The Obama Strut

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Lights, cameras and a Marxist, political media whore is born. As the media fawns in the presence of the Obamessiah, we all watch in dread the Obama strut on the debt ceiling. Americans would never ask their President to turn away from his ‘true’ vocation. And by the time Obama is done lying today, we’ll all be in search of either a rope to hang ourselves or in desperate need of a roving gang of monstrous aliens we can slaughter. Anything, and I mean anything, to take our minds off the destruction of America’s future by our so-called leadership.

I listened to sanity coming from Jim DeMint when he called for Cut, Cap and Balance. It’s just common sense:

Cut Cap Balance: Reason for Optimism? Jim DeMint Puts Onus on Prez

And then made the tactical error of tuning into the news where I was treated to Obama wobbling like a massive pile of jello – he won’t give a solid number for the Republicans to deal with. Hell, he won’t give a plan at all. It’s the never ending dance of “gotcha” that the Obama administration plays with the American public. And just like Lucie in the skit with Charlie Brown, Americans always wind up flat on their backs wondering what happened. That’ll be 5 cents please…

Sure, there will be a lame vote next Tuesday where the Republicans are proposing we raise the debt ceiling 2.4 Trillion and reduce the debt by the same amount. Wait a minute… I’m not a genius, but doesn’t that cipher to not much progress at all? That doesn’t sound like the salvation we so sorely need; it sounds like classic politics where the can is kicked down the road and we are still screwed financially – they are just going to prolong it while the politicians finish raping the system of every dime in grandma’s couch. They are absolutely shameless.

Those in office who are with the Tea Party need to call Obama’s bluff and tell him to stuff it. Sure, we lose no matter which way we go. But let’s take our medicine and at least save what’s left of the country. If we don’t, I guess China will be more than glad to rule us. Better start learning Mandarin and fast.

But in the end, no matter what Conservatives, the Tea Party and Americans want, Obama will have his way with us. Making Americans feel just like a girl for hire. He wants the system to fail – yeah, baby… I would not be surprised to see him ride in on a white steed at the end of these negotiations and sign an Executive Order raising the debt ceiling. He’ll say the evil Republicans forced him to do it, because they wanted to destroy the county. And after all, he knows what is best for America – him and his minions: Timothy (tax cheat) Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a whole cast of evil surrogates.

Where lies and deception reign supreme, they’ll all dance the Obama strut. It’s just a form of appreciation and elite theft. And don’t forget the race card – whenever things don’t go the Progressive way, they pull the race card from their sleeve and claim it’s because Obama is black.

According to Obama, Armageddon is looming and we are doomed I tell you if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. Never mind that is a bald faced lie – it’s dramatic, no? And in the next evil breath, he says that there is no need to do anything radical – that is as long as you do what he wants. You can’t win with Obama and that’s the point.

Here’s an idea… Cut the damned spending! Cap it while you are at it and balance the budget.

  • Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
  • Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
  • Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

You’re playing with our lives and our country and you’ve got butter fingers! Knock it off, grow up and stop this. And if Obama won’t, well Republicans better grow a set and make sure he does. Stand your ground and get this done. Or all of you will be strutting right out the door come the next election in 2012. Count on it.


Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$

By: jackohoft

This was sooo good.

Sean Hannity completely pwned Juan Williams last night on Hannity. Sean asked Williams to respond to Eric Cantor’s comments on raising the debt ceiling. When Juan got through trashing Cantor, Hannity told him that actually those were Obama’s comments from 2006. Watch Juan Williams’ expression when he finds out he got totally pwned.


The Absurdity of Karl Marx’s Dialectical Fundamentalism

By: Mark Musser
Gulag Bound

Communistic Social Science & Apocalyptic Revolution

While modern leftist academics routinely mock at the looming Judeo-Christian apocalypse prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments (Joel 2; Isaiah 24; Matthew 24-25; 2 Thessalonians 1-2; Revelation 6-19) as something only a deranged literalist could entertain in his own fundamentalist mindset, they remain completely unaware that their most important leftist forefather, Karl Marx, was a false prophet of secular fundamentalism and profane eschatology.  Karl Marx’s false prophecies, written in the 19th century and based on an extreme ‘literal’ socio-economic reading of life which was inappropriately hotwired with the so-called ‘scientific’ laws of ‘progressive’ societal evolution, proved to be the most deadly force of human suffering and wanton destruction that the 20th century could offer.

Communism killed 100M people


Even worse is that communism, a religion dressed up in quasi-scientific, secular language to make it palatable to the modern mindset, continues to be a potent force in the world today in spite of all this carnage.  That such a destructive political movement with all of its sadistic, violent heritage can still be considered a viable alternative in the world today, only reveals how spectacularly effective modern leftist propaganda has been since Karl Marx penned his infamous work “Das Capital.”  Many even still believe that Lenin and Stalin and Mao got it all wrong and distorted pure communism.  While there is no doubt that such men certainly had their own political way of social engineering and collectivizing people, the pure doctrine of Karl Marx has many absurd problems all of its own.  The inevitable communistic state that Karl Marx prophesied in his social science needed all kinds of collectivist political help along the way, with much blood spilled in the process.  The constant political activism, community agitation and propagandizing since Karl Marx’s day has soundly proven his theory to be anything but inevitable and scientific.

Even though Karl Marx vehemently attacked all forms of idealism, religion, abstract philosophy, and utopianism, incredibly, he still naively believed that the future belonged to the collectivist communist state in which all class divisions, exacerbated by the evils of Industrial Capitalism, would eventually disappear through an international socialistic revolution at the end of history.  Even more naïve is that Marx also taught that once the revolutionary eschaton arrives, all of the false religious, theological and philosophical ideologies connected to medieval feudalism and capitalism will become superfluous in light of the evolutionary communistic progress of mankind.  In other words, such ‘false’, abstract ideas built upon the backward socio-economic realities of the past will be relegated to the ash heap of history, all in the name of the progressive communist state.  Thus, at the end of the day, Marx assumed as a matter of course that the ‘literal’ socio-economic evolutionary laws of history were inevitably leading mankind into the promised land of worldwide communism and socialism, free from useless philosophies, religious superstitions, selfish individualism and its inherent attachment to class divisions and the affliction of the working class.

Marx sharply criticized those who tried to solve their problems philosophically or religiously, i.e., in thought, and advocated that they can only be solved by changing reality in practice so that the problem disappears.  In other words, philosophy and religion had to be brought down to earth so that secular redemption could come through revolutionary practice, and not through thought or faith.  As such, it was Marx who infamously wrote “the philosophers have only interpreted the world differently, what matters is to change it.”  Due to their indifference to the material necessities of life, philosophy and religion could thus only maintain the oppressive status quo.  Henceforth, revolutionary, political activism became the hallmark of Marxist tradition.

However much Karl Marx may have been an implacable opponent of philosophy, religion, blind optimism and utopianism, he wound up espousing the absurd position that not only is all intellectual life conditioned by literal, materialistic socio-economic causes, but that such a literal dialectical relationship between man and the material forces of nature inevitably propels him progressively upward and onward toward the ultimate goal of socialistic freedom at the end of time.  Marx was convinced that this historical ‘dialectic’ was propelling mankind to greater and greater socio-economic production, distribution, and freedom.  Over time, man’s needs would be increasingly met to a greater and greater degree so that the working class divisions based on individualism, competition, and oppression would one day become obsolete and irrational.  For Marx, socio-economic production never stops.  It goes on forever changing, adapting and developing in a progressive, evolutionary way.  The mechanism for this socio-economic progress in history was what he called the dialectic.  Through literal and materialistic contradictions of socio-economic conditions on the ground, history is dialectically moving in a revolutionary way to a higher and higher synthesis all the time.

Incredibly, Marx also believed that the endgame of this grand, evolutionary struggle in history was finally in sight.  It would be decided in a great, apocalyptic revolution between the capitalists and the working class, with the proletariat being declared the victors.  Through literal dialectical materialism, capitalism will have produced its own negation, i.e., the working class, by oppressing them.  They, in turn, will eventually bring about the final rebellion against the capitalists to usher in the communist state.   Oddly enough, however, the industrial proletariat will not produce its own negation.  Due to the dialectical progress of mankind, production and distribution will no longer be a problem.  The growth of technology and the expansive forces of capitalism will have made such enormous progress in productive capacity and distribution that the whole class structure of modern society, including its oppressive philosophical and religious expressions, will become obsolete and irrational.  Here, mankind finally and literally reaches Marx’s materialistic paradise of atheism.

Soviet Communist flag at White House celebration DC on Obama's election night

Students celebrate at the White House, election night 2008, as Obama assures throngs in Grant Park, "It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve, to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day."

Absurdly, Marx viewed this whole process as inevitable.  The ‘scientific’ laws of socio-economic evolutionary production and distribution, i.e., dialectical materialism, were considered inviolable.  Although Marx had great disdain for Hegel’s (1770-1831) philosophical approach, he nonetheless borrowed heavily from his dialectical evolutionary pantheism.  Hegel taught that the root of all movement and change in history was through the dialectical contradiction between opposites.  While at first they may clash with each other, they later are reconciled into a higher synthesis as history struggles, develops, progresses and improves.  With all this in mind, by seizing onto Hegel’s dialectical method and applying it to socio-economic political realities on the ground, Marx went so far so as to predict the future.  Having understood the laws of change and revolution that occur within history, Marx believed that he could create an outline for the development for the future communist advent.  In this way, Marx foolishly believed that he had resolved the problem of blind utopianism and false religious hope through the social ‘science’ of his evolutionary dialectical materialism.  One could have ‘faith’ in the future without relying on God or religion.  How convenient.

Needless to say, such an optimistic, apocalyptic view of history cannot be defended by science or by the ‘literal’ laws of socio-economic dialectical materialism as Marx would have it.  Marx’s use of science to explain eschatology is a gross misuse not of only of science but also of politics and history as well.  Dialectical revolutionary change in and of itself does not and cannot necessitate progress.  Indeed, it may even be entirely the opposite as it most certainly was in the case of 20th century communism.  Marx, however, presupposed that a synthesis through dialectical revolution leads to a higher and better state than the previous one.  Struggle and the human misery associated with it had to be justified by the communist state at the end of history.

Karl Marx, 1839, eight years before The Communist Manifesto was published

The great problem here, however, is that Marx’s so-called science views history itself as redemptive.  This, of course, is an unfounded assumption on the highest speculative order, something which Marx spent great pains throughout his entire life trying to avoid.  History at once not only becomes a purpose-driven teleology, but is also deified.  More troublesome still is that the age old dichotomy between determinism and freedom reappears once more, and for Marx, it results in a great chasm between science and eschatology, empirical study and philosophy of history.  To understand a historical development as deterministic according to inexorable scientific laws is to understand it as blind.  This rules out the possibility of understanding it as rationally aligned toward a goal.  Marx beguiled himself into believing that his social science could have it both ways, i.e., that dialectical socio-economic materialism was a blind force leading man and history into a rational, goal-orientated, international, socialistic eschaton free from oppression.  This, of course, is nothing but a leftist liberal fantasy built on what should be called dialectical fundamentalism.

In short, Karl Marx was completely oblivious to the basic Messianic spirit of his own political ideology.  Instead of being the great socio-economic scientist that he assumed himself to be, he was, in fact, a speculative philosopher of history completely indebted to the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic heritage that he so routinely denounced and despised.  By discarding the Judeo-Christian supernatural context in which the apocalypse alone had once made perfect sense, he wound up wholeheartedly devoting himself to a secular socio-economic, political myth that he himself could never even enjoy solely because he was born at the wrong time.  Such is the vain and hopeless quandary with which Marxist dialectical fundamentalism has left the modern world.  More importantly, the untold sufferings of most people who have ever lived in the past can never be ameliorated by a communist state at the end of history anyway, even if it were somehow attainable.  What is required to resolve this most outstanding problem is the resurrection of the dead, which is precisely why the Judeo-Christian worldview unabashedly declares an apocalyptic purpose to history in the first place (Isaiah 2:1-4; Daniel 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58; Revelation 19-20).

This article was first posted with the Ignorant Fishermen blog.

List of Secondary Bibliographic Sources

  • Barth, Hans. Truth and Ideology.
  • Carlsnaes, Walter.  The Concept of Ideology and Political Analysis.
  • Elliott, John E.  Marx and Engels on Economics, Politics, and Society.
  • Gruner, Rolf.  Philosophies of History: A Critical Essay.
  • Heiss, Robert.  Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx.
  • Leff, Gordon.  The Tyranny of Concepts: A Critique or Marxism.
  • Lowith, Karl.  Meaning in History.
  • McBride, William Leon.  The Philosophy of Marx.
  • Miller, Richard W.  Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power & History.
  • Novack, George.  An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism.
  • Parekh, Bhiku.  Marx’s Theory of Ideology.
  • Rader, Melvin.  Marx’s Interpretation of History.

Cut Cap Balance: Reason for Optimism? Jim DeMint Puts Onus on Prez

By: Maggie
Maggie’s Notebook

Bill Smith at ARRA News Service has piece up on a plan from Senate Conservatives, including Jim DeMint (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY), to cut the deficit in a big way, cap spending at 18% and balance the budget. Cut, Cap and Balance will NOT be a part of the current debt ceiling negotiations. It will be the plan. Remember: Cuts today can disappear tomorrow, without a Balanced Budget Amendment. Did you hear Obama say today we don’t need a Balanced Budget Amendment? See a video on Cut Cap Balance below from the Republican Study Committee.

Cut Cap Balance

“We’re going to introduce a [proposal] that would give the President an increase in the debt limit,” Sen. DeMint said this morning, “but it’s contingent on cutting spending and capping spending over several years, and giving the states the opportunity to decide if we’re going to balance our budget in the next decade.”

Unlike the other alternatives, this measure puts the onus on the President to stop talking about tough choices and start making them.

For once, Congress would have a clear path forward to a final agreement that forces Washington to live within its means. Under this proposal, America’s credit limit would increase by $2.4 trillion–but only when the cuts and caps are in place, and a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Tony Perkins, Washington Update.

Cut Cap Balance has it’s roots in a pledge that requires three things of the US House and Senate:

  • Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
  • Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
  • Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Congress promised President Reagan cuts in exchange for tax increases. Those cuts never materialized. In addition to DeMint and Paul, Senators Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mike Lee (R-UT) are involved in the proposal.

Cut Cap Balance (video)