The Black Vault

His ties to Acorn and 'community organizing' are well known.
The following link has a video of current (or most recent since Acorn dissolved) head Bertha Lewis talking to a group called Young Democratic Socialists.
In the video, she calls the tea party movement a "bowel movement" and warns the socialists that the tea party members plan to return to an era of "McCarthyism" along with bringing back the segregation of Jim Crow and even using "internment camps" to imprison and silence them.
That may be secondary behind the fact that she openly encourages the "socialist" label that these people align themselves with.
Since the MSM will undoubtedly take a pass on this story, here is more of the evidence that President Obama has been (and continued to be after his rise to the Presidency) involved with an organization who had as it's head someone who openly supports the socialist political movement.
Socialism was the political structure of the failed (late 80's/early 90's) U.S.S.R. - 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' that we call Russia.
This will probably blow right by some people as unrelated and unimportant, but it seems that socialism has at least been explored at the highest office of the land.
Here is the link that contains the video...

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=14121

The easiest thing any man ever did was give up. Socialism is the ultimate example of that. Every civilization ends up morphing into whatever keeps the elites in power. Eventually there is a revolution and all the elites are decapitated, as they should be. The Russians understood that quite well, in 1917. What we need today is a good old fashioned Russian with a real sharp axe.

The ultimate civilization is anarchy. When everyone has what they need and does not depend on a government to "protect" (oppress) them then you will have true freedom.

Tyrannicide

Very interesting thoughts CodeBlack. I never thought of socialism in exactly those terms.
History has certainly proven your point about the power remaining on top.

Anarchy seems like a rather brutish way to live; like the law of the jungle. The weak are surely trodden under foot in such a system. Always are there going to be those who need protection, food, etc. provided for them and to ignore their plight in the practice of such a system would be no better, imo, than freedom and liberty destroyed by socialism. I disagree CB. The great REPUBLIC that was unequalled and unchallenged, and still is and will be, IS the model for a long-lasting, fulfilling and free society. I fear, however, that we have already likened ourselves too close to the corruption and division that was ancient Rome before the demise of that Republic. ...and the great wheel of time turns...

QUOTE: "Freedom is not the norm in history; it is a precious aberration. Drawing on the Judeo-Christian affirmation of the value of each person and man's God-given rights, our Founding Fathers rejected government tyranny and embraced Western democratic principles. They went to war to make us free; they crafted a Constitution to keep us free."

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jun/22/ ... r-freedom/

This is an article describing some of what the tea party movement is all about. The first paragraph I quoted because it seemed like truth, as I see it. Here is a motto of the movement...

NOT RACIAL
NOT VIOLENT
NO LONGER SILENT

...meaning exactly what it says.

In the future, not sure how distant, human civilization could resemble anarchy. I do not believe that there will always be people who need protection. Many of those today who think they need protection actually do not. They have been coerced by the system to accept being poor and have been convinced that they cannot help themselves. Health problems will be eliminated by science someday. Individual access to the things people need to live will open up, once we eliminate our addiction to monopolism. When everyone has equality then no one needs protection. This does not mean that there will not be a need for arbitration. Hell, many businesses today have already moved away from government based justice to arbitration.

And that part about people being convinced that they need government, flies in the face of everything the USA was founded on. And I was under the impression that also was part of what the tea parties were about.

Yes, anarchy today is too soon but we should at least be moving towards self-reliance and away from Orwellian socialism.

Politicians always think they could solve a problem if they only had more power but that is a fools errand. Yes, we occasionally need a singular power to pull the trigger but this president is pointing the gun at us.

CodeBlack wrote:And that part about people being convinced that they need government, flies in the face of everything the USA was founded on. And I was under the impression that also was part of what the tea parties were about.

You are correct; one of the primary goals of the tea party movement is smaller government. This multi-headed monstrosity that the government has become did not happen overnight and blame certainly cannot be laid solely at the feet of one political party or the other. The economic meltdown in '08 is probably what woke many people up to the fragile condition of the U.S. and, just because the people who still believe in America were asleep before then, I don't think it's wrong for us to now start trying to turn off the path of socialism and towards the other end of the spectrum - anarchy.

I think you will agree that some amount of goverment is needed, but the aim of the current administration is the continuation of America's slide towards socialism. Big all-knowing, all-powerful government is NOT what made this country great and, the bigger government gets, the less it resembles the model that the Founders created.

I suggest you read actual Socialist literature they don't like Obama. He's too Bourgeoisie and pro-corporate and right wing for them.

Some Examples of what mean when I say the socialists don't like Obama (aka George Bush III & Bush-lite by some leftists)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec20 ... -d12.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr20 ... -a29.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr20 ... -a27.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar20 ... -m27.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan20 ... -j25.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov20 ... -n17.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar20 ... -m23.shtml

Guess what Aqua, no nation can survive without a successful economy and everyone, sooner or later, realizes that and sacrifices everything else to it. Politics be damned. But I don't buy for a second that socialists don't like Obama. He's done more to move the US in their direction than any previous president. All presidents play both sides. They have to.

Aquatank wrote:Some Examples of what mean when I say the socialists don't like Obama (aka George Bush III & Bush-lite by some leftists)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec20 ... -d12.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr20 ... -a29.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr20 ... -a27.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar20 ... -m27.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan20 ... -j25.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov20 ... -n17.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar20 ... -m23.shtml

I see what you mean about 'not in the truest sense of the word'; he's not a socialist, but point to CodeBlack's recent post.

gudskepteacal: Actually I disagree that the US economy, or the world's economy, is fragile. Capitalism is not fragile. Just the opposite in fact. Yes, it can be wrecked but it takes people with a lot of money and will power to wreck it and even then they can only do it temporarily, unless they are suicidal and have enough power to do it (like a dictator).

The economy is made to appear fragile by the news media because they have agendas which are served by creating that specter. In the end capitalism is not really just a choice of economic style. It is a necessity. Ask the USSR. Sooner or later everyone gets hungry and having only what you need is not good enough.