Is Obama a Fascist?
Posted by: sleepyoldbear on: 26 September 2008
First, they came for the radio talk show hosts…
by Eric
Last night when I heard (via this link that M. Simon sent me) that the Obama campaign is threatening the licenses of TV stations that run NRA anti-Obama ads, I noted that Team Obama does not go ballistic unless the information is seen as:
– devastating; and
– dead right on the facts.
The way they went after Stanley Kurtz with both barrels because of his Ayers reporting was a clue.
I think it’s quite obvious they fear the gun issue, and they should, because they are vulnerable as hell on it.
This morning Glenn Reynolds linked Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell who had a great post about this latest outrage — the details of which turned out to be worse that I thought:
So basically, stop running NRA’s ads, or your broadcast license could be in jeopardy. They detail the WaPo’s FactCheck.org repetition as proof. This is Chicago politics at its finest folks. If you can’t win fair, win dirty. This is not how a free society is supposed to function. This is not the kind of man I want leading my country.
Besides, every bit of what NRA claimed is true. It’s the Obama campaign and the news media that’s lying.
This should send shivers up and down the American backbone.
Can’t find it right now?
Time to be VERTEBRATES, my American cousins. Send me a GREEN CARD, and I will lead you.
9 Responses to "Is Obama a Fascist?"
[...] Diaries with Stillman asks a relevant question: Is Obama a [...]
26 September 2008 at 23:51
Oh, and the media quotes and mentions of Senator Obama as being “The One” and referring to him in similarly religious-sounding terms. The messianic quality of his followers’ approbation has been remarked upon even in the mainstream media, albeit with considerable approval.
[...] threatening those who criticize Obama, are beyond all belief. Name an American election in which Truth Squads were out and in the open like this. These are not democratic behaviours; this is a classic fascist [...]
28 September 2008 at 16:03
Being rather ignorant on these issues, I read the links on the NRA case. I didn’t see a threat to pull licenses, just a case made that by airing these ads, they could be in violation of their FCC licenses. The argument seems to be about whether Obama favours banning ammo commonly used by hunters. The NRA, unsurprisingly, knows a lot more about guns and ammo than Obama. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re stretching the case. Whatever the case, this seems to be more a matter of difference of opinion. The somewhat ignorant Senator firmly believes that he only spoke against the sale of armour piercing ammo. The more technically savvy NRA claims that some armour piercing ammo is also hunting ammo (the poor deer don’t stand a chance). Both sides are right, or at least think they are right- I see nothing nefarious here.
My dear friend Lloyd- wouldn’t being a communist require a preference for public ownership of everything, not just certain sections (like the financial sector that Bush wants to buy out)?
28 September 2008 at 19:49
“every bit of what the NRA claims is true”. Really? The ad most directly referred to in the blog above goes like this:
Karl Rusch: I gotta tell you, with the high cost of gas and just about everything else, we’re all feeling pinched. And now I learn that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo. And he voted to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition. Where is this guy from? He’s probably never been hunting a day in his life.
But it’s not just new taxes that Barack Obama wants. If you can believe it, he also supports a ban on the shotguns and rifles that most of us use for hunting. No politician is going to take away my guns and ammo.”
The tax issue goes back to 1999, when Obama indeed supported such a measure. However, as a U.S. senator, Obama has not pushed for any such tax on ammunition.
On the deer hunting ammo, that failed bill’s sponsor was Ted Kennedy, who said:
Sen. Kennedy (March 2, 2004): My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability.
But there’s more:
NRA Claim: “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns”
Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports “reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns” (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not “politically practicable.”
Obama (Sept. 5): The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, here’s another thing you’ve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.
I don’t blame Obama a bit for taking legal action.
28 September 2008 at 22:37
Hello, Skeptic, my friend! Long time no huzzanga!, to paraphrase the old joke. *smile*
My reply was intended mainly as a reply-in-jest, as I don’t know enough about Senator Obama to judge whether he might more truthfully be labelled as a “fascist” or as a “communist”. In fact, if I recall correctly – to give a straight answer for once – the word “fascist” was removed from the political science lexicon twenty years or more ago, no longer a term of art, so as a matter of political science terminology, one may not properly use that word except as a perjorative. But you’re correct, at least as a matter of theory, except that the usual method used by communists is to simply “nationalize” some particular industry or single business rather than purchase it at some rather outrageous price.
I wasn’t quite so tongue-in-cheek about the cult of personality sillyness; there is a rather large component of that in Senator Obama’s following and some of what he does and says. The pseudo-Greek-Temple background of his televised acceptance speech comes to mind as well as the use of pseudo-messianic terminology by the media and quoted approvingly by some of his supporters. *shrug* I’m probably too “Twentieth Century” for this campaign, in any event.
While your response to the assertion that he or his campaign had threatened to “pull the licenses” of the stations involved in the NRA ad is factually correct, it ignores the context: to wit, a candidate for President of the United States (or his staff) tells a media outlet licensed by the federal government that their license could be in jeopardy if they broadcast the “offensive” ad. Presidents are famous/notorious for their use of federal agencies such as the FCC for their own advantage once they’re in office. For evidence, I submit to you President Lyndon Johnson’s (or Lady Bird’s; same thing) use of the FCC to prevent competing bidders for the station license for Channel 24 in Austin, Texas to be awarded to anyone but their corporation. FCC disapproved four (or was it five or six; sorry, I’ve forgotten exactly) application for license transfer until finally Doc Ferguson gave up and sold it to Lady Bird’s corporation for about half what was offered by the first bidder. That is quite common at all levels and the broadcaster was well-advised to not run the ad give that not-so-subtle warning. That Senator Obama or his campaign staff would do such a thing isn’t a problem since they all *do* it; that it was done so openly and blatantly is the point as it reveals an unwelcome aspect of the official character likely to be revealed should Senator Obama win. Oh, they weren’t threatening legal action; they have no basis to complain about the ad under the relevant section of Federal law on the grounds cited by their open letter.
28 September 2008 at 23:16
I see on re-reading my last paragraph is unusually unintelligible, even for me. What it should have said in the last two sentences is: That Senator Obama or his campaign staff would use the FCC to pull or try to pull the broadcaster’s license in retaliation isn’t such a problem; all federal officials use the agencies in that way. What is disturbing is that they would make the threat to do so in such an open and blatant way as doing so reveal more of their vast contempt for those of us listening from the sidelines – as it were – while our supposed “betters” determine among themselves who of their number will rule us. (And the rest about no basis for a complaint on the cited grounds I wouldn’t change.)
Apologize for the sudden burst of senility.
29 September 2008 at 04:57
Obama can not stand it when he’s caught in a lie, which is many! This country will go to hell if Obama wins! Its just what Ben Laden said “The next attack on America will come from within its own government” I posted more about this on my own blog! Stop by check it out and say hello!
Leave a Reply
Search
- Commie bastards and the show trial of Mark Steyn. Give ‘em hell, Mark.
- hurt-feelings-report
- Trans fat –another pseudo-scientific scam?
- Take a breather -- Sara the Walrus
- Frances Widdowson is in deep doo-doo.
- I never thought I would support Brigitte Bardot, but ...
- Send this guy a Hurt Feelings Report form.
- CBU striving to gain own BEd programme.
- More fascism. Smith College. Homosex.
- Was I wrong in attributing AIDS to homosex? Does AIDS really exist? And if so, does it have anything to do with HIV? Another (pseudo-) scientific scam? I don’t have the answer.
- Blue: I would argue against the notion that the outcome is more likely amongst homosexual adoptive parents rather than heterosexual, but it would be interes
- sleepyoldbear: You make important points ... mine is much the same as yours, though some argue that such outcomes are rather more likely amongst homo as compared to
- Blue: I believe that only gives evidence that there are some twisted individuals out there. There are, unfortunately, many cases of straight men molesting t
Categories
- Uncategorized (1529)
26 September 2008 at 23:49
I would say, after careful consideration, that no, Senator Obama is not a fascist. Fascism requires approval of private ownership but public control over the means of production as well as – mostly – market allocation of resources. Senator Obama appears to prefer public ownership of the means of production and command – read: government – allocation of resources. That would make him .. let me consult my old Twentieth Century political science textbooks a moment … oh, yes, that would make the esteemed Senator Obama a communist. Yes, that’s it; a communist, not a fascist. Those two factions of totalitarianism are often difficult to distinguish, since they both favor the types of actions to control unfavorable publicicity which Senator Obama’s campaign staff are using. So, the difficulty in distinguishing just what “-ism” he favors could be large. To be more specific, I believe that he could truthfully be characterized as a member of the “cult of personality” variety of communism, as was practiced by Ioseph Stalin, Kim Il Jung and his son, and of course Dung Xao Ping and his wife. I base that last on the evident messianic fervor of his partisans within the Democratic Party not to mention the zeal with which he is defended – note that such defense is without facts or arguments only demands – by others not directly connected to his campaign.