Barack Obama Is A Socialist If……..–UPDATED

Forget Jeff Foxworthy, that’s too low-brow, Rethuglican humor for ya’ll. Enter the erudite Dr. Obama.

You might be a socialist…..

……if you believe in the redistribution of wealth. Obama said to a small business owner yesterday and Rachel Lucas reports:

“It’s not that I wanna punish your success, I just wanna make sure that everybody behind you, that they have a chance at success, too. I think we need to spread the wealth around.“

You might be a socialist…
……if you believe in “refundables”. Says Ace:

How does he intend to spread the wealth? By increasing the size of federal programs?

Well, that’s a start. But I’m afraid he’s going to spread it around more directly — by taking money away from people who pay taxes to directly give it to those who don’t pay taxes in the form of a “tax cut.”

A tax cut? For people who already don’t pay taxes? That’s not a tax cut, is it? That’s more like a… well, a government handout. It’s a welfare check.

Not so.

Obama prefers to call it “refundables.” Even though you’re not being “refunded” anything, you’re just being sent a thousand or two dollars from someone else’s tax payments.

Here’s a little Wiki for ya’ll who were deprived of a Harvard education and must use online references to educate yourself:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

What part of this definition does Barack Obama disagree with, actually? You see, when the government taxes a company disproportionately and redistributes the money made, it is taking profits of the company and essentially controlling how the money is spent. No doubt, the business owners have limited choices because they cannot choose how to spend the money they earn.

As I have written before, this government behavior punishes success. If it gets bad enough, people stop producing, hiring, and do business elsewhere. The POOR and WORKING CLASS people lose what jobs they have, suck more off the government teat, the government needs more tax revenue and creates an even more punitive business environment. See Michigan as socialism is stupid “Exhibit A”.

Leftists who protest at the socialist label are being obtuse. They know that all socialists are not the same, that it’s a broad category, and that Barack Obama certainly is not a Capitalism champion. So what is he, if not a socialist?

Says Investor’s Business Daily:

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
He certainly does, and his unguarded statement to a voter in a key swing state is socialist economics distilled to its simplest terms.

Eliminating small business capital gains taxes — whatever the details would be (and you can bet it would be a fraction of total private investment) — will not rescue the middle class from the job losses of a high-tax Obama administration planning to spend an extra $293 billion annually. It does, however, cunningly deaden charges that Obama is camouflaging a socialist agenda.

The other components of his so-called rescue, lovingly described by the New York Times as “proposals to spur new jobs, to give Americans penalty-free access to retirement savings to help them through the downturn, to urge a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures and to lend money to strapped local and state governments” are worded to sound equally innocuous. But a close look tells another story.
His $3,000 income-tax credit for each new full-time employee hired by businesses is an obvious anti-outsourcing incentive likely to increase business costs, of which we can expect plenty more — of a directly punitive nature — in an Obama administration. He would replace the judgment of banks with that of the federal government regarding when or if to foreclose. And he wants the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to bail out spendthrift state and local governments.

And one thing that has been patently absurd is the whole 95% of people will get tax cuts. It makes no sense. Is Obama really saying that taking the money of the top 5% of American wage earners will make up for what is lost everywhere else? It makes for a good soundbite but it sounds crazy…and yet, people must believe it. The Wall Street Journal notes:

There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.

The government controls the money. And when the government controls money, it controls the citizen. Their choices are limited. Their lives constrict to the size the government deems adequate. They are boiled like frogs. Socialists count on the fact that the average person will be swayed by the class warfare rhetoric and ignore the fine print.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Winston Churchill

Obama’s hubris is that he believes socialism just hasn’t been done “right”. Never mind that it never works no matter the iteration. He’s going to try anyway. We can’t say we didn’t know ahead of time.

UPDATED:

Maxed Out Mama lays it out as usual:

Keep in mind that incomes will be trending lower for the next couple of years, due to that little thingamabobble I call a “recession”. Median income is still around $50,000. American households earning less than $30,000 are about 29% of the total. Your subsidies and credits should be mostly aimed at this group. If you want to give 95% of Americans a tax break, that means you are going to be taxing the remaining 5% monumentally more, beginning with household incomes at around $175,000.

For all intents and purposes, raising taxes that much on this group is impossible. Let’s round that group to about 4.5 million, and say that’s equivalent to 9 million individuals. That 9 million individuals would collectively have to pay over 500 billion more in taxes to pay for the refundable portion to the lower brackets. A billion has 3 more zeros than a million, so (500 billion/9 million = 500,000,000,000/9,000,000 = $55,556 per such taxpayer. Needless to say, you are not going to be taxing a person making $175,000 an ADDITIONAL $55,000 if you expect this person to keep working, much less tax a household making $200,000 an ADDITIONAL $110,000, so you are going to have to shift most of that onto much higher income persons.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Posted in Isms, Political Animals | 9 Comments »

So Barack Obama Isn’t Just A Socialist In Word, But In Membership, Too

Yesterday, a few readers protested because I said that the current candidates used socialist rhetoric. In the comments, I even pointed to socialist actions. That view was derided as being ignorant of the meaning of socialism. Given what Van Helsing reports today, my post seems even more restrained than it first appeared:

The DSA and its New Party were socialist in the same sense as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — i.e., they were communists, reviled as extreme even by the Green Party. From American Thinker:

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within.
That sounds like the Obama/Ayers strategy, all right.

Now the New Party has joined the huge crowd under Obama’s bus. There are enough skeletons under there already to keep journalists busy for years, should they ever develop a sense of curiosity.

More at No Quarter, which also has a time line.

Here’s the thing: anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Karl Marx or socialism, hears the language of a socialist every time Obama speaks. He was schooled in it and marinated in it while coming up through his political career. It is the language of discontent, of government solutions, of screwing the rich, of fairness, of egalitarianism. The fundamental belief, and Obama has this in spades, is that life is not fair and that government can make life fairer. America is unfair. There is also the belief The Greedy and Powerful keeps people down and The System needs to be used to balance this out.

Socialist language soothes in times of trouble. Socialists make promises they simply can’t keep, but when has that ever stopped any politician? Socialism also doesn’t work–well, it doesn’t work well, because it fundamentally ignores human nature. Thus, my joking about not paying my mortgage.

What the government pays for, it reinforces. When a hard working person can make the same amount of money if he doesn’t work, guess what the smart person does? If Barack Obama taxes small business owners, what will the small business owner do? They will STOP hiring or they will let employees go. In response, the socialist government will make laws making it harder to fire people. What will employers do? Stop hiring and start looking for cheaper work forces with less hassle. What will the socialist government do? Require businesses to stay in the country. Cost of goods will inflate. People will have less disposable income. The economy will stall. What will business owners do? CLOSE UP SHOP.

This cycle is so easy to predict because it happens every time it’s tried. And yet, Barack Obama looks across the Atlantic with admiration and Hope and CHANGE! The Germans know a socialist when they see one. One can only hope, Americans do, too.

Even more interesting to me: Why don’t the socialists ever pay more than their fair share? Why do Obama and the rest of his liberal ilk even hire an accountant? Whatever percentage of their hard earned dough they get, why don’t they send it to the Federal Government and earmark the money for the government program they believe is so underfunded? Liberals give far less in charity, mainly because they believe a social safety net should be part of the government not dependent on individuals giving charitably. So, they force people to pay taxes for questionable programs. So fund the programs yourself. Give more in taxes.

But no. Barack Obama, when he made his millions from his book, did what every greedy capitalist does–he bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for his nice family. He ignores the fact that everyone is free to do the same thing.

He succeeded, but he’s ashamed. It’s not enough for him to privately help those who are in need. No, he wants to force everyone, because he believes everyone is as “selfish” as him, to pay. And yet, right now, he could put his money where his mouth is. He could give extra in taxes. Maybe he believes, like the rest of us looking at a mortgage and kids education, that he doesn’t make enough yet to be so generous. But see, those are evil capitalist thoughts.

With the money Obama has made with his campaign, he’s finally got enough money to be a socialist. The rest of us can’t afford his generosity.

Posted in Isms, Political Animals | 16 Comments »

The Next [Socialist] President

“God will choose the next president,” said a visiting acquaintance today. And she’s reading prophecies, too. She also mentioned that an extremely socially conservative person was voting for Obama because the person was employed by the federal government and freaked out when McCain mentioned freezing the federal government. See, a big fat government has government employees who are paid by the government and the government is…

YOU.

You pay the taxes. Does this seem obvious?

Increasingly there are the have and have nots–the haves have a intimate relationship with the government teat. The have nots, pay their taxes and ask nothing of the government besides safety and roads without potholes.

The intoxicating part of socialism (the government milk is laced with narcotics and arsenic; the people sucking live like infants in what our family calls a “milk coma”–that lulled state that is sated but not quite asleep) is that someone else pays and it’s not “me”. To get to power socialists point to the few corrupt and sow seeds of discontent. It’s fear that gives elites the strength who then make policies to give themselves more power. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is Exhibit “A”.

I haven’t run the numbers as I”m no statistician or economist, but I just wonder what percentage of the American public directly links their employment or accepts handouts from the government. That might explain why both candidates sound like big government, protectionistic socialists.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Posted in Political Animals, Show Me The Money | 25 Comments »

Bailing On The Bailout Bill–UPDATED

It’s 700 Billion. Today. Assuming…do I need to finish that sentence?

It’s getting porkified.

It rewards stupidity.

It ties Republicans to Bush-Pelosi.

It turns American banking into a socialist enterprise.

It means trusting Paulson.

It has Democrats licking their FDR-loving, bacon dripping chops.

It will, somehow, make those who get paid for failure, even richer.

It reveals the crass political class, yet again.

It means it’s time to get educated about economics.

It reveals American greed. Ace says:

If the federal government were guaranteeing a trillion new dollars for no-money down car purchases with no credit checks or proof of employment or income, what do you think would happen to the price of cars?

They’d triple. For a while.

Housing market turns into dangerously overinflated bubble. Which is what always happens when a trillion fresh, cheap, easy dollars flow into a sector and begin chasing the same limited pool of goods.

[I'd like to point out, as a complete aside, that higher education is inflated in exactly this way. What happens when the government gets out of the student loan business? Why, colleges stop building their edifices and competition enters the market. Right now, tuition is soaring because of student loans.]

It all started with a Democrat policy that was to induce “fairness” and by forcing banks to loan to those who couldn’t afford to pay back the loans, NOW you, taxpaying fool that you are, should pay back the loans someone else couldn’t make.

I’m beginning to think this bill is a bad idea.

UPDATED:

Ben Stein’s take.

Because these giant financial companies never dreamed that the subprime mortgage securities could fall as far as they did, they did not enter a potential liability for these CDS policies anywhere near their true liability - which again, is virtually bottomless. They do not have a countervailing asset to pay off the liability.

This is what your humble servant, moi, missed. This is what all of the big investment banks and banks and insurance companies missed. This is what the federal government totally and utterly missed. This is what the truly brilliant speculators in these instruments did not miss. They could insure a liability they could also create and control. It is as if they could insure a Cadillac for its value upon theft - but they could control what the value the insurer had to pay off was. The insurer thought it might be fifty thousand dollars - but it was manipulated into being two million.

This is the whirlpool sucking down finance.

Now, we are about to have a similar phenomenon happen with commercial mortgage debt, debt from mergers and acquisitions, credit card debt, and car loan debt. Many trillions of dollars in Credit Default Swaps have been sold on all of this, and the prices of all of them have fallen and can be made to fall more.

As I said, the pit of loss is bottomless. Warren Buffett, the smartest man of all time in the world of finance, has called financial derivatives - of which Credit Default Swaps are a prime example - “weapons of financial mass destruction.” And so they are. As with the hydrogen bomb, no one thought they would ever be used to end the world. But unless someone figures a way out - and maybe the new RTC is and maybe it isn’t - we are in real peril. This should never have happened. Now that it did happen, should the taxpayer pay to make the billionaire speculators whole on their bets? What the heck is to be done?

You mean, you don’t know, Ben? Heaven help us. How is the average person supposed to know. In frightening situations, animals fight or flight or freeze. Right now, the collective world is staring, frozen in fear at what we think we might be beholding. Problem is, no one is quite sure what they see. Is this the end of the world as we know it? We don’t know.

Is a bailout the answer? That seems to me to be “fighting”.

Doing nothing, is that fleeing? There will be a run on the banks if this goes south and all the money dries up. Pure. Panic.

Mary Katherine Ham has what the players are saying.

So, I’m still trying to figure out what to do about this mess. If, as a business owner, you extended credit to those who couldn’t pay (and we all have), it’s a right off. But too many bad clients or charity cases makes for an insolvent business and it doesn’t matter how many paying customers you have. You cease to be able to make overhead and can’t produce anything because you don’t have enough money to make your product.

What happens? You go out of business or go beg for money from someone else to keep you solvent while you change your ways. Wall Street is asking for the latter because if they go out of business, they suck much of the economy with them.

But the problem, fundamentally, seems to be that too many Americans are wallowing in debt–not just those unqualified for homes. So, this problem is emblematic of how many Americans are living–way above their means. And this cultural problem extends from the average person all the way up. That is, the debt to income/capital ratio is off for everyone.

If you have money in stocks, you’ve already lost your money unless you’re big enough to be invested with Warren Buffett. So that’s gone for a while. What’s left? Your money market, credit cards, your home (but no one is giving loans against those now), and your cash flow. But you won’t have cash flow if there is a bank run. Is this doomsday scenario possible? That’s the question no one seems to be able to answer.

Posted in Isms, Political Animals, Show Me The Money | 18 Comments »

Seven Reasons Democrats Have Been Stupid About Obama

So I’m reading the media hand-wringing about Obama’s poll slide and laughing to myself. This is where willful ignorance gets ya. I have long supposed that Obama has little chance of winning and that the Democrats have been snookered because they’ve been willfully stupid. And I’ve also said that the reason for his loss will be explained away as racism, but that racism will be the least of it. Still, it will salve the collective Leftist consciousness. Since they don’t have religion, at least they’ll have something: unbridled hate for stupid Americans has fueled them thus far, I see no reason why it won’t continue to give their lives meaning.

CBS has seven worrisome trends for Obama. Shriek! He’s on vacation and the bottom is falling out! We’re here to help anyway we can, Barack. So here’s the number one concern:

1. Race. “The idea that Obama was going to win in a blowout was always preposterous,” says former Nebraska senator and onetime presidential hopeful Bob Kerrey, an Obama backer. “A big piece of this, of course, is whether white people are going to support a black guy… If [Obama] is a tall, skinny white guy named Paul Jones it’s a different story.”

Okay. I’m going to write this really slowly so you people can get it. It’s been said before, but I’ll write again, because the Democrats don’t want to see:

If Barack Obama was a white, skinny, first-time Senator with no experience besides community organizing, he WOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED as a presidential candidate. It is BECAUSE he is black that he enjoys the support he does. His policies are typical leftist, quasi-socialist tripe. There is nothing new in Obama, except that he is “post-racial”. Whatever. He gives liberals of every stripe an opportunity to salve their guilt.

Obama’s skin color is the only thing keeping him in the race and the only reason Hillary Clinton isn’t the Democratic nominee. If the Democrats could see beyond their obsession with identity politics, they would have nominated Hillary Clinton. But no. They love the new, the fresh, the young,….the BLACK. Black is better and trumps ideas, policy, and even appealing to the more moderate electorate.

So that’s mistake #1. There are more:

2. Obama seems shady. There are unanswered questions such as his dual citizenship with Kenya that just hang out there and make him seem like he’s hiding something, or that he doesn’t really want everyone to know, or that he wants some people to know but not others.

3. Obama seems socialist. Americans are more open to having the government save their bacon, true enough, but there does seem to be a stopping point. Not with Obama. There is not one American problem that can’t be solved by American ingenuity government interference.

4. Obama just can’t say that he loves America. He can’t do it. I know this is strange, but Americans love America. They want their president to love America, too. When Obama was questioned by the little girl about why he wanted to be President, a softball question that’s eluded even regular journalists, Obama stumbled. If Obama gets tongue-tied with a seven year old, how is he going to defend American values to the world? Answer: He won’t.

5. Obama seems unprepared. The more the campaign goes along, the more inexperienced he looks. Well, he IS inexperienced. His knee-jerk response to Russia and the UN demonstrates his naivité. I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but I have a good idea about how she’d respond to Putin. Obama compared with McCain on this? There is no comparison.

6. Obama acts like he’s better than everyone. His sanctimony grates. Both in affect and content, Obama seems to think he’s above it all. Ugh. He’s not the Queen of England. The Presidency isn’t just a figurehead. It’s a working job where the people need to be represented and not by some effete fluffy-headed idealogue.

7. Obama has pissed people off. Here’s what did it for me, as far as not liking him as a person or potential president and I don’t think I’m alone among women on this issue: When he called the reporter sweetie it crawled all over me. She is not a friend or relative. She is a reporter. Calling her “sweetie” was dismissive and inappropriate. There are reasons why the Hillary supporters aren’t coming around, this is one of them.

That’s just seven things that have Americans worried. The Dems and Obama supporters want to fallback on race as the determining factor of Obama’s success or failure as Presidential candidate. Overall, I’d say Obama’s blackness has been a net positive and the only thing that’s gotten him this far. But it won’t be why he fails to win the presidency. Not by a long shot.

UPDATE:

Via Memorandum, Marbury says this:

But, the facts remain…Obama’s campaign is a better-run and more effective organisation than McCain’s, especially at ground level. McCain still hasn’t really found a theme to match the resonance of Obama’s ‘change’. Many of Obama’s natural supporters are younger and will only tune into the race - and start answering pollsters’ questions properly - in the autumn.

Nope, McCain hasn’t found an empty slogan, his organization is slipshod and he STILL is neck in neck with Obama. That should concern you Democrats. Keep telling yourself that the younger people will “only tune into the race”. They won’t vote. A few will, but not enough.

Ed Morrissey addresses Obama’s “experience” about working across the aisle:

Matthews himself called the question, “What has he done?”, a show-stopper. No one could point to a single effective action he has taken to cross the aisle, while everyone acknowledged that John McCain has taken actual risks to do so. David Brooks tells the room that Republican Senators and staffers insist that Hillary Clinton works across the aisle and keeps communication open, but Obama has never bothered to do that, and both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill agree on his arrogance.

But Americans will be stupid for noticing these traits and not voting Obama in November. They’re just racist.

Posted in America, Isms, Political Animals | 12 Comments »

Obama Wants Another Way To Lift Blacks From Misery

The first question that popped into my head while reading about Obama’s the notion of reparations: Will Obama receive 50% reparations since hes 50% black? But wait just one little minute….. His dad isn’t an American citizen and Obama’s family were never slaves–well, not American slaves. Slavery was and is alive and well in many parts of Africa so maybe he should get money for the oppression that happened there.

The second thing that popped in my head was damn, it’s hard to pander to the oppressed and deprived, and to the people who do the oppressing and depriving. I mean, it’s a tightrope. On the one hand, it’s difficult to convey how bad life sucks for black people. On the other hand, it’s tough to get votes from white people when you call them racist bigots. It’s especially hard when a good bunch of Americans (my family, for one) never owned a slave, believe slavery is reprehensible, but don’t feel the guilt because, well, they’re not guilty.

So Obama doesn’t think reparations are a good idea but as Karl notes, he’s all for socialism:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past, and I’ll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have brought applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy.

Not to mention a strategy that Obama believes will cost billions of dollars and involve universal healthcare. But it apparently will not involve reparations [as such are typically defined - K], which is a point worth clarifying.

The answer to past oppression is to oppress everyone today. An Obama administration we will all be “free at last” alright. We’ll be free to enjoy the socialist suckitude that England now enjoys (the good news is that there’s drugs coming that reverse Alzheimers, the bad news is that under socialism, your taxes will go so high that you can’t afford the new drugs that aren’t approved by the government):

The drugs are expected to cost the same as current treatments for the illness such as Aricept, which are £2.50 a day.

However, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) the Government’s drugs watchdog, ruled that Aricept, which has been shown to improve the memory and day-to-day life of those in the late stages of the disease, was too expensive for widespread use in Britain.

Terry Pratchett, the best selling author who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, disclosed earlier this year that he was being forced to pay for the drug himself.

Of course, if Obama wins the presidency, you might want to forget the good old days, so it could all work out.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Posted in Isms, Mind, Political Animals | 3 Comments »

Barack Obama Hosts German Campaign Stop For World Presidency–UPDATED

A note about the picture juxtaposition: This is about artistic tone. The profile view. The serious expression. The shading. When I saw the Obama flier picture, my mind immediately called up this Hitler image and I was struck by how similar they are in feel the color choice differences aside. Unnerving really.

Patrick Ruffini draws attention to the advertising and rally literature that is written in German. This action would be shocking, but this is Obama we’re talking about. Patrick says:

So, this isn’t just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occurring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America. This after Obama’s campaign said this:

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn’t trying to pretend otherwise. That’s breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama.

And there is more about this stop. The Guardian reports this:

The centrepiece of the European leg of Obama’s visit will be his Berlin speech. Liberal and conservative politicians in Germany expressed consternation that Obama plans to address the crowds from beneath the golden angel statue which graces Berlin’s Siegessäule, a landmark which Hitler moved to its present location as part of his bid to transform Berlin into the world capital Germania.

“For him [Hitler] it was the symbol of German supremacy and victory against Denmark, Austria and France,” Rainer Brüdele of the liberal FDP party told the Bild am Sonntag. “It makes me wonder if Barack Obama was correctly advised in using the victory column as the location to talk on his vision for global cooperation.”

Is Barack Obama campaigning for president of the world? Not only is this a political flier meant to influence American voters via the Deutschland, it is seriously unnerving propaganda. What are the Obama people thinking? This is nuts.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

UPDATE:

Okay, Lefties, you’re getting on my nerves. I made no comparisons between Hitler and Obama unlike the open-minded progressive nutroots have about President Bush. My point was very specific and in context and called into questions Obama’s judgment about his advertising image and where and how he chooses to share his message. He is making a campaign stop in Germany, handing out German-language campaign materials with disturbing imagery alluding to a former fascist leader and he is making this trip on the taxpayers dime as a Senator. He is not President. He is a CANDIDATE. The way the mainstream press treats him, it’s no wonder he’s confused about that.

Now, let’s get to how Progressives have made the equivalence between Bush and Hitler. First, a parody, since Lefties love arch humor so much:

The People’s Cube What? Not funny? Where’s your sense of humor?

Read about How Bush Became The New Saddam

Oh! And here’s the incisive commentary at Democratic Underground. In case subtlety is lost on you, it’s spelled out.

Don’t forget the wack-job conspiracy nuts who see the direct connection between Bush and Hitler. Here’s a quote you’ll love from Truthout: “It may not be Nazi Germany - it might be a lot worse.” Even more conspiracy wackiness, but it all makes sense to the Left. Bush is ushering in the Nazification of the world.

Kos gets in on it too. It’s too much fun to compare Bush to Hitler to let the people in institutions write all the nastiness.

Want to explain why the Left gets outraged when a point is made about the substance and form and context of an Obama slogan, style, speech location, etc. but it’s okay for President Bush to be directly compared to Hitler in thought, ideology, intention and action and the conclusion is invariably that President Bush is worse than Hitler?

Me thinks the Left doth protest too much.

UPDATED AGAIN:

Ed Driscoll gives this feedback:

I can see though, why the poster does appear to give off, at first glance, a definite whiff of, to borrow from a line from John Glenn back in 2004, “the old Hitler business.” But as Jonah Goldberg has pointed out in Liberal Fascism, these sorts of propagandistic design elements were in the air throughout the west in the 1930s. As were programs such as this.

Because everything old is new again!

Posted in Not America, Political Animals | 66 Comments »