Is It Time To Elect A President Who Appreciates Communism?

In past presidential elections, it might have been a deal-killer. But in 2008, it apparently makes for endearing campaign rhetoric.

Candidate Barack Obama has put himself ?on record? praising the communist government of China, suggesting that the United States should aspire to do as the communists do, and ?invest? in our ?infrastructure,? the way the Chinese government has done in Beijing.

While at a campaign stop in Chester, Virginia, in a moment of off-the-cuff spontaneity, Obama stated ?everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option.?

When I first saw the video, it struck me that I?ve never before heard a presidential candidate - - not even another Democratic presidential candidate - - praise a communist government. In fact, I don?t think this has ever happened before in my lifetime.

President Lyndon Johnson couldn?t have praised communists even if had wanted to (he was prosecuting a war against communist encroachment in Viet Nam). And despite his staunch opposition to the Viet Nam war, presidential candidate George McGovern could not have politically afforded to commend the ?superior? nature of communist countries. Similarly, Democratic presidential candidates Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, likely would have severely damaged their respective campaigns had they offered the verbal equivalent of a fist bump and a ?high five? to a communist government, the way Obama did with China.

But that was ?back then.? Now, in the year 2008, this kind of complimentary rhetoric about communists seems to be part of what has taken Obama from political obscurity, to front-runner status. This suggests that America?s collective attitude towards communism has gravitated from opposition to ambivalence, and perhaps has even edged into the category of acceptance.

And the analysis doesn?t begin and end with Obama?s brief comments about China. Throughout his entire campaign, Obama has packaged inherently communistic economic ideas in contemporary, visceral, and at times inflammatory paradigms. Think that?s too harsh? Think again. And also consider the communism that is a part of Obama?s family lineage.

Barack Hussein Obama Sr., Senator Obama?s father, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back in the 1960?s. And while Kenya?s government was embarking upon a pro-Western revolution and an embrace of free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed the changes, and sought to push Kenya in a more solidly communist direction.

According to research done at Investor?s Business Daily, Obama Sr. wrote in 1965 to Kenya?s then-President Jomo Kenyatta, advising against relying on private investors, who inevitably earn ?dividends,? to help sustain the country?s troubled economy. Instead, he proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the collective good of the nation.

?Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,? Mr. Obama wrote, ?so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.? In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the ?collective good? of the nation. And if stealing some people?s hard-earned wealth could help benefit ?everyone,? then so be it.

That was the communist father. Today, the Democrat son is proposing massive tax increases, and new social programs to be funded at the expense of businesses. His proposed increases in marginal income taxes, social security and Medicare taxes, would leave upper-income entrepreneurs paying well over 50% of their income to the U.S. federal government - - and that is without contemplating state income taxes.

Senator Obama?s most often noted public enemies are not terrorists, or nations that would do us harm, but American businesses and American business people. As such, he frequently references American oil companies, insurances companies, automobile companies and healthcare companies as being the sources of our nation?s great injustices. He has pledged to fix these companies when he becomes President, and has also vowed to lower the salaries of corporate executives.

There is clearly a connection between Senator Obama?s stated ideals, and the ideals of communism, and the startling similarities between the father and son illustrate this. In both cases, the right of the individual person to achieve, to be successful, to save and to invest is inconsequential. What matters is the collective good of all, and it is okay to penalize the most successful individuals and take away their belongings, so long as everyone else benefits.

And the Obama message, steeped in communist ideals, is resonating. Has America decided that communism isn?t so bad, after all?

ETA - link and image.

https://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2008/08/24/is_it_time_to_elect_a_president_who_appreciates_communism?page=full&comments=true

Vote for this bastard over Obama:

not this AMERICAn.

I'd missed this. A brave thing to do considering Russia's recent actions and the scandal that came out that China had basically destroyed all nearby buildings to the Birdsnest and then not paid any of the promised money to about half the people who lost their homes.

Chuck in that China publicly put down protesters at the Olympics and that one of the biggest American ideals protected by the Constitution is freedom of speech.

To be fair he didn't endorse Communism just its efficiency and its great improvements in Chinese infrastructure.

The ideals of Communism also have huge connections to the Ethical ideals of Utilitarianism in that the greatest good for the greatest number is what is important.

Their ports, train systems, and airpots are apparently vastly superior to ours.

I take extreme offense to some of the language in the above post. It's truly, truly obscene. For example, the line

"suggesting that the United States should aspire to do as the communists do, and ?invest? in our ?infrastructure,? the way the Chinese government has done in Beijing."

implies that Obama is suggesting investing in our infrastructure is a bad thing that Communists do, and that Americans should have no part in it. What the f*** is wrong with investing in our infrastructure and improving our ports, airports, and train systems?


Are we still so afraid of communism that it's taboo to praise or appreciate anything a communist government has done? What's wrong with recognizing the gains China has made that have in some instances overtaken our accomplishments? If someone is out there doing something better than we can, don't we owe it to ourselves intellectually to recognize that and use that as motivation to get our own asses in gear?


And bringing Obama's father into it because he was some low-level government functionary in Kenya? What the f*** does that have to do with anything?

This whole post is pure and utter bulls***. It's intellectually void partisan politispeak. Anyone with half a brain should be grossly offended by the idiotic and pathetic lack of logic and rational thinking displayed by virtually every line of it.

I don't often get riled up by a post, but the sheer level of raw, concentrated stupid embodied in the OP has me feeling ready to kick someone in the nuts.

And oh by the way the entire OP is a direct copy, without attribution or citation, of an article written by Austin Hill and first appearing on TownHall.com

Austin Hill is a Republican shill, a t***, and an absolute f***ing moron if he believes a word of his vitriolic, intellectually bankrupt fear-mongering.

Evidently.

It looks as if the only thing that matters to a lot of voters these days is appearance.
I think we can all surmize who those voters are.

I think it is probably the result of living a well insulated life, in a well insulated country.

I'll never forget the seemingly unsuspecting face of the late, Nick Berg.

Read Obama's words. Read them for yourself without some douchebag a*****e idiot shoving false words down your throat. Read them for yourself and use your own brain to interpret them.


"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option."


If you can read that and understand a tenth of the stupid bulls*** that Austin Hill understood, then you are a stupid person who believes stupid bulls***.

I believe the article is actually a deliberate flamebait article for the purposes of driving up page views and comments on Austin Hill's articles.

Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.

so, i have to hand out what i earned to the poor? and the wealthy have to hand out to the middle class and the poor so we can have what they have? we will all be in the middle so to speak? so, i can sit on my a** for the rest of my life cuz i know the governemnt will see to it that i have what everyone else does?

sounds pretty f***ed up to me.

This isn't about communism in any way, shape, or form. Obama didn't say a word about communism. Obama didn't praise China's communist government. Obama didn't suggest or even remotely imply that communism was a good idea.

"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

Sounds like he's praising the communist government to me.

He's not praising anyone!

He's recognizing something that the "communist" government did. He's admitting that they're managing to do something better than us, and he's using that as motivation to get our s*** together and get our asses in gear.

He doesn't want Beijing to be a good option for locating an international business headquarters. He wants the United States of America to be a better option than China.

If a "communist government" builds the world's best aircraft, cures AIDS, and builds the world's best freeway system, is it wrong to recognize that they've done so, and use this reality to spur us to do even better?

What is it about the ports, airports and whatever else that makes them "superior" to ours? I've never heard anyone claim that they are going to move their businesses to China based on something like that.

Uhh, because theres not SOO many companies ALREADY doing business in china???

Your first post was missing a poster of this type

Probably because it's cheaper, not because they have awesome airports.