It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The crisis of the 'Gentry Presidency'

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Source


The Obama administration’s belated attempt to address the looming employment crisis — after three years focused largely on reviving Wall Street, redoing health care and creating a “green” economy — reflects not only ineptitude but a deeper crisis of what is best understood as the “gentry presidency.”

Unlike previous Democratic presidents, including John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama’s base primarily lies not with the working and middle classes, who would have demanded effective job action, but with the rising power of the post-industrial castes, who have largely continued to flourish even through the current economic maelstrom.

From the beginning, Obama has been nurtured and supported by an array of influential leaders in finance, technology and real estate who supported his rise. In the run-up to his nomination, he attracted more money from Wall Street than Hillary Clinton, New York’s senator. Later, he pummeled the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), by a wide margin among financiers.


Read the article before responding

This article clearly explains Obama, in my opinion. Those who call him Socialist are wrong, those who call him a friend of the working class are wrong, Mr. Obama is a friend of the privileged class. This is not something new in world history; it has been occurring for hundreds, even thousands, of years. But it is new for this country to have a President so aligned with one particular class.

You sit here with this horrible economy, people unemployed, others going hungry, and you look at this President. There is almost no way you cannot think to yourself, “What exactly is he doing?” Obama did not drag Wall Street by its throat into court, he did not implement even a jobs program such as public works, and any policy designed specifically to help the middle class has been an absolute failure. But why is that? Simple; President Obama is connected solely with the American ‘gentry’.

He is receiving enormous sums of money from Wall Street, Hollywood, Academia, and other more elitist areas today because his policies have benefited them. As this story notes; Obama’s policies make Reagan’s “trickle-down” look like a populist torrent. The top 1% which constitute business executives, venture capitalists, bankers, Hollywood millionaires, technocrats, and add them together with the academic elite you get the Obama cash financiers. They are giving money to him even today because they benefit from his policies, their recession ended in 2009 while ours continues today.

Is it any wonder why he and the people around him touted so many failed programs such as the green jobs initiatives which was going to expand the middle class? It should not be a surprise; the reason this never actually happened is simple, it was designed to benefit the elite. Yet even with all this the lower class groups which still support him; blacks, Hispanics, and the young, are all being ravaged and still will not rise up against him yet.

The Democrats claim to the title of “working class party” has been shattered by this President. Neither party can claim that title today. The elites began to hijack the party beginning in full force with the student protests. Hollywood poured in money because they were anti-war, academic elites joined in, and they never left. In the 1980s these more culturally liberal groups within the party financed by Hollywood and academia reached out to big business, they were known as “New Democrats”.

These types fully took over the blue collar party with Bill Clinton in ’92; just examine his record to see where his allegiance lies. Al Gore was no different and neither was John Kerry. Barack Obama is once again another one of this Hollywood-Academia-Big Business backed elitist Presidents who have betrayed his own party and his own country. Just look at the election results in 2010, look at the Nevada and New York election results on Tuesday. The middle class is abandoning this President, not because the GOP necessarily is offering them something better but rather because they just cannot consciously vote for someone who is against them.

Democrats need to wake up to this before their party continues forward as the big business, culturally left-wing party. There are only two choices; be a populist party of the working class for the working class, or be a technocratic party of the gentry’ class for the gentry class. Take the Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry path which chases the base of 80 years away for good or return to the party of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Hubert Humphrey.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
This article clearly explains Obama, in my opinion. Those who call him Socialist are wrong, those who call him a friend of the working class are wrong, Mr. Obama is a friend of the privileged class.


That is why, I laugh and pity when people claim that Obama is a "socialist", when he went along with the health insurance friendly version for themselves of the Obamacare I knew that he doesn't have anything socialist in him, when he keep using Tarp money and extended the benefits I knew he was not socialist.

When he seems to push the tax on the rich agenda he knows that Republicans will never vote for that he is not a socialist.

Is all a lie, many had bought into it.

Obama is as corporate whore and any other politicians walking the halls of Washington this days and it doesn't mater wish party denomination it may be they are for the private interest money


thank you and I will give you one hundreds starts If I could.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


He's the complete opposite of Socialist. Even his perceived socialist policies (like guaranteed healthcare) are completely Fascist in nature (by demanding through legal and financial retribution the forced consumption of health care packages through private corporations) and will bring in billions of further profit for the corporations and thus shareholders. Which according to the governments own number about 90% of all shares are owned by the top 10% of the population.

Anything and everything he does, benefits the rich. But he's crafty, he makes it appear like he's helping the poor and the weak, in reality he's using them and not even paying them in benefits for the pleasure. I'd take a Socialist over a Fascist any day.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

the private power is the democratic party and the power grab by the current potus using fascist means to and end.

constantly tag words "the rich should pay more" "lets spread the wealth" and clearly socialist that clearly have anti social ramifications.

union bailouts are another part of that hitler and roosevelt were big union types and grabbed power to unprecidented portions of that time where as the current potus has done the same.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


1. You did not read the entirety of the link I provided
2. You probably did not even read my entire OP
3. You can do better than vomiting up partisan talking points.

Come on neo.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
So sad that when you bring facts that do not agree with the main street view of Obama people do not want to say anything, they don't even come and post to prove your wrong, because they cannot.

Sad.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Not all black people are voting for Obama.... idk why people always assume that. What exactly has Obama done to help black people?

Obama lost my support when he killed MJ.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
sorry
edit on 15-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


You have really got to stop trolling. No one here finds it humorous and you are only making yourself look bad. Although I doubt you even care.

Now if you want to talk facts and not opinion then yes blacks do vote Democrat, not 100% but very close. Would you like to argue that one or accept it as-is? If you want to argue it you do not have a leg to stand on.

Source

Vote for President of the United States
2008 – 95% Obama | 4% McCain
2004 – 88% Kerry | 11% Bush
2000 – 90% Gore | 8% Bush
1996 – 84% Clinton | 12% Dole
1992 – 83% Clinton | 10% Bush
1988 – 86% Dukakis | 12% Bush
1984 – 90% Mondale | 9% Reagan
1980 – 85% Carter | 11% Reagan



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Whoever said the socialists don't have money? Are you now going to say that Soros is also not a socialist because he has lots of money to throw around?
Pity? No thanks I don't need your pity. In fact POTUS is worse than Socialist...bordering on things more distasteful.....


He's definitely not proletariat...but he came from that apparently, as there were tiimes when he didn't have a lot of money.
Richard Trumpka hobknobs around with Intl European Socialists and talks of Global economic taxes. I'm betting he's wealthy too.

I bet it was easy for the Rothschilds to buy him off to fill this position, but I'm certain that although he employs "crony capitalism", it's just more "ends justifying the means". People who knew him have described him as a Fabian Socialist(a man who considered himself Fabian). I have no doubt he has Marxian ideologies.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by neo96
 


1. You did not read the entirety of the link I provided
2. You probably did not even read my entire OP
3. You can do better than vomiting up partisan talking points.

Come on neo.


I'm sorry Misoir but I have to agree with Neo on this. Obama has too much Marxist influence in his family history and early upbringing chronicled by Jerome Corsi and exposed at the core. All the Rev Wright radical James Cone inspired liberation theology known to have Marxism at its core, married to Michelle who spouts things like giving up our(not hers) pie so others can have more. That's classic and you know it. Of course she could be lying, but I think that's her core belief as long as someone else is paying the price.

I believe POTUS core beliefs are Marxist/socialist but the policies he implements are NWO. NWO is really Totalitarian, the goal a One World Govt. That is clearly Statist, clearly it is what it is, with the Elite in control.
As for the Rothschilds, they own most of the gold and probably don't care who runs the world.

Maybe the First Couple just got drunk with the power and money once they got into the WH.


edit on 16-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


And so that's why all the socialist and communist party websites support him and all his policies? There are audio tapes of Communist Party leaders talking about how great his policies are. The DSA supported him before he was elected.
Bill Ayers is anarcho....that should be obvious. He just figured he can accomplish more in the University teaching than he did blowing things up.

And...his policies are not benefitting the Unions? Unions have been a communist tool to achieve the ends of destroying the bourgeoisie Capitalists.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm sorry Misoir but I have to agree with Neo on this. Obama has too much Marxist influence in his family history...


You know why I beef with you and neo???

Cause you guys repeat nonsense, contrived bullpoop from the corporate

media arm of the controlled opposition, thats why. It is confusing enough

without the tabloid narrative muddying up the facts.

Obama is not behaving like a lefty,

not with his fiscal policies at least. He has economic policies like a

corprotist/globalist 80's president, mixed with a 2020 style, socially

liberal European policy. If Obama were a Marxist, he would be actively

going after, and stifling, corporations relentlessly. The entire narrative that

you guys learned from watching too much T.V does

nothing to explain the man or his policies. Obama is literally

working for the people you think shouldn't be taxed or imposed upon.


Obama should have gone for the FED the Banks and satellite corps,

that is what I thought he was going to

do, he was not as left as I thought, he turned out to be just like GWB.

His policies have little to do with the liberalism I believe in.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, I have to disagree with you on his handling of corporations. While he is helping Wall Street to sack the market, he has been involved in the govt takeover of several industries in the private sector. True to Fabian form, he is not doing it all at once, so it still appears as if he's being a corporatist. Remember, socialism is a bridge between capitalism and communism.
Still, Obama is a tool for the Globalists. So while I believe that his core belief is Marxist, he is doing the bidding of the NWO. What is the bidding of the NWO and the Globalists? A One World Govt. That is totally the opposite of core Libertarian beliefs and the true free enterprise system. In Marxism, the State is supreme and the individual lives to serve the State. This is why, to me, the whole idea of Libertarian socialist is a misnomer because the core value of socialism is collectivism and the core value of Libertarianism is the individual.
I always go back to Antony Sutton on this argument over left and right. His analysis is that the Hegelian dialectic produces the NWO as the synthesis, and it is neither right nor left. That could easily be the reason why Obama appears to be centrist to the left and leftist to the right.
I do believe that the "conspiracy" does involve both left and right paradigms. Yes, corporations are used to achieve a globalist end. It does not mean corporations are necessarily evil as the "true" Marxist would say. That is the old argument of Marxists that Capitalists are by nature greedy and therefore the Capitalist society must be dismantled and replaced by a world ownd and run by the proletariat. That may be the Marxist ideal but we all know that the State will not and does not wither away and that it is going to be the State always in charge, and those who run the State.
Antony Sutton also said the the Bush family, the Harrimans, and others such as Kellogg Brown and root were involved in financing Hitler. It may have been out of sheer desire for profit, or it may be that they genuinely believed in fascism. Sutton aslso said that the Rockefellers financed the Bolshevik revolution. And don't we think of the Rockefellers as Capitalist to the T? So what are they doing financing communists?

Antony Sutton presents excellent commentary to this point.

The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne
hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.


Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book.



The contradictions suggested by Minor's cartoon have been brushed under the rug of history because they do not fit the accepted conceptual spectrum of political left and political right. Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.


On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society


Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.


www.reformed-theology.org...
edit on 16-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





If Obama were a Marxist, he would be actively


You mean like moratoriums on domestic drilling in the US? While giving away tax payer dollars to support the already nationalized oil industry of brazil? It's a fact that US companies were going under with that moratorium imposed. How about the Carbon tax? Cap and trade is totally designed to destroy the private sector businesses. Destroy the coal industry. He said that out loud.
Should I go on?
He thinks he makes a better CEO of Chrysler, remember that? By the way, he made the taxpayers the ownership of the debt of the auto baillout. Thanks Prez Obama.
OH yah isnt corporate welfare over there on the left where Antony sutton said it was....



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


What liberalism do you believe in? The roots of the Progressive Party are Totalitarianism, Statism. Are you for individual freedom? Do you believe that the individual exists for the State or the State is to serve the individual? Do you believe that the rights of the collective trump the rights of the individual? Do you believe that corporations are inherently evil?
Marxism is based on a belief in the State as Supreme. The collective is valued over the individual. Do you support the collective bargaining rights of Unions?
In any case maybe another time we can talk about these things.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I would agree that the Democrats have appeared to be the party of the working class, while projecting the image that Republicans are the party of the rich class. It is so easy to see that there are wealthy elite in both parties. Still, that projection just underlines the Hegelian dialectic of the two-party system, wherein candidates run on the party line and not as much an individual platform, while maintaining the structure of the Democrats as the Left Hegelians and Republicans as Right Hegelians.
The late Professor Antony Sutton explained the Hegelian process as used by The Order of Skull and Bones, a Secret Society which imported the German Hegelian philosophy in the 1800's via Yale University and the Russell Trust. He explains how the philosophy of John Dewey was also imported into the educational system in the US, creating an atmosphere of Statism and the idea that our children are units to fit into society. We see today how the educational system indoctrinates the youth into whatever social engineering the Elite wants to see happen, whether it is sex-ed for kindergartners, or trips to the mosque, these things are all experiements in molding the consciousness of the youth outside of the arena of the family. This is part of the Statist attack on the family, treatng the children as belonging to the state and undermining parental authority.
Why am I going in to all this? Because it's all part of the Hegelian programming.
Sutton also explains that this conspiracy is often hard for people to grasp, as it can appear to be too big in scope.
The undermining of the working class can be seen throughout the entire structure of programs in place today. FDR famously started the era of intense govt involvement which was termed "The New Deal". This was the beginning of putting in place the framework for the Statist control of the people. But the stage was really set in 1913 when Wilson oversaw the instituting of The Fed. In this manner, the bankers could use govt to skim money off the top of the public in the form of interest payments on loans it makes to the govt. This is the enslavement we see today of the public to policies set by the Fed and to the overspending practices of the govt. The Fed can expand or contract the money supply as they see fit, while the govt has a blank checkbook. This is why the current admin has no problem spending us into oblivion on entitlements which we can never pay back and the working class will suffer the most.
Ron Paul is right also in understanding the defense part of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. Eisenhower was a member of the CFR and all secretaries of Defense have been since as far as I have read. Many members of Skull and Bones go on to become members of the CFR and in that way they can control the outcome and all the plans the CFR implements.
Republicans know instinctively and from our history and the history of Pearl Harbor that defense is necessary for protection of our country and our sovereignty. Democrats typically rail at Republicans over this, but the truth is that the Constitution says the govt is to provide for the Common Defence. But our Founding Fathers most likely did not intend to be waging constant wars. The CFR has inescapably mired us in all sorts of foreign squabbles, while the wealthy elite have financed revolutions and Marxist uprisings everywhere across the globe.
Sutton calls this "conflict management" and out of all this conflict comes the synthesis of the NWO.
The IMF and the World Bank are also part of this apparatus.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, I have to disagree with you on his handling of corporations. While he is helping Wall Street to sack the market, he has been involved in the govt takeover of several industries in the private sector. True to Fabian form, he is not doing it all at once, so it still appears as if he's being a corporatist. Remember, socialism is a bridge between capitalism and communism.


Did Obama pass Universal healthcare??? No, he didn't even break a sweat in his attempt... What he passed would have had Marx and Jefferson rolling in their graves alike.

I will tell you what you are missing... All of those reports from FOX News reports, from Acorn to Fabian societies
are a part of a narrative to awaken and motive the GOP base. Your complex narrative of associations and motives are from the television, it is why I fight with you and others so much. You believe and spread a message
and campaign which was primarily written and concocted by writers in New York city, that is the truth. I mean you guys think we haven't kept our eye on FOX news too??? It is a business meant to capture ratings, like
a soap opera or tabloid series.



Still, Obama is a tool for the Globalists.


Yup



So while I believe that his core belief is Marxist, he is doing the bidding of the NWO.
and this is
is where you fall off the tracks... The NWO is comprised of corporate agents who represent larger financial interests

I bet you didn't know that I was considering becoming a conservative, just about a year ago, I started seeing things differently. I believe Misoir and I were going through our transformations at the same time, he can vouch for me. The reason it couldn't infiltrate my heart is because of I would be standing in a crowd that entertains
and promotes the craziest, most low down form of politics I have ever seen. That is the politics of fantasy,
which has a base that will parrot and believe ANYTHING.I think that crowd is a weak crowd and a dangerous one
too, a tyrants dream.

I mean really, a Marxist that serves the board rooms objectives
??? Really dude?

I hated Bush for the same reasons I hate Obama, the difference is I didn't need 8 Tom Clancy volumes
of narrative to find reason for it. Based upon the policies of Bush and Obama one would assume the FOX news
was able to produce 250 tape hours on the same sorts of crack investigative reports, about Bush.
Did they??? Yet any fool can see that they share similar geopolitical, economic policy.



What is the bidding of the NWO and the Globalists? A One World Govt. That is totally the opposite of core Libertarian beliefs and the true free enterprise system.


A one world government, that is controlled by the financial elite and their business holdings. Again Really?

Socialists


I am not too well versed on the book of Marx, I sure as hell know he was ideologically opposed to
the finical elite and their business holdings.

Now conservatism may be opposed to government, but conservatism is completely pro business, almost
across the board. Do tell (please answer) how conservation can oppose something that they are completely
unwilling to interfere with??? Since the NWO owns the business's that buy the politicians and the policy,
how can conservatism say it is against globalization when all the policy is filtered through business.

In almost every case, conservatives want business to be the force that guides and creates the market,
not government. Well my friend, business is the force that the globalists use first and foremost, your
political outlook exalts and reveres business.

So again, how can you be opposed to the army if you defend their tanks like pit bulls?




edit on 16-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red
 





If Obama were a Marxist, he would be actively





You mean like moratoriums on domestic drilling in the US?



See and again you start with your fake narrative, this why I couldn't fight along side you man, you
are intellectual dishonest to the core. You don't even bother to recall that the Ocean and the maritime
livelihood of several states were ruined. But of course, you make no mention of the millions of gallons
of crude dumping into the water were we get our seafood from. You think about the big business, FIRST
I think about the individual fishermen FIRST. But you are for the individual and against the NWO?






While giving away tax payer dollars to support the already nationalized oil industry of brazil? It's a fact that US companies were going under with that moratorium imposed.


I am not informed enough on the Brazilian aspect, it does sound stupid to do that. But it is just as
stupid to continue drilling in a manner that threatens the lively hood of millions of individuals in coastal
regions. Again you are thinking about the BIG BUSINESS, not the fishermen, the Dive instructors, the
tour boating industry, the hospitality industry, the resteraunt industry, the boat sales industry, the associated
technological industries that service the maritime industry...

This is why conservative America is largely a corporatist force, you create policy that protects and benefits the
wealthiest and most centralized business forces in America and subsequently the world.



How about the Carbon tax? Cap and trade is totally designed to destroy the private sector businesses. Destroy the coal industry. He said that out loud.


Wrong again, Cap and Trade is a BUSINESS, it is a BUSINESS and proposed growth industry.

Cap and Trade is a way for the interests behind the Oil/Energy Industry to make residual income on the
use of their products.

You keep making the GRAVE MISTAKE of thinking that the business world operates in the emotional
manner you perceive.

Cap and Trade is a new revenue stream for private business to profit off of.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


When people point at Obama and call him a Marxist I always have to question the sanity of that person or at least their understanding of philosophy. First off what has Obama done that is more left-wing than Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, or even Richard Nixon? He has done absolutely nothing even as left-wing as those people have.

What has Obama done to help the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist bourgeois? I suppose he called for the organizing of all workers into trade unions? Oh right he never even fought for the end of secret ballot. I suppose he nationalized the automotive industry and turned it into a worker owned organization? Oh right he left it in the hands of an ownership system of hierarchical control. Did he at least want to confiscate the wealth of the richest Americans by proposing a 100% personal income tax on all those making a million or more a year? Oh right he proposed that we raise the income tax to 39.6% you know, lower than it was even in the 1970s.

Did Obama call for a global armed struggle of the proletariat to overthrow the ruling bourgeois? Oh right he bailed out the ruling bourgeois with proletariat money, my bad! Did he even take his powers to bring the thugs on Wall Street to court for their crimes against the American people? Nope, he not only let them off free and able to keep their ‘golden parachutes’. Was there any punishment towards Wall Street and the ruling bourgeois of America? Not that I can recall, unless you consider the Dodd-Frank bill which was created by two men involved with the crimes on Wall Street an attack against them.

Obama is probably about as Marxist as Bill Clinton. He is not a Marxist, a Socialist, or even a Social Liberal. Obama best represents the upper class culturally liberal who occupy the halls of academia, the business place, and the other professionals. He has done this to the detriment of the working class. This President has been a failure in nearly every instance, he has betrayed the blue collar America for his white collar utopia and has thrown us some class warfare lines which we know are not only insincere but are now becoming insults.

Single-handedly he has shown the harsh schism in the Democratic Party between the Professional Left and the New Deal Left. Those who occupy the New Deal Left are tired of his games, this party following him blindly, and the elites running the show. If Obama is anything but a corporate, upper class stooge then I am Mary freaking Poppins!




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join