Home / Politics / Obama’s Brand of Marxism
Print Friendly and PDF

Obama’s Brand of Marxism

Written by Gary North on September 4, 2012

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, 5th century B.C.

There is an old rule of war, which includes politics. If you misunderstand your opponent’s philosophy of life, you will misunderstand his goals. If you misunderstand his goals, you will misunderstand his strategy. If you misunderstand his strategy, you will misunderstand his tactics. This will place you at a disadvantage.

Intrade, the international betting site, has Obama’s odds of a win at about 58%. It has not been below 50% since November 2011. (http://bit.ly/ObamaBetting) Intrade is rarely wrong in bets on political outcomes. So, if this really is a crucial election, what is your personal fall-back position if he wins? What is the Republicans’ fall-back position? After all, if the Republican Party gets out the Republican voters base by telling them that this is yet another “election of the century,” and Obama still wins, despite a rotten economy, which should doom his chances, what can they tell the troops? “Oh, well, we won the House of Representatives. We can block every bad law he proposes.” That will be the truth. Intrade bets are 90% that Republicans will win the House. If they win the Senate, too — now about 50-50 — they can even block his Supreme Court appointments.

So, that would mean that this isn’t the election of the century.

Conservatives need a philosophy, goal, strategy, and tactical plan to deal with an Obama victory in November. Anything which in any way raises non-issues in dealing with Obama is a smoke screen.

I am now going to blow away some smoke.


I contend that Obama’s Right-wing opponents have generally misunderstood his philosophy, his goals, his strategy, and his tactics. So have his Left-wing supporters.

The key to understanding Obama is not Marxism. The key is that he and his wife both lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois.

The Obamas were both social climbers from early in their lives. They are good, old-fashioned liberals, and they learned a crucial social skill as teenagers: how to work white academic liberals’ racial guilt. They are both bright, so they were perfect for academia. Their presence on campus allowed liberal academia to fill its mandated, self-imposed quota system. They are both a lot like Al Sharpton, but their original market was academia, not the media.

They got to the top socially by getting certified by way of Columbia University, Princeton University, and law school. They had it made. And then . . . whammo! No more certification. They had learned to manipulate academia, but they failed to manipulate the Illinois Bar Association. First, it was Michelle in 1994. Then Obama in 2008. The mainstream media have of course covered this up, but Google uncovers it. (http://bit.ly/ObamasDe-Certified)

From the day that he surrendered his license in January, 2008, his handlers had him on a tight leash. They still do. He has a deep-set need: to keep concealed the reason for his retroactive de-certification.

There is widespread speculation on the Web, which I regard as plausible, that this is why he refuses to release his undergraduate transcripts. His grades were fine. His problem is this: the name on these records cannot be successfully altered retroactively. It was not the name he told the Illinois Bar Association was his. He was asked if he had ever used a different name. He said yes. Academia did not care. The Bar Association does.


Around the Web, I read that Obama is a Marxist. I think it’s worth considering.

The best place to begin our search for an answer is the Communist Manifesto. It was written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1847. It was published anonymously in German in London in February 1848.

The document presents the case for proletarian revolution: the working class. It does not describe the future communist paradise that will emerge from the revolution. The revolution will not initially bring the final communist state, the document said. But it will bring the first stage, when the proletarians take charge. We read the following.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


“Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Has Obama called for this? No. Has any Democrat elected to Congress called for this? If so, I do not recall it. Do Democrats vote for subsidizing agriculture in the name of the small farmer? Yes. Does the money go to small farmers? No. Where does most of it go? To huge agribusiness firms. Do Republicans support the farm subsidies? Yes.

What about low-interest loans from apps for cash advance for housing? Both parties vote for this. Does the Federal Reserve promote home ownership by subsidies? Yes. It’s called “Operation Twist.” The FED buys the bonds of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the government’s mortgage agencies. Private investors buy these bonds, too. This lowers mortgage rates. It subsidizes home ownership for the masses.


“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Obama probably wants this, although he has not pushed for it. Does he want top rates at (say) 90%. No one in the Democratic Party has called for this. Yet it was 91% under Eisenhower. Kennedy’s most important law lowered this to 70%. Reagan got it to 28%. Democrats voted for this, so great was the public demand. So, there is no evidence that Obama wants to return the top rate to the Marxism of the older Republican Party, which controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House, 1953-55.


“Abolition of all rights of inheritance.” No Democrat President has called for this. I know of no Democrat at any level who has called for this. Obama is not a Marxist on this issue.


“Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” This means everyone who leaves the country. There are taxes on Americans who renounce their citizenship if they are worth over $2 million. They pay a capital gains tax on everything above $600,000. The Democrats passed this it 2008. But there had been a similar tax on people worth more than $2 million that was passed by the government as part of Bush’s American Jobs Creation act of 2004. http://bit.ly/ExpatTax) So, is Obama a Marxist on this point? No more than most other legislators in Congress.


“Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. The 12 regional banks are not. So, it is a hybrid. It surely is a monopoly. The FED has had bipartisan support ever since 1913. Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, was the president of the New York FED, the most powerful of the 12 regional banks, prior to his appointment. Is Obama a Marxist on this point? You bet he is . . . just like everyone else in Congress except Ron Paul.


“Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.” There is no national politician in the USA who is a Marxist on this point. There never has been.


“Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.” On the factory issue, American politicians have never been Marxists. The farm subsidies pay farmers to take soil out of production and turn it into wasteland. Every President signs the annual farm bill, year after year.

The defense of “wetlands” — swamps and drainage ditches — is popular in Washington. This is anti-Marxism. The entire green movement is anti-Marxist. They want to turn productive land into wasteland, i.e., “wildness.” They want land-use planning, not to make unproductive land productive, but to make productive land unproductive. This raises the price of food in the cities. It costs industrial workers more to buy food. Marx would have been appalled.


“Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.” No national American politician has ever called for industrial armies, where men and women must work for the state.


“Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.” Marx hated rural life. He called it “the idiocy of rural life.” He praised capitalism for this. “The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.” With 2% of Americans living on farms, we are almost all Marxists.


“Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.” Virtually every politician is in favor of this, all over the world. We are all Marxists now. Exceptions: home school families and Christian day school proponents.

On central banking and public schools, every electorate in the world is Marxist. This is also true about the mechanization of agriculture. On the steeply graduated income tax, Americans used to be Marxists, but Kennedy reversed this. Reagan accelerated Kennedy’s reform. No national politician calls for the restoration of Eisenhower’s rates. On the other five points, Americans have never called for this. Any politician who did would not be elected.


So far, Obama is just a face in the crowd. So, are there other criteria that could be used to pin the Marxist tail on Obama’s donkey?

How about dialectical materialism? Obama has never mentioned this in print. He is a well-read man. He could define it. I doubt that most of his critics could. He gets a pass. His rhetoric in political debate is not Marxist.

How about Marx’s theory of surplus value, his core critique of capitalist economics? Again, Obama has written nothing. Could his critics define surplus value? Of those who can, how many are familiar with Austrian School economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk’s refutation of it in 1883? He gets a pass. (For those of you who can hardly wait to learn all about Marx’s theory of surplus value and its refutation, read Chapter 3 of my 1968 book, Marx’s Religion of Revolution. You can download it for free here: http://bit.ly/gnmror.)

Maybe you are thinking that I am ignoring Lenin. He added to Marxism. His most famous addition was his explanation for why the proletarian revolution had been delayed in the West. He blamed imperialism, which he said was giving the capitalists in the West a stay of execution. His arguments for this were weak, but at least he did make the case. (Note: if Marx was right about the theory of surplus value, then India should have been highly profitable for capitalism — all those masses to exploit. But it wasn’t profitable. It was a drain on Britain’s economy. That is why the British left in 1947.)

Dinesh D’Souza has offered a theory of what motivates Obama: anti-colonialism. If he is correct, then Obama should be presiding over the shutdown of the American foreign policy Establishment and the Pentagon. He should have pulled troops out of Afghanistan. But instead, he shifted troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. He should be closing America’s 1,000 bases, which are located in at least 100 nations (http://bit.ly/1000Bases). He isn’t.

Obama is doing nothing that the pro-oil, pro-banking Establishment does not favor. This wing has always been unhappy with the neoconservatives’ pro-Israel stance. This goes back to 1948, long before neoconservatism, when Harry Truman took the advice of his former partner in their failed clothing business, Eddie Jacobson, and recognized the state of Israel. This has been public knowledge ever since. (http://bit.ly/TrumanJacobson) There is even a scene in the 1995 HBO movie on Truman that shows this connection.


Marx believed in proletarian revolution. From 1844 on, this was central to his thought. I have described his system as a religion of revolution (http://bit.ly/gnmror). Any of Marx’s other doctrines can be ignored without fundamentally altering the core of his thought and the core of its appeal.

He opposed any compromise with non-revolutionary socialism. He wrote voluminously against any doctrine that argued that the workers should use trade union organizing solely as a way to get more money out of the capitalists. A selection of his articles and letters on this is here: http://bit.ly/MarxUnions. He was contemptuous of two workers who were elected to the British Parliament in 1874. “At any rate, the ice has been broken and two workers now have seats in the most fashionable debating club of Europe, among those who have declared themselves the first gentlemen of Europe.” (http://bit.ly/UnionGentlemen)

In 1847, he laid down his theory of class revolution, in The Poverty of Philosophy, a critique of a non-revolutionary socialist, Proudhon. “Meanwhile the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its highest expression is a total revolution.” (http://bit.ly/MarxWorkersRevolt) Marx regarded as deceptive anything that did not promote the final bloody revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Obama is a pro-union politician, and the union leadership was pro-Obama in 2008. But because Obama failed to show up in Wisconsin to support unionized government workers in their unsuccessful attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker in June, AFL-CIO leaders in Washington are making noises about allocating campaign money away from Obama and to local campaigns. (http://bit.ly/UnionsDisillusioned)

In short, Obama is acting the way that Marx would have expected. He is anything but militant. He counted noses in early June. He or his advisors guessed that the unions would lose, and decided to avoid backing a losing cause.


If Obama is a Marxist, he has certainly hidden his true color: red. He has not pursued the central Marxist objective: proletarian revolution.

Obama is an example of the political figure who Marx despised: a bread-and-butter advocate of using the government to subsidize the labor movement, which Marx saw as undermining proletarian solidarity.

So, to use the term “Marxist” to describe Obama or any Democrat, including Social Democrats of Western Europe, produces misunderstanding. It weakens the efforts of those who want to reduce the welfare-warfare state. It keeps people from recognizing the bipartisan nature of the welfare-warfare state.

The key to understanding the next four years of Obama is his desire to get a lifetime of speaking engagements at $100,000 each. He is a professional politician. If he does not go beyond what his handlers demand, he is set for life. If he does go beyond this, the whole story of his career — his two names, and his refusal to admit that other name when he applied to colleges and also to the Illinois Bar — somehow will be leaked. No more speaking engagements.

That’s my theory, and I’m sticking with it.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

87 thoughts on “Obama’s Brand of Marxism

  1. ARDC shows NO diciplinary actions pending? https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=221870400

  2. one of our founding fathers once said and is true today," we have established an idea of a great democracy, now it becomes your duty to preserve and keep it". He must have prophesied the Obamanation we have today !!!!!!!!!!!

  3. guestfloramae says:

    you can take your theory and shove it…………this piece of garbage is one dangerous animal, I don't care what you think………..this thing is A THREAT TO OUR FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY, if you think we will skip to my lou, thru another term of this cretin, unscathed, YOU ARE NUTS AND IN NEED OF A STRAIGHT JACKET!!

  4. The goal right now, I believe, is to set the stage for the proletariate revolution. First, the existing system must be weakened severely. This takes time and baby steps.

  5. vietnamvet1971 says:

    We know the Enemy and he is in the White House, Time to kick him out!

  6. Hey North, hit the road with your rhetoric, however clever it may be dressed up. Like Roberts, you to have either been bought off or strong armed by the Muslim-Marxist! Yor definitely just another sycophant of the Muslim-Marxist and so, I'll refrain from reading your cheerleading for the treacherous reprobate! Word is indeed getting out there that he is a Marxist so damage control is necessary and you, my jerk, are part of it! Adios, A-hole!

  7. W.R. Mitchell says:

    I fully agree with you!! Obamination's sole purpose is to destroy America and he must be removed in November! America cannot survive another term of OBAMA!!!

  8. snakearbusto says:

    "We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. "

  9. snakearbusto says:

    " A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Meaning the richer you get, the less you pay? Wait… That's how it is now.

    "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." I guess that would mean if you had a rich daddy, you might have something to worry about. And you might not be able to inherit political office…

    "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Does that mean Mitt's money stashed in Switerland and the Caymans?

    "Equal obligation of all to work." Put the 1% to work? Or make them work at the same hourly wage you and I do? No way! Can't have that!

  10. The problem is, the GOP mainstreamers are not focused on the Presidential election. I was told by a county GOP member a year ago that the party was working on getting the Senate and the House back, not on the Presidential election. I told him that unless you get all three, you might as well give up, because O-B would do what he's ended up doing, make an end run around the legislative process and do by executive order whatever he wants to do.

  11. He even had to play the "Barack and Michelle lost their law licenses" card, which has been proven to be a complete falsehood. This entire article is laughable – and Gary North is the joke.

  12. Barack Obama:
    2009 – E.O. 13489 – E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
    2010 – E.O. 13528 – E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
    2011 – E.O. 13563 – E.O. 13596 (34 Executive orders issued)
    2012 – E.O. 13597 – E.O. 13623 (27 Executive orders issued)
    135 Total Executive orders Issued

    George W. Bush:
    2009 – E.O. 13484 – E.O. 13488 (5 Executive orders issued)
    2008 – E.O. 13454 – E.O. 13483 (30 Executive orders issued)
    2007 – E.O. 13422 – E.O. 13453 (32 Executive orders issued)
    2006 – E.O. 13395 – E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
    2005 – E.O. 13369 – E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
    2004 – E.O. 13324 – E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
    2003 – E.O. 13283 – E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
    2002 – E.O. 13252 – E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
    2001 – E.O. 13198 – E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)
    291 Total Executive orders Issued

    You can take your bullshit and shove it.

  13. That's because neither Barack or Michelle have had their licenses "revoked". They both voluntarily suspended their licenses so they wouldn't have to pay their annual licensing fees or take continuing education courses. Gary North is full of crap, as usual.

  14. Victor Barney says:

    Obama's brand of MARXISM is IDENTICAL TO PRESIDENT WILSON'S! The ONLY difference is that WILSON HATED BLACKS & OBAMA HATES WHITES, INCLUDING HIS OWN MOTHER! Only serves to acknowledge just how poor women's judgement is on average, doesn't it? Just telling it like it is…Watch!

  15. More Republican extremist rhetoric that has been proven to be wholly false.

  16. Clearly without a doubt, obama is a dedicated hardcore Hugo Chavez marxist. The blood will be flowing in the streets of America in short order. It is among the last steps that must be initiated by a marxist leader. Chavez did it, obama is just following in his footsteps. The complete destruction of America is the dream of obama's father.

  17. Who, precisely, are his handlers?

  18. "'Abolition of all rights of inheritance.' No Democrat President has called for this. I know of no Democrat at any level who has called for this. Obama is not a Marxist on this issue."

    You're right! He and the other Democrats are only half-Marxist on this (for now). Or do you not remember the "death tax" which Democrats set at 50% and wish to return to that level by letting the Bus tax cuts expire.

    "'Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.' There is no national politician in the USA who is a Marxist on this point. There never has been."

    Wrong! Have you not heard of the attempts to regulate the internet? Or the Democrat proposal to provide government subsidies to print media? Or the calls by Democrats to return to the "fairness doctrine"?

    "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.' On the factory issue, American politicians have never been Marxists. The farm subsidies pay farmers to take soil out of production and turn it into wasteland."

    GM and Chrysler bailouts? You apparently are also being hoodwinked by the so-called "green" movement, which is far more red than green. The useful idiots at the bottom of those movements may believe they are about "turning farmland to wasteland", but that's not the agenda of the promoters. They want to put the land in state hands, to be used as the state wishes. At some point, in the interests of national security, they will do all the mining and farming on such lands that is deemed necessary!


    These are all moves (baby steps) in the direction of Marxism. You are like the frog that is being boiled – you don't seem to notice because the temperature is being raised gradually.

  19. Yep – it's been sanitized, just like everything else about Obama's past. If only we had a free press to investigate him!

  20. votsvet 1969 says:

    Gary North is missing several crucial points. We have not seen Obama's true colors yet. He is slick and cunning.
    He knows that exposing his true colors would doom his objectives. Barrack Hussein and his wife are evil
    unscrupulous radicals dreaming of collapsing the whole system. There is a lot of venom in the "roots of his rage"
    Destruction of America as we know it is his version of Marxist revolution leading to complete change.Is he a Marxist ?
    Don't be naive, this will not come out until it is too late to change it . He will be anything he needs to be until then.
    It is insane to want to find out the true colors of his and his radical entourage. Nothing good lives there.

  21. Fred Noonan says:

    Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
    3,728 Total Executive Orders Issued

    SOURCE: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executiv

  22. You guys are nuts! Instead of using what little reason you have and actually thinking things through for a change, you just keep hammering away that he has to go, but he's not going anywhere! The betting is never wrong, and it has him winning, so quit yer whining and get over it.

  23. Gary, as an economist, you are an Ok economist. As a political and ideological analyst, you make a good brick layer. Stick to economic analysis and leave the ideology stuff to the folks that are better suited to it.

  24. I think you are missing a great part of the dictator's marxism….it's definitely there and all of the above are part of his agenda….he just keeps it well hidden, except occasionally issuing one of his "laws"…a tidbit to take a bite out of another of our freedoms. He will be gone in NOVEMBER, we pray!!!

  25. Idylewylde says:

    Replace the term Marxist with the term Distributionist, what do you get?
    Obama is neither Marxist nor Distributionist .. he's a re-distributionist, a weird hybrid that flourishes in Progressive Liberal circles masked behind Corporate Fascism.
    In short, it's a half-way measure. It's the safe median while they plot and scheme to see if they can take more.
    FDR brought in the Liberals to counter the Progressives in his own party. Progressives, a complete misnomer, are Wilsonian, and hardly Liberal.
    Obama brought in the Luney Left to counter the Liberals … there aren't any real Liberals left in the DNC now.
    Maybe the entrenched power mogols are blackmailing Obama .. but he has his own resources to turn his own screws.
    Obama cannot fundamentally change America. He can, however, fundamentally change the DNC. He's done it. And this bodes worse for America in future elections. Despite the popularity of the Clintons .. they're gone .. ancient history .. dead end.
    Biden is just a minstrel show to placate the last residue of Progressives pretending to be Liberals while Obama shifts the DNC power base.
    The DNC you knew is now officially DEAD.

  26. Don’t forget theUN’s role and Agenda 21. Stated objective is the elimination of private land ownership as a means of promoting “social justice”. Obama supports every initiative put forth by the UN. His goal is the weaken the USA until it can be bankrupted and taken over by the UN so that one world order government can be progressed to the next level. With the USA in the way, OWO can never get off the ground. Consider also the Small Arms Treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Rights of the Disabled treaty (takes most if not all parental rights and puts them in the crapper). There is more, and it all ties into one common thread that is hundreds of years in the making. All of the “behind the curtain groups.. Bilderbergs, CFR, Council of Rome, etc. all have founders who worshipped the occult…devil worship. Sounds wild, yes, but if you do some research you will find the evidence. Read Brotherhood of Darkness by Dr. Stanley Montieth. It’s an eye opener.

  27. Blair Franconia, NH says:

    The Cold War's over. Somebody tell Obama.

  28. Shane, they lost their law licenses when they gave them up. Just an FYI, when you give something up you lose it. Knowing this common every day definition of the English language will help you later in life.

  29. RJ O'Guillory says:

    My recent letter to the President..
    Dear President Obama:

    I read today…that your corrupt Justice Department has quashed the final possibility of charges being filed against American CIA and Military members who have been involved with torture and the illegal killing of fellow human beings, while in US custody.

    It is also my understanding that this action temporarily influences the lack of direct-action taken against the leaders of the US Torture Regime…Bush 1, Bush 2, Cheney, etc.

    We have known from day-one… that you are nothing more than a bought-off lackey of the criminal Bush-Clinton Cabal, and that you serve as nothing more than a lap-dog to the Bush family’s plans to set up some form of “New World Order”. We understand that your administration is full of the same war-criminals and torturers of previous administrations.

    Good thing there is no statute of limitations on torture, kidnapping and the cover-up of these crimes, which now includes you and your administration…up to your neck.

    When the good people of this country take back the control of our government from the illegal, corrupt Soviet-Style of government that you and the Bush-Clinton War Criminals have set up, we are going to come after you…very legally… and your family…in a very legal fashion.

    We are going to demand financial, war-crimes and treason charges against all of you…including yourself…and when we impeach/arrest, charge and convict all of you filthy, torturing, Nazi-type ass-clowns…all of you…the Bushes, both Clintons, Al Gore, Joe Biden…Karl Rove…all of the CIA directors and management…when we finally get convictions on all of you…

    We are going to build a National Gallows at Ground-Zero NYC, and we are going to begin a decade of public, legally based hangings of those government officials who have so violated our Constitution and their oath of office.

    Think about it! A National Gallows to be used to show the rest of the word that American Values do mean something…and that we are not going to be “ruled” by criminals, torturers and war-criminals…including yourself.

    Here is our initial plan of legal action to remove your criminal ass from our White House and to insure that everyone in this country is accountable to the same laws. This means you and your wife as well…in fact, when we convict all of you, it will be great to see your wife, and the wives of all the former Presidents standing up on the National Gallows, waiting to be dropped…? Perhaps we can include former Secretary of State, Maddie Albright in that group of legal convictions and hangings …since she thinks the illegal murder of over ½ a million Iraqi children were “worth the price”


  30. RJ O'Guillory says:


    Below is our plan…just let me know what you and your corrupt Attorney General think of it?

    As a first step, I would recommend the following:

    A National Constitutional Convention – designed to re-invigorate the original founding concepts, rights and status of American Citizens, while amending The Constitution for a 21st century America and its social realities. Additionally, the NCC will be empowered to impeach every member of the standing US Government, and will remove them from office. And by Impeach and Remove, I mean all of them. We will impeach and remove every standing member of Government…including The Senate, The President and Vice President, and especially the Supreme Court which voted to allow and approve kidnapping and torture. All of them, gone.

    National Grand Jury – impaneled for whatever period of time is necessary to investigate and prosecute all members of government known to have violated their oaths of office, as well as committing treason, larceny and murder on an international scale, with no statute of limitations. NGJ-Citizen Investigators should be required to open up all of the American Government Archives across our entire history, and we as a people should be told the truth with regard to historic criminal activities.

    Additionally, the NGJ will be empowered to dismantle (through force if necessary) the CIA, the FBI, all “Continuity of Government” plans, operations and operatives, including the US Department of Justice, the EPA, The DoD and every other liberty-sucking parasite that still exists within our compromised government. (These entities can all be reconstructed at a later date, under more limited and ethical standards, if necessary)

    Freeze & Seize Financial Assets- Freeze and seize all financial assets of any member of government for the last forty years. All of them…seize all of their assets, and create a legal process or method for the “innocent” to get their assets returned to them (perhaps with interest). However, for the vast majority of traitorous souls who have been abusing their positions and the citizens for well over forty years…make them prove that the fortune is legally, ethically theirs; make them prove it didn’t come from decades of corrupt acts. Make them show that their ill-gotten millions in self-worth did not come from abusing their oaths or position.

    If not, just like we ordinary citizens who have tolerated our cars being impounded, our property seized and the other elements of the current two-tiered justice system, let the thieves and killers of the last forty years fight to stay out of prison, the death-chamber, or the poor house… just like the rest of us.


    RJ O’Guillory
    Webster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family

  31. TheRightRadical says:

    Wow Gary,
    You get some first class nut jobs on here. Freaking Tea Party I knew they were frauds as soon as Glen Beck, and Hannity began talking about them. Co-opted by the big government, Keynesian, authority boot worshiping Republican party.
    So jackasses, if the guy is such a Marxist, then why not at the height of his power not nationalize the Banks? He would even have had public support for that. Coming on the heals of the bankster bailouts pushed by Bush.
    How about BP oil spill? He could have easily seized the all the Gulf of Mexico oil platforms in the name of environmental protection, and probably could have gotten public support. Hell BP is a FOREIGN company. We could kick them out of country if we wanted too. He could have at least made a strong case for it. But instead he did very little. In fact BP barely got a slap on the wrist.
    GM and Chrysler were bailed out initially by George the Lesser in Dec of 2008. The feds own the stock, but the feds don't have managers or even employees working there, and they are still profit making enterprises. That's fascism or corporatism not marxism. Learn the difference you morons. Even Obamacare is nothing then more tax subsidies to insurance company. I am sure the GOP congress will try and repeal them the first chance they get. Fooled you again fools!
    Hell the party you worship has always been a big government, corporate subsidizing. central banking piece of crap party run by political thugs.
    Such an embarrassment! If you really were small government conservatives, this would have been resolved during the 80s, and no one would care who was president.
    Because the office wouldn't be worth a pitcher of warm spit.

  32. It's hilarious watching people in comboxes angrily correct a guy with a PhD in history who has worked on a Congressional Staff and studied economics for his entire adult life.

  33. liberranter says:

    TRR, it's futile to try to reason with the acerebral creatures who frequent this blog. As I posted the other day in response to Gary's previous article, I don't know why he bothers to post here at all. Trying to educate these people through application of common sense and logic is akin to trying to teach quantum physics to a newborn baby – a pointless waste of time.

  34. Do you actually know any attorneys? I'm guessing not. I do, and they're a pretty status-obsessed bunch. Do you think people who spent tons of money and years of hard effort are going to give up their right to claim membership in the most prestigious profession in America just to save several hundred dollars a year? If that's what you think, then you're nuts. If you expect people who make a $100 grand a year, as the Obamas each did, to do this, then you're double nuts.

    Oh, and those boring classes you imagine that they're trying to avoid? All attorneys who want to stay licensed go to those. It's called networking, and it's pretty much the lifeblood of the profession.

    Please keep on believing that this is normal, though.

  35. Alessandro says:

    Marxism has gone throuh many changes since the communist manifesto: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, the Frankfurt school, Lukacs, and most recently, Gramsci. There is no point in saying that Obama is very far from the original marxism. So is the frankfurt school, Antonio Gramsci, his ideological son, Alinsky, and his many grandchildren in America, which Obama is. What needs to be discussed is not if Obama is a marxist, in the original sense, but if he belongs to one of the many derivative schools of marxist thought, which, I think, he does.

  36. Who gives a f+uck what this drone striking mass murderer and wealth stealing piece of sht thinks or wants or is.

    He is a worthless inferior human

  37. If you want to slap a label on Obama, try "fascist." It fits him just as well as it does Romney.

    Obama has been vetted by the system and is no threat at all. Those who would be a threat are marginalized like Ron Paul or dealt with more directly like JFK.

  38. Careful Enuf, your neocon slip is showing.

  39. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-l

    Not that I at all support the Obama's, but there doesn't seem to be evidence to support that they were de-barred.

  40. Obama is simply using the tactics and policy options that proceeding Presidents left for him. This is why we libertarians keep screaming about the GOP advancing the power of the executive, particularly in the areas of civil control and war. Once a President successfully breaches some limit – let's say, extra-Constitutional 'areas' (example: Gitmo) – then later Presidents can do the same without fear of political pain, especially if the pioneer was from the other half of the coin and would give the President the coveted angle of "well Bush did it and you didn't mind it then". I hear a lot of Republicans screaming about Obama's imperial Presidency, yet say the name Teddy Roosevelt, the wannabe God-King of the American people, and they blush with pride.

    Congress and its supporters, although few, always shed crocodile tears over the power of the executive, but it's their own fault. Congress gives away Constitutionally mandated powers like war declaration, continually getting cut down as if they were wheat before the sickle. They would do the same for Romney, and Romney would use every power Obama has plus whatever else he can grab from the citizenry.

  41. Bush, McCain, & Blackbush did the GM & Chrysler bailouts before the 08 election. Therefore they are all 3 just as Marxist on that one. I wish the blind Republican loyalists would go away and let us real conservatives have the Tea Party back.

  42. You're right! He and the other Democrats are only half-Marxist on this (for now). Or do you not remember the "death tax" which Democrats set at 50% and wish to return to that level by letting the Bus tax cuts expire.

    (Again, you don't understand Marx. To him, half-measures were worse than nothing at all, because they allowed an appearance of progress that arrested the urge of the Proletariat to full and violent revolution. In other words, it's a buy-off. The real problem with the whole "Obama is a MARXIST!!!!" crowd is the fact that Marxists do not operate in the way you seem to think they do. Look at any Marxist revolution, even attempted ones like Italy in the last century, and what characteristics do they share? Violent overthrowing of the government. There is no capacity among the true believers to use subterfuge like you want to suggest. In my opinion, you are destroying whatever good points you have about Obama by raving like a lunatic about conspiracy theories and plots to dupe the American people. There are a ton of above table critiques we can make against Obama – let's say, his belief he can murder US citizens without a trial or even charges since him talking in a Cabinet meeting constitutes "due process" – so attacking him on his reading of Marx in college makes about as much sense as calling Paul Ryan a Randian because he quoted her 15 years ago.

    I sometimes think you do this because you actually want the executive to be this powerful, have all these powers, so that when your choice President comes along he/she has access to it. Your gripe isn't because you find the imperial Presidency anti-American or unconstitutional, but that the wrong person is in charge of it.)

  43. Terrible report. I can't believe, with what investigation was done to prepare to write this, that this is the conclusion. Very dissapointing conclusion from a decent writer. What next, John Wayne Gacey was a terrific guy that rarely had a devious thought?

  44. Anyone with two braincells to rub together will read your post and see how glaringly ignorant you are.

    It is obvious you have never worked a real day in your life or have even the most basic education when it comes to economics.

    Thank you for coming on here and showing how brainless, uneducated, and looney the left actually is.

  45. Bob Robertson says:

    Mr. North, I disagree with #6. Every politician is all for govt provisioning and regulation of all roads.

  46. snakearbusto says:

    Who said anything about me being on the Left? And what makes you think I've never worked a day in my life? Neither of those conclusions are supported by anything I said. And since you criticize my education in economics, tell us what your own credentials are.
    As soon as anyone says something you don't like, you throw standard criticisms at them. Try thinking for yourself for once.

    Now to address my comments, do you disagree that the wealthy are paying less tax now than they were 50 years ago? Consider this:
    -In the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue-collar male workers has fallen by 12%; meanwhile,
    -In the early 1950s, the federal-state-local revenue structure changed from one in which high income tax returns on average paid over 4 times the percentage of the average for the bottom fifty percent; today, the lowest fifty percent pays one-fourth more as a percentage of adjusted gross income (AGI) than the top one percent.
    (source: Congressional Budget Office, Wikipedia)
    Do you agree that wealthy people should be allowed to hide their fortunes in places like Switzerland and the Caymans while you and I pay taxes on money we earn through hard work? Do you agree that a so-called elected office should be able to be handed down from father to son, like in Syria with Assad or in No. Korea with Kim – or in the US with Bush? Do you agree that people who don't work should be able to live off those who do work?

    I am a 66-year-old small business owner and I've been working since age 12, including when I was working my way through college. What about you?

  47. snakearbusto says:

    The whole point of this article is that Obama is NOT a Marxist, and is in fact anything but. He's Wall Street's servant all the way. You throw out the term "Marxist" as a general-purpose condemnation, without its having any precise meaning in your mind. No Marxist was ever an advocate of the destruction of a country. Their program was to take control of the political process form the wealthy minority and put it in the hands of working people. You have a problem with that? I suppose you feel we working people are too dumb to know what's good for us. You'd prefer to give control over your life to a rich man's son like Romney or a Harvard shyster like Obama, both of them the same in that they don't care about the real working men and women whose lives are getting tougher and tougher (at least as long as I've been alive) BECAUSE of their being in power? Go ahead and vote for one of them, for all the difference it'll make. And keep blaming your problems on somebody else.

  48. snakearbusto says:

    "I don't know why he bothers to post here at all. "

    Maybe because he gets paid to?

  49. I agree that the president is an empty suit, and someone's meat puppet. As best I can determine, he has no agenda of his own. His motivation to be president appears to be purely narcissistic. I do have one question, though.
    Why did Michelle surrender her law license in 1994?

  50. Snake, retard, what is stopping you from moving your money to the Caymans? Nothing.
    What is stopping you from taking advantage of the same tax loopholes as the rich, especially being a business owner yourself? Nothing.

    Your idiotic rant is about nothing more than your (false) sense of obligation to pay taxes that they have conditioned you to have. Taxes are illegal, unconstitutional, and there is not, nor ever was, a federal statute that actually requires you to pay. The entire tax system has been perpetuated by the same slave on slave mentality that makes you envious of the rich, and allows you to cry victim when others do a better job of working the rules to their favor. Paying your taxes serves only to provide you some phony moral high ground from which to attack those who have done a better job than you managing their wealth. While willingly giving yours away. Sucker.

    You are so angry, envious, and clueless, that your original post doesn't even speak to the points North is making. You just excerpted a few lines and used them to stump on your own grievances. Its obvious to everyone here, just as your whiny, misguided post, is obviously just your inferiority complex coming out. Fear and envy are the primary tools of the establishment. That you give yourself so willingly to these manipulations is not Gary's fault.

    Your post would make the powers that be so proud of themselves. But to the rest of us you just sound like a lunatic who is so angry and jealous he cannot even logically frame what he believes in or what he is angry about…

  51. Patriot is right. I think everyone is confusing Fascism with Marxism. Obama doesn't want state ownership over these things, just the power.

    He's happy to have all American's hold stock in GM, so long as he calls the shots and not the shareholders.

    He doesn't want to own and run GE, he just wants NBC to preach his doctrines.

    He doesn't want Industrial Armies. He wants to put our money into armies that expand business opportunities around the globe for his corporate backers. industrial armies would compromise that mission by helping people he already has under his thumb.

    Kind of a straw man argument all around. Very disappointed by Gary North who usually has a better point of view on stuff like this. But he swings for the fences and whiffs completely on this one.

    Obama is a Facist, born and bred into the CIA, who has always been the state tool of Fascism. Check your facts.

  52. snakearbusto says:

    "Retard", "idiotic", "sucker", "clueless", "whiny", "lunatic", "inferiority complex"… But you're here for calm, reasoned discussion, right? Fu*ck you. (Just kidding).

    A lot of the taxes we pay are stolen or pissed away, granted. But let's see… If I want to do like you strong independent types and move all my money to the Caymans, then let's see… I need a road my chauffeur can drive on to get to the airport so I can make it to my private jet. And for that matter, I need an airport. Both of those, in most places I know of, are paid for by the collectivity. It's easy enough to say you're just gonna refuse to pay your taxes, but when the time comes to drive somewhere or take a plane, you won't hesitate to use them, will you? Just let all the other suckers who don't belong to the master race pay for 'em, right? I wish I didn't have this inferiority complex, because it's clearly all that's keeping me from being a truly independent he-man like you.

    You're 100% right about my not reading all of North's article. I totally ignored the fact that what he's saying, fundamentally, is that Obama is not a Marxist, and is in fact closer to being a Fascist. But such distinctions are lost on the readership of the "Conservative" blogs. In fact I agree totally with him about Obama. Where I disagree with you and him is that I don't believe that everyone can become part of the Master Race. People who never pay taxes and have money stashed offshore are in the minority, and always will be. The myth you and the Republican oligarchs share is that there's an unlimited amount of wealth to go around, and all we need to do is shed a few pathetic notions like fairness and right and wrong and we can be part of the Master Race too. The corollary to that myth is that anyone who argues in favor of a fair shake for everybody is some kind of weaker specimen, motivated only by fear and jealousy. Nope. I don't claim some higher moral ground. But I do want the road to be there when I need to drive to work.

  53. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that Obama "belongs to one of the many derivative schools of Marxist thought?"

  54. Agreed with Nate. I am a lawyer (Canadian). Lawyers do not revoke their license at will. Some of us allow our membership to lapse in order to avoid paying fees. For example, many women leave large firms to work in governmental agencies in roles that do not require active membership in the bar association. In this sort of situation it makes sense not to pay dues. This is different (in Canada at least) from giving up one's right to practice law. That would raise a lot of eyebrows.

  55. That's really impressive. Instead of listening to a cogent critique of Obama in the context of marxism, you resort to emotion and ad hominems. I can see you are obviously highly educated and mature.

  56. HadEnuf,

    You are a buffoon. North worked DIRECTLY FROM an excerpt from Marx himself. I bet you aren't even literate enough to read the communist manifesto, let alone das capital.

    You seem to have missed the anecdote at the start of this essay: if you cannot understand your enemy, you are in for trouble. Duh. Get a brain.

  57. Where does Dr. North conclude that Obama is a terrific guy or any such thing? He merely rejects the claim that Obama is a Marxist. It is possible to do so and still be critical of Obama.

  58. Fatman,

    Your point about centralized control over the internet is a good one.

    Another good one is the passage of the antisemitism act. The Soviets made anti-semitism a capital offense, and it appears that Obama's backers are trying to do the same thing here. Soon any condemnation of Jews (including the ones that run all the banks) will be met with criminal sanctions.

    As for the auto bailouts, let's use our brains a bit:

    Did any of these bailouts result in transferring ownership to the state?

    I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect not. Bailouts and corporate subsidies are usually a rip off for the taxpayer, as the recipients get money while the taxpayer has no ownership rights (e.g., shares). Sometimes (and perhaps in the case of the auto bailouts) the government retains some sort of temporary control, but that is different from a property right.

  59. An ad hominem that doesn't address any of north's points. Well done. how old are you? three?

  60. Uh,

    Let's think a little here. By 'laws' do you mean signing statements?

    You know, those things that Bush popularized, on the advice of his neoconservative handlers?

    I agree that the signing statements are a means to increase the power of the executive. I agree that they were popularized by the neocons, who are mostly a bunch of marxist rejects.

    However, there are many non-marxists who believe in enhancing executive power. I believe you have something called the 'federalist society'.

  61. RightRadical, good post.

    Many people are so blinded by their love/hatred of Obama that they lose their wits.

    Most of Canada, for instance, thinks that his medical reforms are a universal health plan. Fools. There's no evidence for that whatsoever. Most of them are also in denial that he has broken every one of his campaign promises. So dear is his image that they can't let facts get in the way.

  62. Fantastic post.

  63. Yup.

    Both Romney and Obama have grovelled sufficiently in Israel. They are both safe. Obama is a little less friendly in public, but he is owned by them all the same.

  64. I think the GOP wants, and has long planned, to lose the 2012 presidency, and to blame the loss on the grassroots, Ron Paul, and in November on Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode. Then as the economy further spirals out of control and over the cliff, they will blame Obama and use the national angst to prep for the 2016 when it is "their turn". Obama makes the corporations and the banks, the welfare state and the warfare state just as happy as Bush did — which is to say, very happy . The emotional name calling, the musliming, the fear promoted of Obama by the statist right wing will continue for 4 more years, and the establishment GOP will try to get ahead of the hate curve in order to consolidate the GOP after the disastrous past 12 months (for them). People in power are getting what they want, and too many still don't see how the game is played.

  65. Boooooorrrrrrinnnng. I respect what you are saying (especially the Fu*ck You, the most genuine thing you would have said had you not taken it back it), but again you are falling back on the same system that you rail against to provide you the luxury of your positions. Can't have it both ways.

    Case in point. We can build roads without the government. Your implication that taxes and bureaucracy are the only thing that makes them possible is a) retarded, b) idiotic, c) clueless d) all of the above. Belief in such nonsense is what breathes life into your "Master Race". Tim Geitner cheats on his taxes while he devalues your currency. Yet the best case you can make for your position is that you dutifully continue to pay your 'fair share'? To build roads that private firms could build for a fraction of the cost? Priceless.

    And if your gripe is with "the readership of the "Conservative" blogs" then follow Gary's advice and start your own blog (its free) and fight your fight directly with your enemy. Not reading his article then using his forum as a place to shoot from the hip at him and your unnamed enemies IS really screwy.

    And by the way you completely missed my message too. I'm not some wanna be rich guy looking for a seat at the table. My position is that our grotesque consumption society is pure rot. We've moved far beyond any type of need based approach to improving our quality of life and have devolved into sheer gluttony. Gluttony that comes at the cost of slavery. There won't ever be any "fairness" or sharp line between "right or wrong" within this framework and every willing participant shares equal ownership of that. This is why I mocked your prideful claims about "paying your fair share". But I also assert that as long as you insist on being a willing participant in this game (when you're not selectively criticizing it), you only come across as a sore loser by bashing those who played the game better than you.

    If you recognized the wild inconsistencies of your positions maybe you'd get my point. Though after accusing every conservative of wanting to become part of some "Master Race" I don't even know that you can be reasoned with. Just note that I've tried….

  66. Libertymike says:

    There is much more to the story than Gary presents. Let's not think that Gary's minimalist analysis should be regarded as accurate or comprhensive. It's not.

    Take plank one of the Communist Manifesto. Gary asserts that Obama has not called for the abolotion of private land and the application of all rents to public purposes. Although Obama has not publicly urged that all private land be abolished or that all rents be applied to public purposes, he has certainly supported greater and greater regulatory control of land and land use. For example, he has supported giving the EPA more power and a bigger budget. He has called for strengthening the Wetlands Act. He has also consistently supported more regulatory power for the Interior Department, the Forest Service and other land use agencies. In addition, he has been a steadfast supporter of bigger and bigger budgets for the national park service. Obama wants the federal government to own more land, not less.

  67. TRR, Touche!

    I can generally accept Gary's point of view whether I agree with it or not, but I think this whole conversation is totally off the reservation.

    Obama is a Fascist, Romney is a Fascist, George W Bush was a Fascist. Attempting to even discuss any other point of view is inane given the preponderance of evidence. This whole "you say he's a Marxist, but I say otherwise" straw man argument completely mystifies me.

    But hey, even Babe Ruth struck out sometimes.

  68. Since you deem Ph.Ds and bureaucratic appointments the true measure of someone's worth, let me rebut your point with the argument that North does not have a Ph. D in political science or philosophy. These are the subjects that Marx dealt in.

    Your own logic would imply that the "Staff" at McDonald's are all experts on Global Franchise Operations? Is that what you are saying then?

  69. THANK YOU!!

    It pains me that only one person gets it, but it beats zero.

    Every other argument presented here is based on the idea that the big two parties are in competition rather than collusion. That is the big lie. That is the bait for the switch. That is the great divide.

    As I see it, void of this truth front and center, discussions like the ones here are just futile word puzzles for useful idiots…

  70. SnakeArbusto says:

    "follow Gary's advice and start your own blog "
    I did. Check it out: http://blog.reconstructno.org/

    I never said anything about "paying my fair share." But yes, I figure if I use a road, I should pay, one way or the other, for building it – or else it's not going to get built.
    "We can build roads without the government". You, like many of the people who comment here and elsewhere, have a set list of condemnatory words – like "Marxist," "progressive," "Liberal," etc. -, and "government" is one of them. But what is government? In my view, your statement is nonsensical because by definition, building a road IS government. And it's doubly nonsensical because when you say "We," the "We" you're referring to IS government. Government is you and I, making decisions and taking actions that can only be taken by the collectivity. Now, extending the sense of "government" somewhat, is waste inherent in government? Maybe. Can a government decide to hire a private firm to build a road? Of course. But who or what decides where that road goes, and who can use it? Should that be left to private individuals and private firms? Would it really be more efficient and less wasteful and less costly to have nothing but private roads, everywhere? Who decides on who gets to use them, and how access to them is controlled? Can a free-market system apply? What if three firms each want to build a road between two points? You can drive on one, and I can drive on another, but what happens when one of us needs to turn? Won't the roadways have to cross at some point? Will there be an automatic system that parcels out the road-use fees equally to the three companies where the roadways coincide? Who administers that? Another private firm? Or do we stack up overpasses, one for each firm? Which firm gets to use the roadway that's at ground level, since of course they would have a cost advantage? Who would administer that? You may see what I'm getting at.

    As far as I can see, your solution to this is simply "refuse to participate." Don't be a dupe or a slave of the system. Yet you admit you're not a would-be rich guy. I assume that means you have to work? I can probably safely assume you drive a car, or at least have to walk on a sidewalk (unless your having totally freed yourself of the dupery and slavery of the system entitles you to some sort of teleportation ability that kicks in automatically once your mind is free) to get to work? If you drive that car or walk on that sidewalk, you're participating. You're part of the collectivity. You don't exist in a vacuum. You breathe air. Or do you buy yours from a private firm? You're a partaker in the system. And developing highly emotional arguments about how grotesque and unfair the system is (and by implication, how high-minded and pure you yourself are) doesn't take you out of it any more than having such a pure mind dispenses you from mass and gravity).

    But I agree that "We've moved far beyond any type of need based approach to improving our quality of life and have devolved into sheer gluttony. Gluttony that comes at the cost of slavery." It's very well put. The first step to freeing yourself from the system you see as so aberrant is to move away from that gluttony and get in touch with your real needs. Right? And if you are an American and a working person, it's a safe bet you need a car. And a road to drive it on. Or are you going to deny it? And if you think being an unwilling participant makes it okay for you to live off the system while condemning it, go ahead. I won't accuse you of considering yourself a member of the Master Race. But I will accuse you of being dishonest.

    I confess that I misread North's piece, judging it by the reactions to it (most of which prove that the authors of the comments didn't even read it) rather than by its content. He's right on in saying that the welfare-warfare state is the root of all the evil, and that it's bipartisan. But there can be no partisan solution to a bipartisan problem. You and I are both participants in that system, though you may deny it. It may be that the only time we're not both participating in it is when we're talking about it here. By the way, thanks for cutting down on the name-calling. But "I don't even know that you can be reasoned with" is still a little too close to troll-speak for my taste. Anyway, thanks for trying…

  71. Gene Poole says:

    Some of the best damned marketing firms in the business. Or did you mean Romney? Some of the best damned marketing firms in the business…

  72. Actually Marx's discipline was political economy.

  73. RevWMcCall says:

    Claiming to be the only one who understands how the world works and trying to undermine the credibility of your fellow posters simply by heaping abuse on them are standard troll tactics. But – and I'm not saying this only to prove you wrong – you're right.

  74. eyemahippie says:

    Not when "Marxist" is a synonym for "nigger."

  75. Centralization of Communication: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/0

  76. I really wish I could draw the inference here, Gary.
    You are saying that Obama is basically "going along to get along?" He lost his law license and therefore, in order to maintain upward mobility, he is doing whatever the oligarchs say?
    Why him? Why pick Obama?

    I think you do a good job dismissing the common rhetoric that Obama is a Marxist based upon his actions. However, I don't think you draw the connection to your main point. Informative article nonetheless.

  77. Jonathan Mailer says:

    LOL!! The conserva-tards are back in force!! Obama a Marxist! Obama a Muslim!! Squawk, squawk!! George W. Bush is God Almighty. Mitt Romney will save us and bring us Nirvana!

    They really are so stupid that they have no idea how to handle the slightest bit of true critical thnking that upsets their ersatz Fox News, Pig Limbaugh, National Review apple-cart world view. They act just like the Left in calling names, not addressing arguments, chanting, and wanting to censor. They and progressives are the true, real enemy. There's no worst enemy than phony opposition and conservatism has played that role since God and Man at Yale by the state segregationist Bill Buckley.

  78. Jonathan Mailer says:

    Arg. "They and not so much progressives…" was what I meant.

  79. sthelensoregon says:

    "Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

    A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so."

  80. It is ironic that you state "they act just like the left in calling names", when you start your article calling them "conserva-tards?"

  81. Just standard operating procedure for neoconservative Trotskyites.

  82. Jonathan Mailer says:

    Sorry ed, but I made an argument! I can call one name in making one. Your side calls names when it can't.

  83. Help, I'm being crushed by this guy's logic over here! Dr. North never got a "bureaucratic appointment." If he had, he would have worked in the executive branch. What he got was a job. Yes, he was the guy who Ron Paul hired to read through bills and decide whether they were Constitutional or not. For emphasis, I will repeat: in the late 70's, he was the guy who Ron Paul hired to read through bills and decide whether or not they were Constitutional. That was his role in the Federal Government.

    I never said anything about somebody's "worth." What I did say is that he knows his subject matter better than you do.

  84. “Graduated taxes” means the more you make, the more taxes(higher percentage) you pay. This is the system we currently have. You probably said the opposite because Mitt Romney’s ~15% tax rate. What you don’t realize is, its this low because most of his income was spent on tax free purchases and investments, including millions to charities. Plus, this was only federal income tax percent. He had, like you and I, ~6% Medicare, and he had state taxes to pay. Also, when you pay someone directly for services (babysitter is an example on my own taxes) your taxes are reduced.

  85. snakearbusto says:

    I see. Well hell, let's elect him.

  86. I see a lot of interesting articles on your website. You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time, there is a tool that creates unique, google friendly articles in couple
    of seconds, just type in google – laranita’s free content source