankfurt School, “a Marxist think tank” whose “primary goal was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms.”

Adorno introduced the concept of the “authoritarian personality” into the Marxist lexicon. This idea states that “Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and culture is both racist and fascist.”

Professor Trier also assigns works by and about other leading Western communists such as Guy Debord, Stuart Hall and the contemporary darling of the anti-capitalist left, Naomi Klein (whom Trier considers “brilliant”).

... snip ...

The above are just a few of the more glaring examples of how the concept of “social justice” has permeated the Chapel Hill education school culture. It would likely take many months of research by a gifted PhD. in education to root out all of the egregious examples of this trend in the curriculum. However, the names and phrases of the social justice movement are omnipresent on the syllabi of many UNC professors: Freire, Gramschi, Dewey, “white privilege,” “racism,” “equity,” “class” “the banking model of education,” “racial identity,” “hegemony,” “critical theory,” and most of all “social justice.” The same names and phrases appear on faculty biographies.

... snip ...

Social justice pedagogy (also called critical pedagogy) is indeed a means to subvert and indoctrinate. It is rapidly spreading throughout the educational establishment. Chapel Hill-trained professors are highly sought after to teach at other colleges, both in the UNC system and throughout the country. UNC schools of education do have tremendous influence on North Carolina—a large majority of the state’s public school teachers are trained at a UNC university, and UNC graduate schools produce a majority of its principals and superintendents as well. Teachers do indeed influence the next generation. The best that can be hoped for when educators are teaching nonsense is that the students don’t pay attention to their teachers—not a positive state of affairs.

There is no question about the direction that the proponents of “social justice” in higher education are leading us—they openly and proudly write it down for all to see, in their scholarly articles, in their course syllabi, and in their official university biographies. We also know what Marxism produces: tyranny, poverty, waste, and corruption.


You don't like my "right wing" sources?

Well try this ... from the Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. In Ayers' own words:

http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html

That’s one of the things that’s actually annoyed me for about 40 years of being a progressive educator: the separation of the concept of progressive education from the concept of politics and political change. You can’t separate them…and this is a contradiction, incidentally, that goes all the way back to the beginning of progressive education and really the beginning of the conversations about the relationship between school and society. But John Dewey was one of the brilliant, brilliant writers about what democratic education would look like and was himself an independent socialist. But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom.

Read that, and you'll also see how delusional he is as to who controls education in this country. :rolleyes:
 
OK, now you've demonstrated William Ayers supports both peace and social justice.

Oh, and someone from the Pope Center for Higher education thinks he is a Marxist. Now what is the Pope Center? Well, it seems it is a think tank focusing on education policy. Here is a passage from their founding principles:
we are motivated by the principles that have traditionally guided public policy in the United States: limits on government; freedom to pursue goals through voluntary means, both for-profit and nonprofit; accountability through private property rights; and the belief that competition is an excellent regulating force.

It seems they are sponsored by the John Locke foundation. And what is the John Locke Foundation? Well, according to their web site these are their Founding Principles:

We are a land of liberty where natural rights of individuals precede and supersede the power of the state.

We are a constitutional republic in which government power is limited and employed for the purpose of providing legitimate public goods rather than for the benefit of insiders and narrow interest groups.

We are a free market in which persons, individually or collectively, have the natural right to sell goods and services to willing buyers, and in which the individual pursuit of economic opportunity benefits all.

And we are a free society where citizens solve social problems not only through government but also by working together in families, neighborhoods, churches, charities, and other private, voluntary organizations.

(their bolding)

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that these might be Libertarian organizations. As such, I doubt their objectivity on who is or is not a Marxist, since they tend to think that any taxation at all is Marxism. Then again, this assumption on my part is based on the use of buzz words like "natural rights" and "liberty" and "free market". Certainly not evil words in and of themselves, but then again, neither are "social justice."

Can you fill me in on the communism part now? I'm still waiting for someone advocating collective ownership of the means of production, centralized planning of the economy, "from each according to his abilities..."--you know, that kind of stuff.
 
The Obama 'wealth redistribution' in historical context:

thum_225849068c2b6ba87.jpg

Given that nothing is defined in your chart as to what "High Tax Bracket" means or implies, given that you have cherry picked produced the above disinformative snip from generic flustercluck,

Did you have a point?
 
Can you fill me in on the communism part now? I'm still waiting for someone advocating collective ownership of the means of production, centralized planning of the economy, "from each according to his abilities..."--you know, that kind of stuff.

Dammit, if he'd only pound his shoe on sumthin' or run over a kid with a tank. That'd be the smoking gun we need.
 
Dammit, if he'd only pound his shoe on sumthin' or run over a kid with a tank. That'd be the smoking gun we need.

I was thinking more of some 5-year plans or purges. We haven't had a good purge in years...unless you count the US attorneys. Which I don't, since Bush just fired them rather than sending them to gulags.
 
Given that nothing is defined in your chart as to what "High Tax Bracket" means or implies, given that you have cherry picked produced the above disinformative snip from generic flustercluck,

Did you have a point?

I don't know if you're having an issue reading the chart or one with reading comprehension, but that chart accurately graphs the highest marginal tax rate that we've had over the last 50ish years.

What part of "high" were you having trouble understanding?
 
Given that nothing is defined in your chart as to what "High Tax Bracket" means or implies...
Allow me to explain. By high tax bracket I mean the highest tax bracket.

And by highest tax bracket I mean the bracket that is higher than all the other brackets. In other words, the highest tax bracket is a little bit higher than the next to highest tax bracket, and a lot higher than the lowest tax bracket.

Hope that helps. :rolleyes:
 
Certainly not evil words in and of themselves, but then again, neither are "social justice."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social Justice-Code for Communism.htm "Social Justice: Code for Communism"

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1656/pub_detail.asp

According to Obama and his mentors Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, the root cause of America’s evil is economic inequality. “Social justice” requires the remedy of redistribution of wealth, the transfer of taxpayers’ earnings to whomever their regime will determine has need. As Karl Marx said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Or as the stealth candidate told Joe the Plumber: “It’s good to spread the wealth around.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-11-castro-address_N.htm

7/11/2008

HAVANA (AP) — President Raul Castro warned Cubans on Friday to prepare for a "realistic" brand of communism that is economically viable and does away with excessive state subsidies designed to promote equality on the island.

Addressing Cuba's parliament in its first session since lawmakers selected him to succeed his older brother Fidel in February, Raul Castro announced no major reforms, but suggested that global economic turbulence could lead to further belt-tightening on the island.

"Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income," the 77-year-old president said in a speech that was taped and later aired on national television. "Equality is not egalitarianism."

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/

The Communist Party USA is an organization of revolutionaries working to bring about social change in a conscious, progressive direction. ... snip ... We see it as our job to use all available methods and means to fight for peace, democracy, economic and social justice, and other progressive causes.

Do you believe them, gndp?

Do you believe that they really fight for peace?

For democracy?

And what does fighting for economics mean anyway? Don't we all?

Ah ... and there is that word again ... "social justice". :D
 
Ah ... and there is that word again ... "social justice". :D

Along with the words "peace", "democracy", and "economic justice." Are these also communist "code words"?

Sorry, not every "fellow" who is a "traveler" on a train is a "fellow traveler". Not everyone who believes in social justice is a communist. Sorry. What's the alternative? Social injustice?

Let's take a poll of Americans:

True or false:
I believe in social justice.
I support social injustice.
I support politicians working for social justice.
 
I was thinking more of some 5-year plans or purges.
We already have five year plans, though I think they have been disguised in new and fiendish ways. This Five Year Plan was part of what is now known as the FYDP. (Future Years Defense Plan) Oh dear, Joe McCarthy might have been right, and the Defense Reorganization Act of 1947 plunged us into communism, or at least a case of creeping rederalism. ;)
(I risk summoning ShaneK or other Libertarians who will rant on the Article 8 provision that only two years in future may be funded for the Army.)
From the link:
This letter is in further response to your October 17, 1989, and January 4, 1990, requests regarding the Department of Defense's (DOD) Five-Year Defense Program (FYDP) and provides other information as requested by your staff. Our report to you dated February 22, 1990, provides the latest information regarding the status of DOD's FYDP. It also includes, as you requested, an assessment of the inflation rates contained in the President's budget request and outyear projections.
We haven't had a good purge in years...unless you count the US attorneys. Which I don't, since Bush just fired them rather than sending them to gulags.
Well, the DoD had a fine witch hunt 1991-1993, after the Tailhook scandal.

ETA: From a GAO link
In 1962, DOD instituted the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting system to establish near-term projections in defense spending. . . . The military services and other DOD components developed the detailed data projections for the budget year in which funds were being requested and at least the 4 succeeding years and provided them to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The resulting projections were compiled and recorded in a 5-year plan. In 1987, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to submit the five- year defense program (currently referred to as the future years defense program, or FYDP) used by the Secretary in formulating the estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations included in the President's annual budget to support DOD programs, projects and activities. The FYDP, which is submitted annually to Congress, is considered the official report that fulfills this legislative requirement.
The FYDP provides DOD and Congress a tool for looking at future funding needs beyond immediate budget priorities and can be considered a long-term capital plan. . . . In 2002, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to begin developing a future budget plan modeled after DOD's FYDP.[Footnote 6]
Creeping Rederalism, indeed! :jaw-dropp
Note the limitations:
Moreover, the FYDP is a reflection of the limitations of DOD's budget preparation process. For example, as we have reported in the past, the FYDP reflects DOD's overly optimistic estimations of future program costs that often lead to costs being understated. Such understatements may have implications for many programs beyond the years covered by the FYDP. Finally, the costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been funded through supplemental appropriations, are not projected in the FYDP thereby limiting the visibility over these funds.
DR
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom