Does anyone know Obama's true background?

[Cantando]

Is there any truth in this?

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08

[btwendel]

Melanie Philips has her own agenda. Even though I found this on Wikipedia it is enough for me to disregard her views.

The BBC has said that Phillips "is regarded as one of the [U.K.] media's leading right-wing voices".

Since she is on the right and Obama is on the left (at least from her viewpoint) she picks what suits her purpose.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

It just doesn't make sense to me, judging on his public personna. I guess we could all be duped, but he comes across as very genuine. I'm sure that Ms. Philips cited sources for all of these accusations? Maybe you could post a link for those of us too lazy to look it up.

Anyway, I'm an amateur conspiracy theorist myself in the sense that I don't let myself feel certain that strange and covert things aren't going on. But in this case it would be a shock to me if Obama espoused the "values" it would take to be considered a party to such nonsense (well, apart from the Marxism which is not really such a big deal). It's not the feeling I get from him. And yes, I will eat my hat if I'm wrong...

The Chicago mobsters have historically had big influence in local elections so maybe they have something to do with Obama's win. But more likely it was another Chicago/nationwide group...the ones that worship Oprah.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by btwendel

Melanie Philips has her own agenda. Even though I found this on Wikipedia it is enough for me to disregard her views.

Since she is on the right and Obama is on the left (at least from her viewpoint) she picks what suits her purpose.

Ah, the UK version of Ann Coulter. Heaven, hell, anybody help us!

[Barcs]

I'd like to see any evidence of what she's talking about. Sounds extremely exaggerated to me.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Is there any truth in this?

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08

It's easy to break down..


Marxist radical: Obama wants to roll back Bush's tax breaks for the rich. This equates to Marxism apparently.

Black power / anti-white racists: Obama went to a black church.. scary.

Jew-haters: This one is made up as far as I know. Obama selected Rahm to be his chief of staff, for one thing. For another, the only real Jew hater I've ever seen was featured on Fox News last month, to speak out against Obama.

It wasn't just the quantity but the content that made his litigious behavior so notable. The documents he filed were routinely filled with the most extreme anti-Semitic venom one could find anywhere this side of Mein Kampf. The lawsuits were often based on the theory that a cabal of Jewish judges, lawyers and government officials were conspiring against him, and the Complaints he filed would be filled with artfully-constructed allegations along these lines:

Hannity turned to Martin after asking what Obama means by "community organizer," and Martin explained that Obama "was in training for a radical overthrow of the government" -- and Fox then promoted Martin's book.

This led to one of the funniest exchanges I've seen when Sean Hannity got called out on it.


Revolutionary Marxists: Again, rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the Rich = Marxism.

Unrepentant former terrorists: This is a reference to Bill Ayers, who was a part of the Weatherman, and is now a Chicago university professor.

Chicago mobsters: Tony Rezco, judge for yourself.

[Poster]

Why in the world do people watch FOX? Ya gotta like emotional, non-sense, hyterical stuff to sit through that trash.

[ar81]

Socialism ended when cold war was over.
USSR does not exist anymore.

Labelling this or that as socialism is absurd.
Romans had legal system, so if we talk about labels I could say US court promotes roman empire interests in US...

[jimbos123456]

Hes a marxist in terms of economics thats for sure! I can't wait to watch him make tons of illegal unconstitutional promises he can't keep then get torpedoed and blamed for everything as the fed hyperinflates. Should have listened to the founding fathers instead of your marxist team of economic advisors obama! Then china is like GG USA you got WTFownzored we can invade anyone we want now since your dollar is worthless, our sunburn missiles can sink any of your aircraft carriers, and our yuan is backed by gold!

[JMan]

Originally Posted by ar81

Socialism ended when cold war was over.

Venezuela, Bolivia, India, Nepal, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam....



???

[Barcs]

Socialism isn't as bad as people think. It's just as corruptable as capitalism..

But anyway, can somebody explain to me what exactly Marxism is and why Obama is called a Marxist? Isn't Marxism what eventually evolved into communism? I know that Karl Marx himself renounced what Marxism had become before he died, but before that weren't his ideas generally good, and his goal was equality and helping the community, right?

I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Obama is simply moving tax cuts back close to where they were when Clinton was president. He isn't actually redistributing wealth. Tax dollars are not wealth.

[tobyhede]

He's not a Marxist at all. It's a polemic designed to stifle actual debate.

Marxism is complicated, but encompasses a particular view of history as originally defined by Hegel and a view of the economic value of labour and capital and it's relationship. In the 150+ years since the original communist manifesto, Marxism as theory has evolved pretty drastically.

Taxation is not really Socialism at all.

The irony of the argument is that the supposed non-Marxists led by Bush and his henchmen have been busty stealing money from the average tax payer to give to the rich banking elite. Somehow this is not socialism, but taxing people to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure *is*.

It is going to take you *decades* to pay down these debts.

Best part - healthcare, education and infrastructure make EVERYONE richer.

[jimbos123456]

Private education, retirement, and healthcare made everyone richer not public. Marxist, socialist, and communists they are all the same to me they all advocate government intervention. All of these problems blamed on capitalism aren't really the free markets fault. We haven't had a free market since 1914 when the fed was created. Prosperity made the people of this nation lazy, and they all tried to get something for nothing. The politicians were happy to oblige and it is destroying the republic. Before we had the fed, and medicare we had a free market in medicine and it was much cheaper. We had homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, and allopathic medicine all competing together.

Now we just have a bunch of senile old geezers on medicare with poisoned colons eating junk food all day demanding that I pay for their unhealthy lifestyle. So I get to pay for toxic, worthless medicines that don't work for them. That would not have happened in a free market! Next the old geezer baby boomers demand we pay for their retirement, with worthless social security that gets inflated away to almost nothing thanks to the fed. If we were still on the gold standard, and didn't have the fed created the great depression would not have occurred and we wouldn't have social security.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by jimbos123456

Before we had the fed, and medicare we had a free market in medicine and it was much cheaper. We had homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, and allopathic medicine all competing together.

... The Federal Reserve Banking system caused the ascent of pharmaceuticals? . . . ? Correlation does not equal causation.

And, to counter even that dubious assertion, a lot of the "medicine" of those times wasn't quite effective. The lack of any substantial regulation led to significant problems. Treatments often included rather dubious ingredients. Cough syrup for babies contained heroin, for example. And the phrase "snake oil" comes from people who sold, literally, snake oil. People were often scammed or, worse, given "medicine" that had more risks than the disease being treated. This was without full knowledge of the contents of the treatments, since there was little regulation on that, either.
This isn't to say I defend the pharmaceutical industry. But deregulation is not the answer.

If we were still on the gold standard, and didn't have the fed created the great depression would not have occurred and we wouldn't have social security.

The Great Depression occurred while the US was on the gold standard. In fact, the move back to the gold standard after WWI probably contributed to the Great Depression.

[jimbos123456]

The Great Depression occurred while the US was on the gold standard. In fact, the move back to the gold standard after WWI probably contributed to the Great Depression.

Hi there I do not agree with you regarding this matter. Prior to the creation of the federal reserve there were only recessions and financial panics sometimes under the gold standard, but never a great depression. Immediately after the creation of the federal reserve we had the roaring twenties and the great depression thereafter. Also take into account that during the great depression the best performing financial assets were gold stocks. Homesteak mining for example went all the way to $480 a share plus very good dividends. $480 in 1935 would cost $7,665.39 in 2008 using the bureau of labor statistics inflation calculator Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics. However most people do not agree with the governments numbers which are massaged for political reasons.

The Federal Reserve Banking system caused the ascent of pharmaceuticals? . . . ? Correlation does not equal causation

I am simply saying that government intervention and federal reserve inflation drove the price of medicine up. When they do not allow naturopathic medicine to compete with allopathic medicine than that results in a monopoly and increased prices. If you gave ritalin to an autistic kid full of mercury would that really help to load him up with more toxins? Probably not, but any researcher these days can be bribed to claim so and so medicine is going to help so and so condition.

people were often scammed or, worse, given "medicine" that had more risks than the disease being treated.

The same could be said for many pharma products, but in all fairness many supplements are overhyped. However a free market allows both sides to publish the results of their studies. Allowing a pharma company to say so and so drug helps so condition x, but denying a cherry farmer to claim cherries are healthy for condition y isn't very fair.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Damn it they are right! Any black guy who wants power just HAS to be a white hating terrorist...

God it's so clear now!

[torilink]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Damn it they are right! Any black guy who wants power just HAS to be a white hating terrorist...

God it's so clear now!

yep, clear as mud!

all this fear mongering from the conservatives, is tiresome old. Hopefully they'll move on and find some new tactics to try to control the electorate!

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by jimbos123456

Hi there I do not agree with you regarding this matter. Prior to the creation of the federal reserve there were only recessions and financial panics sometimes under the gold standard, but never a great depression. Immediately after the creation of the federal reserve we had the roaring twenties and the great depression thereafter.

The Federal Reserve was formed in 1913. The US was on a gold standard until the Great Depression in 1933. The Fed and the gold standard coincided... To say that the gold standard would have prevented the Great Depression ignores the reality that the gold standard was in place when the Great Depression occurred. In fact, you can trace a country's recovery from the Depression based on when they gave up the gold standard. Those who gave it up earliest (England is a good example) had the best recovery.

The Fed's role in the Great Depression was, according to Milton Friedman, to extend what could have been a recession. Friedman opines that the Fed could have stepped in to ensure liquidity by providing emergency loans or by purchasing government bonds and increasing the supply of money to prevent hoarding. A central reason the Fed did not do so was that they were maxed out on the gold they had in reserve. They could not take steps necessary to prevent the Great Depression because they were forced to only provide money or credit they had gold for. Essentially, the gold standard caused the inaction of the Fed that caused the Great Depression.

The same could be said for many pharma products, but in all fairness many supplements are overhyped. However a free market allows both sides to publish the results of their studies. Allowing a pharma company to say so and so drug helps so condition x, but denying a cherry farmer to claim cherries are healthy for condition y isn't very fair.

While I agree that preventative medicine and nutrition receive way too little attention under our current system, deregulation of medication doesn't answer it. I know a guy who made significant sums of money selling completely ineffective penis enlargement pills. He did so for a while before being shut down. He knew the pills didn't work. It didn't matter. He could make his product look legitimate for long enough to get people to buy in the first time. He didn't care if they didn't keep taking the pills ten years down the road. All he cared about was making the initial year or so of sales.

Why did people buy them given the freedom of information regarding his product? Because there was no information about his product. Every year or so he changed the name, merged the company into a shell, and started from scratch. There were no bad reviews at the beginning of each year.

Without some regulation, you'll have people doing the same thing, but it won't just be the shady characters doing it. Likely, if not for the FDA's investigations, the guy would still be selling his pills. And there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of others with him.

[Brutha]

Should have listened to the founding fathers instead of your marxist team of economic advisors obama!

Of course all those free market professors from Chicago are marxists.
Milton Friedman is probably also a marxist...

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Of course all those free market professors from Chicago are marxists.
Milton Friedman is probably also a marxist...

Yep. University of Chicago is known for its Marxism. Don't let their talk about "free market capitalism" and "deregulation" fool you.

[jimbos123456]

Alright allow me to rephrase the term to "interventionist" instead of "marxist". I don't consider Milton Friedman and the Chicago School free market anyway. The fed interfering in the economy constantly is not the free market at all. Anyway we can just let the price of gold decide which school of thought is going to be correct in the next couple of years, the Chicago School or the Austrian School of thought. The Chicago School of thought did not predict this was going to happen well in advance the Austrian School did! So you can probably predict which side I think is going to be proven correct by 2016 =).

[Brutha]

I don't consider Milton Friedman and the Chicago School free market anyway. The fed interfering in the economy constantly is not the free market at all.

The basis of making a coherent argument should be the ability to keep sides apart and know what the terms mean. Interventionism and Marxism happen to be two very different ideologies.

In addition Milton Friedman is not pro Fed. The guy suggested having computing currencies and removing any state influence on money.
Milton Friedman also happens to be the most prominent figure that argued against letting the Fed pump money into the economy.

Obama might not be against the Fed, but Milton certainly is free market by any reasonable definition.
In addition not being against the Fed is nothing that makes the Obama administration any different to other mainstream politicians.

That argument would mean that every American politican is a marxist.

[jimbos123456]

The basis of making a coherent argument should be the ability to keep sides apart and know what the terms mean.

I'm a little disappointed really that just seems like personal attack on me, instead of just debating on a political forum for fun. I'm sorry if I offended you regarding this matter. Allow me to explain my train of thought my opinions are primarily from the Austrian School of Thought pillar Murray Rothbard. Murray criticized Milton Friedman in the following article Milton Friedman Unraveled by Murray N. Rothbard

In addition not being against the Fed is nothing that makes the Obama administration any different to other mainstream politicians.That argument would mean that every American politican is a marxist.

Yep that is my argument for sure literally! Most politicians claim to support fiscal responsibility for example, but always deficit spend and violate the constitution passing laws they are not authorized to pass. For example are they truly authorized to pass laws against the Bill of Rights and the constitution allowing the jailing of people in Guantanamo for years on end without a fair trial? They aren't defending the constitution which they are sworn to do, they aren't supporting capitalism with government intervention, and socialist programs. So logically I conclude that they are either socialist, marxist, or communist, and they just don't realize it since they are in denial. A so called fiscal conservative that votes for pork program after pork program is not a conservative for example.

Interventionism and Marxism happen to be two very different ideologies.

I don't know what your definition of interventionism is, but it is probably different from my frame of reference.

[Brutha]

I'm a little disappointed really that just seems like personal attack on me, instead of just debating on a political forum for fun.

I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh.

. Murray criticized Milton Friedman in the following article Milton Friedman Unraveled by Murray N. Rothbard

Just because Friedman is no Australian economist doesn't mean that he isn't against the Fed. Not everyone who disagrees with Australian economists, shares the same ideology.

Friedman ultimately concluded (Friedman and Schwartz 1986: 52)
that there is, after all, “no reason currently to prohibit banks or other
groups from issuing hand-to-hand currency,” [...] He
took a stand resembling Walter Bagehot’s of over a century before:
although Bagehot thought competitive note issue a better and more
“natural” arrangement, he considered it futile to oppose the Bank of
England’s monopoly, which was by then already firmly established.
“You might as well, or better, try to alter the English monarchy and
substitute a republic,” he wrote, “as to alter the present constitution
of the English money market”

We didn't think that a monopol by the Fed is a good thing but that it's more practial to attack bad Fed policy (pumping to much money into the economy) than to attack the Fed itself.
Friedman is also opposed to the Fed policy in the ninties that created to much credit and produced the present problem in your perspective.

They aren't defending the constitution which they are sworn to do, they aren't supporting capitalism with government intervention, and socialist programs. So logically I conclude that they are either socialist, marxist, or communist, and they just don't realize it since they are in denial.

Not everybody that does something that goes against the constituion is a marxist. There are a lot of different ideologies.
Marxism is not about regulating markets but about replacing markets with another form of organisation.
Marxism also assumes that you can't go step by step and regulate more till you reach the end goal of having removed the market. Marxists think that they need a revolution to completely remove people who make money by owning capital instead of their own labor from the system.

A so called fiscal conservative that votes for pork program after pork program is not a conservative for example.

But there no reason to assume that everybody who isn't a fiscal conservative likes marxism.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by jimbos123456

Austrian School of Thought pillar Murray Rothbard.

Hey there. You have any treatises you could personally recommend on Austrian Economics? I'm not a big fan of shorter articles, especially in system-based economics.

Regards.

[jimbos123456]

Hi there are a lot of out of print books you can download for free. I really like like this one for example called "The Case Against the Fed" http://mises.org/books/fed.pdf

Directory of 10 pages worth of free economics book downloads
Online Books :: Mises Institute