Koch brothers under siege from Marxists

For a thorough take down of a misguided, envy-ridden Marxist college professor, here is PL founder John Hinderaker.

Revealing editorial from the NYTimes

Reading this editorial from the NYTimes, one realizes how far liberals have sunk into the world of make-believe, fantasy and the most virulently destructive philosophies of the 20th century.  It is inconceivable that anyone could take seriously the arguments in this editorial that claim Romney is flip flopping, changing his basic positions on issues and/or lying.  And yet the libs who run that paper make all these claims and only fault Obama for not taking Romney to task for all this dissembling.  In truth everything Romney said rebutting the Obama campaign's serial distortions of the Romney/Ryan campaign positions is consistent with the platform put forth at the Republican Convention in Tampa last month.  Smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes to stimulate economic growth, elimination of socialized healthcare and regulations that stymy business activity that creates jobs and opportunity for those willing to put forth the effort.  But since none of these prescriptions for success involves controlling other people's lives that the liberal elites prefer, they are forced to resort to these mindless attacks on conservatives' lack of specificity in matters of policies of their agenda.  Which is exactly the point.  Liberals want 3,000 page bills that control every conceivable contingency concerning the delivery of healthcare services.  They want regulations that control all aspects of businesses trying to serve consumer needs and wishes.  They want total control over citizens' lives in order that their vision of the correct society can be achieved.  In the end their proscriptions for society are the same as those of the National Socialism of the Germans,  the Fascism of Mussolini, and the Marxist utopia of the USSR, and we all know how well those isms turned out.  In short, Republicans want maximum freedom for the individual while Democrats want maximum control of each individual's life by the state.

Liberal professor identifies the problem

Anyone who doesn't understand how we have arrived at the state we are in and why we have the political leadership we now have, has only to read this mea culpa of a liberal psychology professor from Emory University.  This garden variety liberal lays all the blame for our current "predicament" on all the usual left wing demons: Wall Street, greed, lack of regulations, tax breaks for the wealthy, Republicans.   And yet, in retrospect, the professor now realizes that Obama had a resume that didn't demonstrate many leadership qualities.   But nowhere in this rant does the professor explain the world view that led him and his friends to elect Barack Obama in the first place.  Had he been minimally introspective,  he just might have questioned why he and his friends bought into the hopey-dopey mantra of an obvious (at least to many of us) fraud in the first place.  Had he done so it might have come down to this:  The professor and his like-minded friends have a view of human nature that doesn't comport with reality.  They are looking for the chimera of the perfectibility of man.  All it takes in this world is the single perfect leader who understands -- like they do -- how to correct the flaws in the system and human nature, that once corrected will result in the perfect society.  The vague, unspecific and dreamy solutions of a messiah -- The One -- were enough for these dreamers to elect an Obama.  Herein lies the reason dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong II, rise to power.  They are enabled by dreamers looking for the perfect world.

ADDED:  This article catalogues the case for arguing Obama is an out and out Marxist who is carefully orchestrating the demise of the US in order to create a new world order out of the rubble.  It often seems that what he does is so demonstrably counterproductive that there must be some nefarious reason for it.  If one thinks about the Obama constituencies in the context of some nefarious master plan, that plan becomes a plausibility.  O's primary constituency is the SEIU and sister unions (AFL-CIO, et al) and the blacks.  Does anyone doubt that this constituency would not prefer a reordering of society in which what the rich and productive people have is spread among them?