The Obama Campaign’s New Flag Emblem Speaks Volumes

| September 22 2012
David Leeper

The image on this page is the official new flag emblem of the Obama campaign.  You can see it at this link and read more, including initial reactions, at this link.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Note how the 50 stars have vanished, symbolizing the end of federalism.  Evidently, there is no more need for those 50 laboratories trying different approaches to individual freedom and prosperity for their citizens.  The wisdom of Obama is all we need, you see.

No more Illinois vs Indiana economic/regulatory models to compare.  Or California vs Texas.  Or even New York vs New Jersey.  All we need is the supervision and sanctimony of Obama’s central planners deciding everything for us.

Our old pals Tom Friedman and Ray LaHood must surely love this flag emblem since we know they both envy the Chinese central government’s dictatorial powers.  They do have local governance in China, but everybody knows who’s boss.  That’s what attracts Tom and Ray.   And that’s what makes this new flag emblem an appropriate symbol for the appalling future that the Left is creating for America.

Today, of course, Obama still has to deal with pesky governors like Brewer (AZ), Scott (FL), Daniels (IN), Jindal (LA), Christie (NJ), Martinez (NM), Kasich (OH), Haley (SC), Perry (TX), McDonnell (VA), and Walker (WI).   We know he  laments how difficult the founders, the Constitution, and these governors have made it for him to bring “change to America.”

Oh, those awful founders … why couldn’t they have foreseen the arrival of the Dear Leader, Barack Obama?

Actually, of course, they did foresee it — that’s why we have the Constitution’s enumerated powers and a 10th Amendment.  But Obama promises to keep trying to bring “change to America”, and this new flag is the perfect symbol of what he intends to do with the 10th Amendment.

Note also in the emblem how the 13 bold strips have faded into a blurry 9.  That’s an aptly chosen metaphor for the fading memory of our founding history and Constitution, as the mal-education of our nation’s youth marches on toward progressivism, redistributionism, statism, collectivism, socialism, fascism, neo-Maxism, or whatever other ‘ism’ name one chooses to represent what the Left is currently proffering.

Well …

That’s a lot for one new emblem to represent, but the Obama campaign did it!  Kudos to Obama and his campaign staff for jamming all these great Leftist themes and objectives into one symbol.

18 comments
Guest
Guest

Because we've never seen a political group deface the flag like this before...Oh, wait: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LD_Ah5tLKV8/SjPV8IWHXRI/AAAAAAAACEQ/AYlm4AXN7Ws/s400/American_TEA_Party_Flag_25.jpg

 

In case you were wondering whether or not the Tea Party has advocated for the rounding up of their political enemies, this quote from Charly Gullett's "Official Tea Party Handbook":

 

"[Socialism] is criminally motivated political terrorism. Both terrorism and treason are anathema to Liberty and those who advocate it are political criminals. This is not complicated. Clear-thinking Americans must begin to view Socialism as a prosecutable crime and recognize those who conspire to advance it are in fact criminals to be adjudicated in courts of Federal law."

 

You heard similar cries from governments in South America after the establishment of Capitalism-loving dictators down there. What was the result? Many, many individuals were tortured, murdered, and disappeared. The big difference in America is that nobody, Obama included, is advocating for straight Socialism. That term has been misused and misappropriated to the point where it has completely lost its meaning.

 

Anyone who falls prey to such baseless fears is pathetic. None of the fears of rampant Socialism (which are nothing new, they've happened since the first few months of O's presidency) have come to pass, nor will they. There are no plots to brainwash people, no plots to take over private industry completely, no plots to put anyone in chains. I'm vindicated by the lack of factual basis for the fears; I'm always met with more rhetorical claims of the end-of-days whenever I ask for specifics.

 

In short, the fear directed at Muslims, Obama, leftists, or anyone else you don't agree with is just pathetic. To listen to it, one would think Obama is about to grow horns and his eyes are about to glow red, Pelosi is about to sprout bat wings, and a Muslim tide of ultimate darkness is about to consume America from within. Oh, wait, to hear it the way you're telling it, that last one has already happened. Heil Mohammad!

NeilFeuer
NeilFeuer

As usual, David Leeper hits it right out of the ball park.   I first saw this on TV  Thursday as I was leaving, I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  I later sent this to my entire email list and others who don't want to know, but this they will and must know. 

 David has pointed out the intentions and meanings of the master plan under Obama, with it's full implications, in his words  that better penetrate in all of us, and one picture is worth a thousand words, and Obama has drawn the curtains and has opened the window to Obamaland (50 states are one) for all to know.  The gloves are off, and we better take our gloves off too, keep watching all the hidden meanings and signs, I thought I did, but with this post, I have alot to learn, way above my street and common sense, so I  say as always, go by your guts and read as much as you can, at the end, it will be up to us to save our flag and country that so many have and  are dying for to this very day. 

Can you imagine what the military will feel like when they see this, I think all hell will break loose, I hope so. 

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

First, do you really believe this post was about flag desecration?  (Sigh.)

Second, what do you think of the Constitution's enumerated powers (esp. Article 1, Sect 8) and the 10th Amendment?  Do you think they're just vestigial appendages in an out-of-date document written by dead white slave owners?  Does your enlightened notion of "middle ground" require that we trade those concepts for a gaggle of czars and executive orders from an increasingly powerful central federal government?  Can you offer any idea how we'll rein in that government when, in your enlightened mind, it does "go too far"?

pamphleteer92
pamphleteer92

Good post, Guest, but you sound ashamed about Obama's partial socialism?   The opposite of socialism is capitalism.  Capitalism makes corporations.  And corproations exploit their workers, pollute the environment, and play greed games with money.  

Wouldn't we be better off with socialism?  Govt run busineses wouldn't have to make a profit.  Instead we could hire more people and use funds for roads, bridges, health care. See the Young Democrat Socialists site.

This site is right-wing its good to see someone fight back.

Guest
Guest

 @dleeper47 

1. No, I don't think the post was about flag desecration. Sigh. I think it was about stirring up fear where there's nothing to stir up fear about. The Tea Party flag and the accompanying quote was in support of this claim, the notion that empty rhetoric and forced art analysis should not be the ways to dredge up fear. I was simply trying to point out that someone armed with that flag and the quote would have even more fodder for creating a similar fear about a Tea Party takeover, but I haven't seen any credible politician claim anything of the sort.

 

2. There are reams and reams of laws on the books in addition to the Constitution. SCOTUS has, at times, expanded and retracted different powers of different branches. While I realize that judicial review is not an explicitly enumerated power of SCOTUS, I recognize that their function in modern society is important and should be respected. If the Constitution is the only document from which you gather your understanding of what the federal government should be, you would not have a functioning society in modern America (please see my analysis of the issue with complete Capitalism above. You can also look into how the shock of free-market Capitalism affected South American societies in the 20th c.; to do that here would take up too much space on a largely tangential issue).

 

3. A middle ground is not asking you to trade the 10th amendment for "a gaggle of czars and executive orders." You might find yourself trading something, even something you really like, for the good of your neighbors, but that's how a productive society works. I'll repeat what I said above: those who develop their ideology from either extreme are living in a fantasy world.

 

Your last question isn't even worth answering, as it again assumes the nonexistent fear of a big bad government coming to take over everyone's freedom. Please see my refutation in above comments.

Guest
Guest

 @pamphleteer92 I'm certainly not a rabid Obama fan, nor do I agree with all of his views and policies. What frustrates me is when I hear him described as a socialist who seems to be planning a dramatic, insidious takeover of America (I acknowledge this is an exaggeration of most complaints against him, but the above article did seem to imply it). The Young Democrat Socialists (thanks for suggesting it) suffer from much the same problem as the Tea Party: they are idealists who pine for a system that wouldn't work in reality. Neither a 100% Democratic Socialist system nor a true free-market system have ever existed (in a more modern time, at least), nor should they.

 

Personally, I find the unanswered questions of power that come with Marx and most conceptualizations of Socialism to be off-putting. Indeed, we've all seen these problems manifest in some of the worst dictators the world has seen. These dictators are why I say above Socialism hasn't existed in reality - under true Socialism, these dictators should not exist. With them, you have a more authoritarian, psuedo-Fascist form of government (for lack of a better phrase, acknowledging the misuse of Fascism). Until individuals are able to truly acknowledge and address unanswered questions of power in Socialism, it will never be a viable system. Whether or not such a thing is possible, I don't know.

 

The problems with 100% Capitalism are less theoretical in my opinion and lie more with how it might be implemented in modern-day America. If we were to completely suspend government programs like welfare, medicare, government subsidies, etc. (which would be the case in a completely Capitalist system), the already-existing inequity in the system would destroy the equality of opportunity that is essential in such a system. It may well be that over time the system would correct itself, but there would be a great human cost as it does this. A family taking food stamps probably (but not certainly) needs them, and taking the food stamps away won't change these reasons overnight.

 

I find the only satisfying (though not perfect) conclusion to be somewhere in the middle. I'm not saying there aren't individuals in American government that would like to try true Socialism, just that I have yet to see them. By the same token, I think even the most extreme Conservative would not argue against all forms of taxation or government assistance. By removing hollow rhetoric like the nonexistent fear of a Socialist takeover from their talking points (or the idea that Paul Ryan wants to throw the elderly off cliffs, in the case of the left), I think the right (left) would look much less foolish. Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I tend to think complex replies are appropriate in complex situations.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @dleeper47 I agree with aspects of this statement, though not with its totality. I would argue vigorously that the best term is "statism." That covers everything to the left of the center-point, IOW, every state-collectivist ideology whose first impulse is "government can/should do X." Any ideology that holds that the state is the first choice for taking care of most social problems and questions is reasonably described as statist. Under that rather generic rubric, we find everything from totalitarian communism, various flavors of revolutionary and reformist socialism, fascism, fascist corporatism, crony capitalism, keynesian interventionism, third-way liberalism, etc.

 

Now, that being said, historically, Mussolini and Hitler both began with a socialist economic template, but then altered the program to A) triangulate politically and economically and B) apply the system in a national, rather than an international context. The result was, from an economic standpoint, fascist corporatism. Fascist corporatism is just crony capitalism's older brother. I agree that using the term "socialist" to describe Barack Obama is a less effective, and even less technically accurate, choice.  However, Obama's corporatism/crony capitalism exist for the same basic reason that Hitler and Musssolini adapted socialism in their contexts. Obama starts with a marxian economic principle and world view, but such a thing cannot be implemented in the United States, at least not with any rapidity. Obamanomics is just left wing economics applied to the greatest degree he is able under the American system as it currently exists. That he is not a full-blown socialist is true, but largely because he is not able to be one.

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

Hmmm ... you think and write a lot like a close relative of mine.  In fact, I suspect you are he!  If so, welcome!

'Socialism' is indeed used as a catch-all for Big Government.  Where in this article did you see me do that?  I list a string of terms that are used to describe various Leftist movements, but I did not single out any one of them.  There are many misnomers in this business, not the least of which is 'liberal'.

BTW, Thomas Sowell has written an excellent piece in which he says the more correct term for Obama is fascist.  That is an extreme form of crony capitalism.  It was a compelling piece (to me), and you could find it via a Google search.  

Guest
Guest

 @dleeper47 I think you and I probably agree on a bit more than you think. I despised the bank bailouts and don't believe the government should be forcing anyone to buy anything, insurance included, through the private market (even if it makes sense for everyone to buy into it).

 

What I also despise is the tortured analysis of this flag emblem, all the while railing against a Socialism that doesn't exist in America. There is nothing about Obama that screams anything other than crony-Capitalism. The bailouts should be obvious in this regard. The Affordable Care Act demands that people fill the private healthcare coffers with even more money.

 

The claims of Socialism, screamed with wild abandon by certain individuals who occasionally seem to be frothing at the mouth, are baseless. The curtailing of freedoms that you perceive in America are nothing compared to what true Socialist governments have done in the past. There is no way on Earth he could possibly even come close in America. When you label what he's doing as Socialist, as if it's so incredibly extreme as to be unbearable (and flaunting a gross misunderstanding of the term to boot), people don't have to work hard to write you off. If you're interested in being taken seriously, I would suggest reworking the above article so there are no implications that America is going to become China or that Obama is a Marxist - these fears are foolish and pathetic.

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

"I think [the article] was about stirring up fear where there's nothing to stir up fear about."

 

Well, I envy your certainty and sanguinity.  I think there's a lot to fear from an ever-growing central federal government, whether Republican or Democrat, and the Obama administration has raised my fear to wholly new levels.  What you've written here doesn't ease my fear one iota. In my opinion, it's time to push back hard -- through the political process -- for Constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.  You (evidently) don't.

So we disagree.  

But I'd like to be more optimistic.  Have you written any other "don't worry be happy" material you can point me to?

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @pamphleteer92  @dleeper47 I appreciate your well-reasoned, calm statement, even in those areas with which I disagree.Taking the broad view, there has been no force in human history that has lifted more people out of poverty than free enterprise. It has also been fairly conclusively determined, by qualitative and quantitative measures, that the freer the economic environment, the greater the economic prosperity for the greater number of people (as well as more political freedom, happiness, better health and life expectancy, etc.). In spite of these flinty facts, however, we have been moving away from greater freedom, slowly but surely, for a century. Really, we only had a short time where free trade, generally free markets, and the modern era overlapped before we started becoming more statist. So we've never really gotten to see truly free markets operate in a modern context.

 

Here, we must stray from studies, because we do not have the counterfactual example where this did not happen, but I honestly believe that a truly free economic environment with minimal regulation and very little confiscation of property would produce so much wealth and opportunity, and the ranks of the needy would be reduced to such a low level, that support for the remaining poor would be easily managed with private charity and a very small, tightly constrained social safety net.

Guest
Guest

 @WesternFreePress  @pamphleteer92  @dleeper47 

The state of poverty is such that neither government assistance nor charitable giving by the affluent is enough to truly help individuals become self-sufficient. Both fail to address the soft skills and other talents those born into poverty lack (even the ability to pursue) that are essential for those in the middle- and upper- classes.

 

This isn't an insurmountable obstacle, it just means that the situation requires manpower in addition to money. I would advocate for more investment into the nonprofit sector, regardless of whether the investment comes from private citizens or government. Though I do have some bias (I work for a community development organization), I don't believe it's a stretch to say that the nonprofit sector is much more efficient than government. To give you an idea, the organization I am a part of has a program that seeks to find individuals jobs while also teaching them how to build credit and handle their finances. Each person going through the program requires an investment of approximately $1500. For those who find themselves self-sufficient, however, the government saves tens of thousands per year in no-longer-needed entitlements. The $1500 figure is very low in part because nonprofit-based financial coaches are paid much, much less than for-profit counterparts. In order to truly deal with poverty, we will need those whose talents could net them more compensation to understand a donation of time is just as important as a donation of money.

 

I'm not convinced this is something that Capitalism teaches people effectively. In a system where the goal is to maximize personal gains, it's difficult to convince someone to spend a few years working at a barely livable level for the good of society as a whole. Socialism is not an adequate answer, either, as nobody should be forced into working in a less-than-ideal position for themselves.

 

In the case of food stamps, poverty, medicaid, etc, I would advocate for the gradual shift of resources away from these programs directly and towards building out programming (largely spearheaded by local nonprofits) that has been statistically shown to develop self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, when human lives are on the line, I'm not optimistic enough to rely entirely on the altruism of others, so I would suggest tax money continue to be used in this way, with savings being returned in the form of tax breaks.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @pamphleteer92  @dleeper47 "If private means worked then there would be no poverty now."

 

That claim is highly problematic.

 

We have not been able to see what society would be like if government did not coerce nearly 49% of middle-class income and more than that of rich people. Government takes in a trillion in income tax, and close to that in payroll taxes each year. What might happen if half of that were allowed to remain in the private economy? How much would be used on charity? The American people, individually, are among the most charitable in the world. Imagine what they might do if they weren't having their money forcibly taken from them for government to spend inefficiently, and without discernment, on what it considers "charity." Then there are the super-rich, who can (and do) create endowments that last for more than a century, helping the lives of many thousands along the way. What would they do with the extra few billion they would have if government didn't take so much through force and coercion? There is no evidence for the assertion that private charity alone cannot meet human needs. It has not been tested in the modern era.

 

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @pamphleteer92 @dleeper47  First, it is never limited to the "rich." As the welfare state grows, it consumes more and more, and the overburdened middle class is taxed as well. But that is beside the point. What you are describing is a scenario in which relief to those in need is supplied via coercion and force. Do you believe that it might be possible for aid to be delivered to those in need via private means, rather than through public force? Or is public force, in your view, the only way?

pamphleteer92
pamphleteer92

 @WesternFreePress Modern socialist democracies do more than just leave people on their own to survive.  Good governments provide direct benefits to all.  The rich can't  part with a little more of their wealth for this greater good?

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @pamphleteer92 "Don't you agree that healthcare, food, shelter, and education with free college are basic human rights?"

 

The basic human right is the right to PURSUE those things, to voluntarily interact with other humans to make those things happen, to deploy one's abilities in pursuit of them, etc. What you are taking about are entitlements, a.k.a. "positive rights." Those are not rights at all, they are commodities, and the only way they can be provided to one person is by taking them from someone else, in violation of his or her rights. You may favor that system; that is a separate question. But no one has a "right" to be given those things at someone else's expense.

pamphleteer92
pamphleteer92

Thank you Guest.  You make sense, but we still favor a truer form of socialism done the right way.

Don't you agree that healthcare, food, shelter, and education with free college are basic human rights?  Can capitalism ever provide that?  No.  only socialism has a chance.  

What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a descent standard of living?