This is the only theory that truly explains the rabbit whole we all fell down on January 20th, 2008.

In many ways we are very lucky the economy was so very bad as to expose the stupidity of the ideology driving Obama and his party. Odd that I should think it was lucky, but I do.

Can you imagine the damage that could have been done if Obama had remained popular? If his policies did not have immediate failure? If his actions were separated by their results by years or decades?

As it stands now there are fewer and fewer true believers in the policies that make America weak. That is true here and abroad.

I don’t think the world is enjoying a weak dollar and weak America nearly as much as they anticipated.

The far left believes that everybody who is rich got there by abusing others, even if they live in the US. They believe that poor person sitting on their porch with a Bud is poor because a rich person is keeping him down, not because that person never tried in school and doesn’t want to make the effort now.

Only if it’s a poor black or brown person. A poor white person deserves to be poor because he’s an ignorant redneck.

Thought I agree that many aspects of what D’Souza writes are on point, and points to some clear cause-and-effect, when, oh when, in our conversations with Leftists are clear-cut explanations available to explain their thinking?

Since much of Leftist thinking hinges on emotion and envy, one doesn’t have to be a fantastic political analyst to see that Obama simply wishes things were different, because his version of fair, without basis, is clearly more preferable for other people than the current system.

That’s all. It’s fun to read the tea leaves. But let’s leave the projection to the Democrats and Communists (but I repeat myself) and report actions and consequences.

Those folks spend an awful lot of time telling you what to think without any facts to back them up. Let’s share the facts and let folks decide what to think.

You can’t convince the stupid.

When the left goes into wild frenzy of setting up idiotic strawmen and advancing specious objections with thunder and trumpets, all while exhibiting a spittle-bedewed, irrational fury at the targeted author, you know a nerve has been struck.

As [Barack Obama, Sr.] put it, “We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.”

With this:

# He doesn’t seek to nationalize the banks but to “decolonize” them — to bring them under government control. “Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks [to] maintain his control.”
# “For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them.”

So instead of private individuals being in charge of the resources, it is government bureaucrats, who come from an elite class (which is why Sarah Palin is so hated — she’s outside that class).

And not nationalizing (which is socialism) banking & health insurance, but rather bringing them to heel under government control is fascism. It maybe Mussolini-lite fascism, with a disdain for military action, but it follows in Mussolini’s footsteps.

And both fascism and socialism, along with outright communism, are modern versions of medieval feudalism, with an elite class of nobles ruling the peasantry. And who was the intra-society group hated by the nobility? Not the clergy, who were part of the ruling class, though also rivals. Certainly not the serfs, who were beneath contempt. No, it was the merchants — those who created wealth that the nobility needed. The nobility needed the merchants, but hated that they were dependent on the merchants, whom they viewed as inferior. That is the same view of the Progressives.

As for why Dear Liar’s administration took such a sharp attack on the article, not only is The Whine particularly thin skinned, but I think it hit too close to home. I remember back to Nixon, and while he had battles with the press, I don’t recall any president being this upset with any particular article.

Am I the only person left that recalls that Sen. Obama sponsored a bill that would obligate the US to “end global poverty”? The UN would set America’s annual “fair share” payment which the legislation would require us to meet. Look it up. He has been for income redistribution domestically through socialist programs and internationally through restraining America’s activities while encouraging other nations to sell to us what we used to produce.

The far left believes that everybody who is rich got there by abusing others, even if they live in the US. They believe that poor person sitting on their porch with a Bud is poor because a rich person is keeping him down, not because that person never tried in school and doesn’t want to make the effort now.

This is internal neo-colonialism and the motivation of the far left. They see America as a “rich person” doing to the world, in their eyes, what they believe the rich do to the poor and middle class to get rich.

The way to trap them is to say “If you had a law degree, should you only make as much as your secretary.” If you have any brains you can trap them in this. Their argument that there should be no rich and all wealth should be equally distributed falls apart when you personalize for them that if you work harder, you make more. You can then accuse them of stereotyping in a way as wrong and demonizing as stereotyping races or sexes.

Sure Maddoff was a crook, but per capita they are a pretty crime free group.

And frankly, all of those of us still working and not working for the government owe that to a rich person.