80 Comments

1. Ed Driscoll » Roger L. Simon: Is Obama “Objectively Pro-Fascist?”:

[...] writes, “I don’t know much about Honduras, but I do know something about Iran”: And Obama’s bizarre behavior, taking days to come to the conclusion any decent person knew [...]

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:08 pm 2. David Thomson:

“Is Obama “objectively pro-fascist”?

Answer: Yes! But I’ve suspected this for a very long time. Barack Obama is a very dangerous narcissist. He is a cold and manipulating human being. That “evil eye” stuff is not a joke. Obama intensely dislikes white people and subconsciously wishes to cause them great harm. He wants to become everybody’s benevolent dictator. In his heart of hearts, Obama like all those embracing Progressivism is contemptuous of constitutional republican government. He envies Castro, Chavez, and all the other “reform” dictators. Race guilt prevents most people from facing reality about Obama. He is supposedly the man of color who can absolve whites, those accused of being a cancer on this Earth, from their past sins of racism.

The Progressives were inherently fascists. They considered themselves as well educated elites who should run society. On a gut level, Obama does desire to destroy the national economy. He will then turn the United States into a fascist utopia. He feels that it’s best to start at ground zero. By the way, how many billions of dollars are the thugs of ACORN receiving? Have we also already forgotten that Obama’s Justice Department did not prosecute the Panther voter intimidators in Philadelphia?
What about “hate crime” legislation which will mostly target white offenders? And yet, the evidence clearly shows that whites are overwhelmingly the victims of violent
attacks by minority criminals. Violence against minorities by whites is literally a statistical aberration. It rarely happens in our present era.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:47 am 3. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER SIMON: Iran, Honduras: Is Obama “objectively pro-fascist”?…:

[...] ROGER SIMON: Iran, Honduras: Is Obama “objectively pro-fascist”? [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 4:43 am 4. Bob Sykes:

And a Muslim. At every stage of his life, Obama has been surrounded by communists: his parents and grand parents, his churches, his Chicago pals. And, at almost every stage, he has been surrounded by Muslims: his father and his time in Indonesia, his college pals, and even Wright’s church, which is as much a Nation of Islam mosque as a Christian church.

Call Obama an Islamo-fascist.

Jul 1, 2009 - 4:50 am 5. Julius Stahl:

With its usual Communist fellow-traveler deftness, the NYT managed to bury the fact that “the legitimate president of Honduras”, supported by commie fellow-travelers Hillary Clinton and President Obama, is guilty of crimes against the constitutional order and defiance of the Honduran Supreme Court. There is no mention of this until you hit about paragraph seven in its article.

Welcome to the New World Order of socialist destruction of the American economy and diplomacy aimed at ensuring the every communist, socialist, and fascist regime has the official support of the President and Secretary of State.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:02 am 6. mad-as-H:

Can the Honduras Army get H-1B visas?

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:14 am 7. Jeff Medcalf:

No, Robbins, I assure you we do not.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:44 am 8. TMLutas:

Can we have an objectively a liberal agent provocateur added to the list? inanity like comment #4 is indistinguishable from a liberal troll no matter the motivation.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:45 am 9. Robert:

Pro-fascist? I never would have thought so, before Honduras. His early stance (or more accurately, lack of one) on Iran is rational, if you believe that the US might do more harm than good by siding with the demonstrators. I don’t personally believe that, but I can understand it. Obama’s position on Honduras is nonsensical, however. The administration’s support of a democratically elected president attempting to illegally stay in power, combined with Iran and the embrace of would be dictators such as Chavez, puts the lie to Obama’s high flying rhetoric about democracy during the campaign, and worries me as much as anything else he has done.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:47 am 10. Sean:

Mr. Simon,

While I generally agree with you on many topics, Orwell does not state that ALL “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” He is referring to World War II, where the Axis side was fighting to spread actual, honest-to-goodness and self-identified Fascism ’round the world.

As a Briton, if you were against war, Orwell said you were bolstering the enemy. That enemy to democracy was an actual movement named Facism.

That’s why Orwell used the capital “F” for Fascism: he was describing a political movement, not a philosophy.

Orwell also agreed that “a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.”

So pacificism was not evil in and of itself. Advocating pacifism in the face of an abhorrent ideology, that was at war with YOU, was treacherous.

It’s a distinction with a very significant difference.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:58 am 11. ahem:

“Ojectively pro-fascist”?

Obama _is_ a fascist. Wake up.

For everyone who wondered how the Nazis came to power despite the highly civilized nature of German society–the very evidence is before you!

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:07 am 12. WJ:

Of course he is. I suggest reading “Liberal Fascism”. Look at his political moves, and it is usually about acquiring power over people’s lives.

Finally, please delete comment #4, that kind of profanity could only come from a liberal troll and is highly offensive.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:08 am 13. Steve:

Obama seems determined to create a crisis in the US. Fortunately Democrats have midterm elections to worry about so they will probably dither on his domestic agenda. Unfortunately Obama has control of foreign policy. He can be booted in 3 years though.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:12 am 14. Wellspring:

I doubt if it’s racial. This is far from the first time that the Left has demanded that the US suck up to dictatorial enemies. For example, look at their position on the old soviet union, North Korea, Iran or Nicaragua, etc etc etc. The position was amity and tolerance at any price.

Meanwhile, there’s another class of ally: those who we didn’t approve of but who were necessary for geopolitical reasons during the Cold War. The Phillipines, Cuba, Argentina and China. Not all these (certainly not china!) were “right-wing” fascists, as opposed to “left-wing” fascists, whatever that means.

What these “bad fascists” have in common with one another, and what they DON’T have in common with the left’s fascist darlings, was that they were geopolitically valuable to the US.

Then there’s struggling democracies, like Colombia, Honduras, Israel, Georgia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and others. Almost without exception, the Left condemns them at every opportunity, and demands that we renounce them and embrace their (usually totalitarian) enemies.

Compare that to the war in Iraq, or our intervention in granada (who still love us for it!), or our confrontation with the Soviets. The Left doesn’t favor isolationism; liberals have demanded invasions or attacks on Myanmar and Sudan, for example.

The difference seems to be that they only favor military action when it is not in our own self-interest. They demand expensive engagements when we have nothing to gain from it. They only favor conciliation towards our enemies. Towards useful but odious regimes, or even useful and wonderful regimes, they demand confrontation, bullying and duplicity.

I don’t think this is motivated (for the majority of liberals) by anti-americanism. I’ve been thinking about this alot. Michael Totten’s Builders and Defenders piece might apply. It could also be something else. Conservatives are so deeply attuned to America’s national interest, that the Left’s national death wish could just be an engrained, reflexive opposition to anything that they think the Right might like. Whatever the cause, it’s both bad for the world and bad for America. In the long run, it’s even bad for liberals.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:13 am 15. Cato:

Ya think? Of course Obama is a fascist: he’s from Chicago, where politics has been fascist in effect – union thugs, machines, etc. – for years and years.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:15 am 16. Larry J:

Obama has ties to ACORN which in known for its “voting irregularities.” Iran differs only in a matter of degree from ACORN, so perhaps it isn’t surprising that Obama was slow to criticize what happened there. As for Honduras, a president tried to put himself above the country’s constitution and remain in power after his term was over. Perhaps Obama sided with the would be dictator as a matter of precedent, 22nd Amendment and all that.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:19 am 17. tree hugging sister:

I’m just hoping that all those Americans I watch on “House Hunters International” buying chichi, big buck Honduran beach houses don’t need a lift off the beach à la Lebanon.

I’m not sure the boats would be coming.

What an awful thought. And how awful that this guy makes the unthinkable part of the thought process.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:34 am 18. jr565:

It’s a bizarro foreign policy that is instinctively pro facist and anti human rights. When the dictator steals the election and protesters are killed in the street Obama refuses for two weeks to condemn the action. When a president tries to make himself a dictator and violate his countries constitution to give himself permanent power, and the people prevent him from doing so in Honduras, Obama again sides with the dictator and against democracy.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:36 am 19. Sean:

I wish my more conservative bretheren would stop throwing around that word “fascist” so much. It was ignorant when liberals did it when trying to slander Bush, and it’s equally ignorant now.

While you’d be hard pressed to find an agreed-upon definition for the term “fascism”, Obama is far closer to the one-worldy Socialism/ Communism of Chavez and Castro than the one nation uber alles Fascism of the 1940s.

Fascists wanted their individual states to prosper over all others, come hell or high water. If that meant invading a few countries to get their resources, all was well. Repressing and murdering ideological opponets was acceptable. Corporations were protected by the government, but could really do whatever the heck they wanted. They had a free hand to lie cheat and steal if it bettered the state.

But Obama is hardly taking that tack. He seems more akin to supporting a global socialist society where U.S. national interests are subservient to that of the international community and “fairness”.

While Obama and his cronies play hardball, want to mute dissenting opinions as much as possible, slander enemies, that is not necessarily fascistic. Any political systems has those types of players. He may be the worst we’ve seen in the U.S., but that does not point Obama any closer towards fascism than it would toward socialism.

Lets try to avoid wearing ignorance on our sleeves. Obama’s nudging of our nation down the path of global socialism is fairly evident in everything he does. Proof of his being a fascist is very hard to come by.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:56 am 20. Shalom Beck:

No, Obama, like his mentor Bill Ayers, is subjectively pro-Fascist — or, if you prefer, “Bolivarist.”

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:13 am 21. Andrew X:

TMLutas – My friend, you are not serving the cause very well.

Listen to me, I implore you….. we who watch from the background support your enthusiasm in pushing the Great One’s agenda by through discrediting his enemies.

But you MUST be less obvious as you pursue the plan. The ‘N’-word is a useful tool, but it MUST be played with more skill and subtlety. Oh, sure, a few people will read your comment and think, “Oh, that damn right wing, just can’t get over their racism…..etc etc”. A few.

But those few are of little use to us. You MUST brand mainstream conservative thinking as racist in ways that allow you to sound plausible, and do not tip your hand so blatantly.

Please contact your local ACORN office for seminars on how to do this more effectively before posting any further comments. And for God’s sake, keep that brown-shirt we gave you in the closet for now. It’s time will come, but that time is not now.

For Peace and Socialism!

The Watchers

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:23 am 22. RLS:

If Chavez or the Castros intervene militarily in Honduras, how would the Obama regime react?

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:26 am 23. Sean:

My last comment on this matter…

Try looking at Obama’s moves as purely political. When you do, there’s little ideological maneuvering at stake at all.

Obama saw little to be gained siding with one group of anti-American, pro-Islamist, terrorist supporting Iranians over another, where the elected government would have little impact on policy either way. To be honest, I don’t know why any American cared.

Neither side was going to stop supporting the various terrorist groups in the region.

Neither side would stop funding, training and equipping IED teams in Iraq targeting U.S. soldiers and now Iraqi Security Forces.

What’s more, we can’t do jack about it. So why put your mouth where you have no intention of putting your money? Politically, there was far more to lose by getting into a showdown with the Mullahs. And that was what the Mullahs were hoping for.

Honduras is far trickier, and while I definitely believe Obama is in the wrong on that one ideologically and legally, politically (with no thoughts of ideals or scruples) it’s a no-brainer. The world press has run with the “army coup” angle, as opposed to the truer “Presidential overreach of power and legally removed” angle. Far sexier that way, to have a coup. So as a wholly policial animal, Obama goes where the political risk is least: supporting a coup probably wouldn’t test well in focus groups.

Obama has no real principles. He is wholly political. If you look at his moves from that perspective, all falls into place.

It may be abhorrent to involved, right-thinking people, but that’s what we have elections for.

Unfortunately for us, most Americans are not involved, right-thinking people. They’re more concerned with who was actually Michael Jackson’s baby-daddy than any of this.

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:30 am 24. Much More To Be Said About Honduras « Tai-Chi Policy:

[...] mistake most on the left seem to make that puts them in the company of all sorts of dubious types; Obama honestly seems to be pro-fascist, even including the more militant connotations of the word. If he wasn’t, he would have [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:20 am 25. dan:

I agree with Sean’s first comment concerning the ideological character of Obama’s sympathies and disagree with his second comment concerning the supposedly ideological neutrality of that character.

In point of historical fact, the orthodox – if you will – expression of Marxism-Leninism is pure political opportunism. The great curiosity is whether its adherents understand this – that is, that they are profoundly cynical – or merely express it – that is, that they believer they are idealistic but are in fact profoundly morally stupid. It is hard to determine which is the case, although the former seems to win out in the end in my opinion.

But to return to the first point, it is true that “fascism” connotes in the contemporary popular imagination a strong nationalist motivation, but it is unfortunately lost – not least due to Stalinist and generally Soviet manipulation – that the impulse is equally instinct with Marxism-Leninism: it just so happens that in post-World War 1 Italy, Germany and various central and eastern European states the maximum political opportunity lay in a strong emphasis on national (cultural) cohesion rather than transnationalist revolution. Just look at Goebbels’ or George Strasser’s or Mussolini’s speeches, for example.

All of this is enabled, on an ideological level, by the fact that Marxism-Leninism devoted only a tiny fraction of their discourse to what life would be like after the Revolution.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:21 am 26. matt:

I commented on the same in my blog(LUN). The situation in Honduras is much more complex. The president attempted to extralegally hold a constitutional constitution referendum which was opposed by the Senate and Supreme Court of Honduras. Last week, the Senate was attempting to begin impeachment proceedings when the crisis blew up and a standoff between the president and army resulted. The president was escorted to Costa Rica, and the president of the Senate was elevated to the presidency to fill out the remainder of the term. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court. This was not an everyday coup as is being maintained by the MSM and our government. Instead, Obama has allied himself with Castro and Chavez rather than democratic principles.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:23 am 27. marlowe:

I have a hypothesis. Obama lost points for his slow response in Iran and decided to respond more quickly on Honduras. He simply didn’t understand the situation in Hondoras. It sounded like a coup, and that was sufficient for him to prove he would show outrage quickly when conditions called for it. Circumstances then proved him wrong.

His positions only seem inconsistent. He was wrong in both cases. That’s his constant.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:26 am 28. Korla Pundit:

I think Honduras is about to be invaded, with disastrous results for South American, and thus for us as well. All our allies around the world are very nervous right now, as Obama has made it clear that he is very happy to leave them open to the wolves.

Communists, fascists, islamists, and tyrants of all stripes have finally found the “weak horse” they’ve been waiting 30 years for.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:35 am 29. Owat Agoosiam:

For those of you who think that the Honduran Constitution supports the forcible detention and rendition of a President accused of a crime, I suggest you read the document.
Despite what the President is accused of, they are only accusations. Staging a coup based on unproven accusations cannot be considered legal by any democratic country.
The fact that several leaders of non-democratic countries agree that it is illegal should not change our opinion in the matter.
Without a trial we wil never know if Zelaya is guilty of anything. We will know that his sucessor illegally took power and should be shunned until Honduras freely elects a new President.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:37 am 30. David Thomson:

“Obama has no real principles. He is wholly political.”

Not quite accurate. Barack Obama closely watches the polls—and often behaves accordingly. But he still is a hard core, non-violent leftist. Obama is a convinced Progressive and that is simply another way of describing him as a benevolent dictator. He also perceives white people to be the enemy of all that is good.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:38 am 31. Wellspring:

@Sean,

Point well taken on the “fascist” issue. It’s easy when you get hit with cheap shots for years to take ‘em when the opportunity arises.

As for viewing foreign policy decisions purely in terms of their impact on domestic politics, I think there’s a lot to it. I think it was true in the Clinton years and it’s probably still true today. What I don’t think is as calculative is the left-wing in general– not the movers and shakers, but the conversations at the coffee shops and juice bars. For whatever reason, they instinctively push the policies that are most against US self-interest– and that’s NOT driven by political calculation.

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:39 am 32. RJ:

Obama as a wholly political animal? What a nice fantasy, I wish it was true. We elected somebody fitting that description 17 years ago, and ideologically speaking, he wasn’t much like the current guy in office.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:07 am 33. Xanthippas:

Shorter Simon:

“We don’t like Ahmadinejad so Iranian democracy good. We don’t like Zelaya so Honduran democracy bad.”

What’s it like to lack principles?

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:13 am 34. jr565:

Owat wrote:

Despite what the President is accused of, they are only accusations. Staging a coup based on unproven accusations cannot be considered legal by any democratic country.
The fact that several leaders of non-democratic countries agree that it is illegal should not change our opinion in the matter.
Without a trial we wil never know if Zelaya is guilty of anything. We will know that his sucessor illegally took power and should be shunned until Honduras freely elects a new President.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. It was the president who tried to pull a Chavez and make himself president for life, which was against the constitution of Honduras.He, according to the constitution was facing term limits so wouldn’t have been able to run again by law.

He tried to call an illegal election, and the Honduran Supreme Court said only congress could schedule the election. He then ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. The head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the Supreme Court refused and he was promptly fired by the president who then led a mob to break into the military base where the ballots were stored.

The coup or the lawless action was held by the president who tried to circumnaviage the law and it was the Honduran army and supreme court (and nearly all politicians of all parties) who upheld the law. Get your facts straight. The interim president didn’t take power ILLEGALLY. He’s serving in an interim capacity until legal elections are held.

The coup was by the president not by the military nor the supreme court, who were upholding the law from a would be despot trying to seize control.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:20 am 35. richard:

shorter Xanthippas:

“i have the reading comprehension of a cockatoo so i’ll just spout meaningless drivel outta my craw-hole…”

what’s it like to be intellectually incapacitated?

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:28 am 36. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Again: Chávez Shouldn’t be the Focus:

[...] Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media: Iran, Honduras: Is Obama “objectively pro-fascist”? I don’t know much about Honduras, but I do know something about Iran. And Obama’s bizarre [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:30 am 37. Korla Pundit:

Despite what the President is accused of, they are only accusations. Staging a coup based on unproven accusations cannot be considered legal by any democratic country.

Wrong and wrong again. El Presidente was going ahead with an illegal and unconstitional and flat-out fixed referendum to become permanent dictator. He was an immediate threat to the freedom and sovereignty of Honduras.

Of course it was the military that had to carry out the orders of the Supreme Court and the Congress, just as they would have to in this country. Who do you think would enforce an impeachment? The Boy Scouts?

They had to act immediately, as they know that even now, with the crook tossed out of the country, that the wolves are at the door. They will be invaded very soon by hostile thug regimes, and the United States with its current corrupt coward President, is going to let them massacre the people of Honduras.

This is going to be a bloodbath that will be a big red stain on the nation’s honor for centuries, if indeed it comes to pass.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:56 am 38. Owat Agoosiam:

to jr565:
The President was trying to get a referendum on whether the Honduran people wanted to change term limits. It was not a referendum to change the limits.
As for the head of the armed forces, he answers to the legislature or the President, not the Court. His failure to follow the orders of the President required his dismissal.
However, despite all of the arguments for and against; the President was not legally removed from office. Therefore the interim President cannot legitimatley hold power.
We support the rule of law or we don’t. We honor our principles, or we disregard them at will.
Zelaya was becoming less and less of a friend to America, but he was the lawfully elected leader of Honduras. If we follow the rule of law and our principles, we have no choice but to call for his reinstatement.
Failing his reinstatement, we have no choice but to shun Honduras until a new leader is elected by the people.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:09 am 39. Sophomore:

It’s hopeless, but I’ll try. In short, Godwin’s law is still good and people who want to talk about “liberal fascism” need to remember that.

Go to any description of fascism that wasn’t written for present-day political purposes – by anyone who studies fascism as a historian or political scientist – and see what they identify as its core tenets.

It is profoundly hostile to the rights of criminal defendants or anything resembling the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments. In foreign policy it has been nationalist, expansionist, and glorified both war and warriors. Its worldview is one of social darwinism, in which history is a battle of races, and the strong as a matter of both right and necessity overpower the weak. It stands firmly opposed to the idea of class conflict in favor of harmony rooted in a shared national identity (blood and soil) and historical origins.

Mostly, it was a reaction to the profound dislocations of the 1920s and 1930s. Can you cherry pick liberal (or conservative) policies and analogize them to things fascists did or thought? Of course you can. But you need to retain a sense of proportion and not conveniently omit the huge discontinuities between current practice and fascism.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:19 am 40. Ilovemycountry:

An amazinge website – this place combines all of the dumbest white men in America how come you guys aren’t out driving around naked?

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:23 am 41. Korla Pundit:

The President was trying to get a referendum on whether the Honduran people wanted to change term limits. It was not a referendum to change the limits.

Baloney. Very thin baloney. Not even Boar’s Head.

Who’s paying your salary, propagandist?

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:42 am 42. Korla Pundit:

It’s hopeless, but I’ll try. In short, Godwin’s law is still good and people who want to talk about “liberal fascism” need to remember that.

Let’s not get distracted by people going to Webster’s for their higher authority. You can call it whatever the heck you want. Call it grondism or kractism or any other phrase you wish to coin. I think fascist fits very well, despite your Copy Editor-like reflexes.

But when a government abuses its authority to shut down criticism, criminalize opposition, corrupt the election process, and send out goon squads and government agencies to harrass ordinary citizens who dare to defy their strong-arm tactics, not to mention supporting other tyrants throughout the world at the expense of weaker, peaceful, freedom-loving peoples, let’s just call them what they are.

Tyrants. It’s a good word, that has fallen into disfavor. But it needs a comeback.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:56 am 43. jim:

there is something going on but i’m not sure what it is. there can no longer be any doubt that obama is a tool, but of who i am not sure. he sure is a bit of a dolt without the tele-prompter, which leads me to believe that he has no opinion on anything until someone tells him what he should say. this i do know, he ain’t good for america.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:59 am 44. David Thomson:

“It’s hopeless, but I’ll try. In short, Godwin’s law is still good and people who want to talk about “liberal fascism” need to remember that.”

Godwin’s law tends to be often interpreted in an overly simplistic manner. There are time when the term fascism is thrown around in a abusive and irrational manner. It is merely a way to bludgeon your opponent into remaining quiet. But that’s not what Jonah Goldberg and others are doing when describing Progressivism as a fascist philosophy. They can substantiate their arguments with overwhelming evidence.

Jul 1, 2009 - 11:06 am 45. Bob:

The most surprising thing about this is that anyone is surprised at the One’s actions. As soon as I heard what had happened in Honduras, I knew Obama would side with Zelaya.

It’s of a piece with his oh-so-slow condemnation of Ahmadinejihad’s crackdown in Iran…he didn’t want to issue the condemnation; but was undoubtedly pushed into it to maintain appearances. He is being totally consistent if you look beyond the text of his statements.

Call him a Fascist, a Marxist, a Klingon or whatever. He’s against democracy, has no respect for the rule of law, hates whites, hates white prosperity, and hates white culture. Time to stop being delicate about it, ditch the white guilt and admit: We’ve got a problem here.

Jul 1, 2009 - 11:46 am 46. Swamp Rabbit:

Well duh.

OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the terrorist/Uighur/media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-

Jul 1, 2009 - 11:48 am 47. Veeshir:

I read this sentiment (not exact quote) in Althouse’s comment section.

The situations in Iran and Honduras and Obama’s responses have had a sorting effect. They’re separating the liberals from the lefties.

Possibly finishing the sorting that started long ago.

Jul 1, 2009 - 11:56 am 48. DavidN:

Obama’s reaction, and the international one in general, has been very odd in this matter. The Honduran President tried to change the rules, so he could run for reelection. Semantics regarding the wording of the referendum don’t carry any water with me: the object was to change the constitution so he could stay in office past when he was supposed to leave. The problem I have with Obama’s parrotting international opinion here is that the United States is supposed to be the *leader* of the Free World, not a follower. A second problem is more profound: just because a bunch of 3rd world dictators and 1st world wannabes think the “coup” illegal, doesn’t make it so. If you look on Wikipedia there’s a list of countries which have denounced what happened in Honduras. A number of their leaders probably fear their own replacement under similar circumstances, because they haven’t stocked their Swiss bank accounts fully enough yet. We’re going to agree with Hugo Chavez on this one, on the grounds it’ll make us more popular?

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:00 pm 49. david foster:

Sean…re fascism: Marxism is a bastard child of the Enlightenment, whereas Fascism is at base counter-Englightenment.

Present-day “progressivism,” with its hippie legacy, does encompass a considerable amount of anti-Enlightenment thinking.

Jul 1, 2009 - 1:23 pm 50. EdSki:

I don’t think I would classify the president as pro-fascist. In my opinion its more of a pro-status quo. The world stage is already set, as ugly and imperfect as it is. He views it like a chess game, which is played by very strict rules. In order to win that game, he must master the rules. Little things like revolutions for freedom break those rules, so they upset his master game plan.

And when it comes to chess, there’s a reason a pawn is called a pawn. There’s a lot of them, they have little power, and they are easily expendable when setting up the master moves for check mate.

I believe President Obama sees most people in the world as pawns. Why bother worrying about the pawns in Iran when it could endanger his move to challenge the king? Why worry about the pawns Honduras when it could jeopardize his plans for the rooks and bishops of Latin America, Chavez, Castro, and the rest?

But in the end, his plan to win, I believe is just that, his plan for HIM to WIN.

I’m also pretty sure that all the people worshiping the President should be extremely careful. Because in the end, to Obama, they are pawns too. Currently useful, but still expendable.

Jul 1, 2009 - 2:09 pm 51. Korla Pundit:

Little things like revolutions for freedom break those rules, so they upset his master game plan.

A nuclear war would upset such plans even more drastically, starting with his ouster.

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:04 pm 52. Sophomore:

OK, David Thompson and those who would defend Jonah Goldberg, I’ll play.

The ACLU is a liberal organization, is it not? Over the past few years, they’ve been busily suing the President (first Bush, now Obama) to impose limits on his detention and wiretapping authority, and to force him to disclose confidential records. This is fascist?

Or how about a few other prototypically liberal groups: criminal defense attorneys, who seek to expand the scope of the 4th and 5th Amendments – limiting police searches and the right to detain or question suspects. Or trial lawyers, who sue large corporations? You may argue they’re misguided or greedy (and sometimes they surely are) but in no meaningful way are they trying to further state control over the individual or subordinate private interests to those of the state.

Let’s keep going. Roe v. Wade may be wrongly decided, even evil, but it’s not “fascist.” It *prevents* the government from restricting private behavior, allowing individuals do what they wish. A more clearheaded kind of conservatism used to criticize because it authorized wholly selfish behavior.

The examples could be multiplied endlessly. Goldberg’s serious “work” is really just a kind of game – see if you can find any analogy to fascism and run with it.

And it’s no answer to say liberalism is about “social control.” People have wanted other people to behave differently or the way they want since the beginning of time. They’ve used public power to compel obedience very, very often. You’ll find it in monarchies, in theocracies, in communist governments and, yes, in liberal democracies. What matters is the scope of social control, the scope and strength of guarantees for individual rights, and the kinds of projects government has in mind.

People like Goldberg like to throw around the word “fascism” because it comes with an emotional and political charge. Everyone hates fascism. No kidding. But Haight-Ashbury isn’t much like Bavaria in the 1930s.

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:05 pm 53. Jack’s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Spengler: Obama creates a deadly power vacuum (3):

[...] 4:01 pm EDT, July 1st, 2009 — Simon: Iran, Honduras -

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:07 pm 54. Inside the Asylum :: Objectively Pro-Fascist :: July :: 2009:

[...] by booting a president who was angling to be president-for-life. Which has some people, or at least Roger Simon, wondering if Obama is objectively [...]

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:48 pm 55. Terrye:

Sophomore:

If Obama does not want people to throw around the word fascist, maybe he should think about the people he defends and does not defend.

I am not even talking about Goldberg here. I am talking about an American president who apparently can not stand up for liberty and the rule of law. I think Obama sees himself as the antiBush. Would Bush support the demonstrators and refuse to recognize the regime that stole the election? Yes…hence Obama has to do the opposite. Would Bush tell the president of Honduras that he can not do an end run around the other branches of government in that country and try to have himself named President for life like his good buddy Chavez? Well yes…so Obama has to side with Zelaya.

Knee jerk, narcissistic little liberal who is a lot more comfortable with the thugs than he is with their victims. That is what Obama is.

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:35 pm 56. qrstuv:

Sophomore, you’re going to have to work a lot harder at it than that.

For one thing, you characterize Goldberg as “throwing the word (fascist) around.” This is either uninformed or dishonest. His book documents the rise of an ideology and its continuance, in a straight line, to the present day. A few things have dropped off (genocide and nationalism) but the core remains. If you want to convince anyone but your fellow travelers, point to the break in ideology. Show us where the Progressives have a substantially different outlook than they did in the thirties.

In the old joke, apart from killing all the Jews and invading Poland, what part of the National Socialist party platform do you disagree with?

Jul 1, 2009 - 8:27 pm 57. red:

Sophmore’s analysis is worthy of a Freshman. His arguement that the ACLU (left-wing) opposes Obama disproves itself since if Obama were a Fascist then he would naturally be opposed by a left wing organization.

To test the ideological classification let’s set aside the Honduran situation which has Obama siding with communist tyrant Castro, communist thug Chavez, and islamo-cultist Ahminutjob. My conclusion from his joining this charming trio is that Obama does not love Freedom. It sickens me.

Instead lets look at domestic areas where Obama has fit more closely the fascist label. The distinguishing element I look for in fascist vs. communist is that communists or international socialists expect the State to own the means of production. Fascists, or ‘national-socialists’ expect the state to control the means of productoin via the coercive power of state regulation.

Lets look at Hitler’s legacy in the German automotive industry….

Hitler met with automotive designer Ferdinand Porsche in 1933 and charged Porsche with creating the new car. The chancellor required that the Volkswagen carry two adults and three children, go up to 60 miles per hour, get at least 33 miles per gallon, and cost only 1,000 reichsmarks. Hitler may also have named the car the Beetle.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050308.html

And Obama’s clear approach…

President Barack Obama, in his zeal to remake the world, has demonstrated how governments can work at cross purposes with itself. Obama has signed executive orders imposing strict emissions and mileage standards on the automobile companies.

By imposing regulations on the automobile companies, the Obama administration has not only complicated the problem of saving those companies from bankruptcy, but also has imposed a stealth tax on consumers. The regulations will increase the cost of automobiles manufactured for the American market.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1423852/obama_imposes_energy_and_environmental.html?cat=9

And let us also remember, firing the CEO of General Motors, coercing bond-holders to accept lower shares of the company, spreading the wealth to the UAW. … and for good measure, coercing major banks to accept TARP funds so that the salaries of executives can be controlled.

As the late Billy Mays would say… But there’s more!!!

Der Fuehrer had an important and shadowy political force..

Brownshirt Member of an early Nazi paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung or SA (‘assault division’). The Brownshirts, recruited from various rough elements of society, were founded by Adolf HITLER in Munich in 1921. Fitted out in brown uniforms reminiscent of Mussolini’s BLACKSHIRTS, they figured prominently in organized marches and rallies. Their violent intimidation of political opponents and of Jews played a key role in Hitler’s rise to power.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-Brownshirt.html

and

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were “old friends,” says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MA==

And if you are not feeling paranoid yet, don’t forget that according to Obamma….

In a July 2 speech outlining plans to expand opportunities for people to serve in areas such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, Obama makes the following statement with no explanation or amplification.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2008/07/16/what-in-the-world-is-obamas-civilian-national-security-force/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Doesn’t feel like a Freedom loving classical liberal to me.

Hayek and Goldberg get it right. Its not the color of the shirts, or whether companies are nationalized or just regulated to death. Both start camps, the fascists call them concentration camps the communists call them work camps or reeducation camps. They both produce death in prodigious quantities.

Its whether a leader respects the Freedom of his fellow citizens and values the blessings of Freedom. Fascist, Communist as was said above their just different flavors of tyrants and thugs.

God Bless America and keep her free.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:15 pm 58. Chris:

I do know quite a bit about Honduras, having lived there for two years. Many of my friends in Honduras were happier than Michael Moore at an all you can eat buffet, when Zelaya was exiled from the country. They are now all perplexed and in some cases frighten at the overwhelming support for their the Chavez wannabe, they just booted out of the country. If Obama allows Zelaya to return to power and he is successful and turning Honduras into a Chavez colony, then his name will spoken of on the level of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd (look him up). Obama will become a synonym for selling out your principles and values in order to avoid someone not liking you. I sure hope Obama finds his cajones soon!

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:19 pm 59. MikeD:

Sophomore is in way over his head in taking on Goldberg. Jonah eats minor intellects alive for breakfast and Sophomore isn’t quite a bowl of Cheerios.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:58 pm 60. Lefty:

Roger, you need to remove the vile post at #4.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:10 pm 61. mmb:

Write your representative to oppose H. J. Res. 5.

1/6/2009–Introduced.
Constitutional Amendment – Repeals the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President).

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:57 pm 62. hermie:

Chris: Selling out principles won’t matter to anyone except Obama’s victims. Chris Matthews (D-GE) will just get another thrill up his leg.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:12 am 63. qrstuv:

And Lefty @60 demonstrates the left’s intolerance for speech–another hallmark of fascism.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:28 am 64. FrancisT:

oddly enough Obama does criticise some would be dictators who try and cling on to power see http://www.di2.nu/200907/02.htm

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:36 am 65. Professor Guvinoff:

I see in this comment thread is a remarkably rich collection of elaborate theories trying to explain Obama’s attitudes and actions. My impression is that a more pragmatic approach could be more useful.

What are the facts, whether we can explain them or not?

In just about every instance, nomination of Sotomayor, prevarication about the iranian “election”, absurd pronouncement about the Hondura affair, a vast array of promises no one could possibly fulfill, letting the congress loose on expenses that could hardly be explained, even if the text of the bill had been read before the vote, trying to explain that the universal health coverage policy is a money saving measure, etc…

He always says the thing that will make him look good, or at the minimum will try anything to avoid saying the thing that will make him look bad.

Do we really need to discuss the ditinction between “objectively facist” and “subjectively fascist” to recognize the abyss between a man of reason and principle from a dangerous opportunist?

When you try so hard to explain something and you have so little to show for the effort, can you say that evil is not the answer? The other option is to rationalize ad infinitum.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:45 am 66. Ted:

Let me get this straight: When Republicans win – it’s a mandate from the people. When Democrats win – we need to take back the country.

Jul 2, 2009 - 1:56 pm 67. Cirumstance the Movie:

Please Take 30 Seconds to Vote for a Film About Iranian Youth

Millions of young Iranians are marching in the streets demanding their rights. Our film, CIRCUMSTANCE, is about the struggles and triumphs of Iran’s youth. Support Iran’s Amazing Youth, Get their stories told.

Iran’s Votes were ignored. Make yours count. Vote for CIRCUMSTANCE!

Please click on the director’s name, MARYAM KESHAVARZ/ CIRCUMSTANCE, and click five stars. The link is http://www.netflixfindyourvoice.com/. And they won’t use your email for evil. The clip is a sample of my work from a short I directed that won the Jury Prize at Berlin. Spread the word . . . Deadline July 4th . . . Thank you!

******

It’s so easy, all you have to do is vote! The film I wrote and am directing, Circumstance, already won a major screenwriting award at Sundance and will be premiering there once completed. And now, out of 2000 screenplays, we are one of 10 finalists for a big Netflix award; the judges included Josh Brolin, Dustin Lance Black and John Sayles. But weNEED YOUR VOTE to get to the next round. Click on the director’s name, MARYAM KESHAVARZ/ CIRCUMSTANCE, and click five stars. The link below will get you there. Please spread the word in a personal email to your friends and family.

http://www.netflixfindyourvoice.com/

And enter your email address. (they won’t use your email for evil, its only to verify that per computer, one email address can vote). THANK YOU!!!
For more info see below.

CIRCUMSTANCE

✰ ✰ ✰ WINNER BERLIN INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL ✰ ✰ ✰

✰ ✰ ✰ WINNER OF THE INAUGURAL ADRIENNE SHELLEY FILMMAKERS GRANT AT THE SUNDANCE INSTITUTE ✰ ✰ ✰

✰ ✰ ✰ Out of 2000 Screenplays, We Are One of 10 Semifinalists in the NETFLIX FIND YOUR VOICE COMPETITION ✰ ✰ ✰
We were judged by JOSH BROLIN, DUSTIN LANCE BLACK, JOHN SAYLES

Synopsis

Set in contemporary Tehran, three childhood friends grapple with sexuality, love, and friendship during a tumultuous adolescence. Pushing against the boundaries of theier repressive environment, Atafeh and Kathryn join a quixotic underground scene of illegal parties where Tehran’s youth create contraband films and hip-hop music. Like teenagers everywhere, they live an intoxicating and idealistic life, where anything, including freedom, is possible. However, when Atafeh’s brother reappears after a long absence and falls in love with Kathryn his desperate actions to win her over not only threaten their friendships but ultimately redirects the course of their lives.

Director

Drawing on her experience growing up between Iran and the United States, award-winning filmmaker Maryam Keshavarz directed her first documentary, The Color of Love, an intimate intergeneration portrait of the changing landscape of love and politics in Iran. Turning from documentary to fiction, Maryam wrote and directed the short film The Day I Died, about an adolsesent love triangle set in a sleepy Argentine seaside town, which won the Golden Teddy and Jury Prize at the Berlin Film Festival. Developed at the FIND and Sundance Filmkakers Lab, Circumstance, Maryam’s upcoming feature film, combines the thematic interest of Color of Love and The Day I Died while delving further into how social and political repression affects the already delicate nature by which young people discover and express their budding sexuality.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:15 pm 68. davidingeorgia:

objectively pro-fascist? how about “openly, enthusiastically pro-fascist”? that would have been a more accurate characterization…

Obama is a dictator wannabe himself (or are people STILL not listening to anything he says?)…he – and his hand-picked minions – think that they are so much smarter than the rest of America, they should get to make ALL our decisions for us…what the heck else do you think defines a fascist? it’s the mindset of the entire inside-the-Beltway crowd for that matter…the modern version of the “Divine Right” of kings to govern the unwashed masses as they wished…

and, with the majorities his party has in both houses of Congress, and considering the pathetic train wreck of an opposition party that the Republicans have turned into, added to the current apathy and ignorance of the American public (ever so much more interested in the death of a singing child molester than they are about the country going to hell in a handbasket at 90 mph don’t ya know) he may just manage to turn himself into “President for Life” too…I do know that he’d love to if the rest of us let him get away with it…

and, right now, my money is on us getting El Presidente For Life Barack Hussein Obama…I don’t see a bloody thing – short of an act of God – to stop it.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:20 am 69. Jose Davis:

What the wretched “world community”, pomping itself with humanitarian nonsense and tyrannic idiocy, is doing
is giving Honduras the hemlock and shoving it down the Honduran People’s throat.

Honduras: The last country free from the Chavez Axis of Socialist despotism.
Supporting the ideals of freedom propogated by the United States and the demands of Democracy,
has found itself betrayed by that very nation and it’s amateurish President.

IT IS NOT A COUP!!!

Isn’t it wonderful how the world, including the Democratic run U.S. government, is going to let people starve for the sake
of an illusion of “democracy” orchestrated by Socialist Despotism?

It’s sickening. And I must sadly admit, that although I love the United States with all my heart
and even joined the military to defend such a great nation,
for a fraction of a second
I was ashamed to be an American.

The Honduran people are showing a perseverance and a will that makes even the greatest of nations tremble.
For the sake of freedom from tyranny, Honduras is frowned upon by the rest of the ignorant world who refuses to view the situation in context.
How utterly disgusting.

Jul 3, 2009 - 6:19 pm 70. JORGE:

Yes, it is a coup; just imagen if the United states congress would exiled bush because he was not fitted to be president after craziness lead us the war in Iraq.
What is more Democrative for the people to change the constitution or by some people that work in the goverment thta only seek their well being.

Jul 4, 2009 - 12:19 pm 71. MsRWing:

Maybe the reason Obama condemned the coup of Honduras’ president with immediacy, is that Congressman Serrano has submitted legislation, even before Obama took office, to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, which limits the terms of a president. Obama will swear to his last lying breath he knows nothing about this.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h.j.res.5:
Check out this website: http://www.end22.com/ It is enough to make your stomach turn.

Jul 4, 2009 - 11:57 pm 72. BizzyBlog » Tech’s Repressive Dark Side Threatens Us All:

[...] President Barack Obama, assuming he even cares, is among those swept up in the absurd notion that solely with the help of technology, oppressed [...]

Jul 5, 2009 - 6:42 am 73. Perspective:

No, Jorge, it isn’t a coup. Look up the word definition. Coup is when an ILLEGITIMATE small group of people takes over a legitimate government.

This was the legitimate Congress, and Supreme Court, telling the President that what he wanted to do was UNCONSTITUTIONAL..and he was going to do it anyway. So, they peacefully and gently brought him out of the country to prevent him from destroying the Constitution and starting massive riots in the process.

The legitimately elected Congress then elected the “next in line” of the SAME PARTY to be President.

This is how democracies work. They are supposed to follow their Constitution and their law, and their leaders are sworn to uphold all of the above.

It was not about not being “fit to be President” We have one of those now in our office, but that is not grounds for kicking someone out. It is called DEMOCRACY, and people get the government they deserve. It was about a guy grabbing power away from the people’s CONSTITUTION.

Jul 5, 2009 - 11:43 am 74. Colin Powell Turns Against Obama Agenda « Start Thinking Right:

[...] is right to ask – given the Obama position on the two countries – if Obama is “objectively pro-fascist.”

Jul 6, 2009 - 12:37 pm 75. Objectively Stupid « Locust blog:

[...] about a situation in which there were actual fascists involved. Roger Simon, on the other hand, is complaining about Obama’s differing responses to the Iranian election and the Honduran coup/deposition and [...]

Jul 7, 2009 - 11:28 am 76. Angela:

So, having read the entire thread post, and been quite… enlightened as to what could be found there, I’ve a couple of things to ask those who are still looking around this thread.

1) Obama is trying to suppress dissenting opinion. May I find some examples of this, please? I’ve yet to find any myself.

2) Obama is trying to reduce personal freedoms. I seem to remember a president before this one who did that. *cough*PatriotAct*cough* But then it was to be expected from the conservatives, despite flag waving from the left? There is also this matter of a couple United States Attorneys being dismissed for not helping a certain political party. Not naming any names now.

3) From my understanding, the the Honduran President tried to get legislation for an amendment that would extend his term. I see new Coup on his side either, seems to me that he was going through the proper channels and trying to do things, dare I say, in a democratic fashion. The Senate and Supreme Court raised a flag, and then had the army remove him from the country. Without trial, without a court. That sounds fairly fishy to me, if not to you all. Instead of the other powers that be trying to go through the same channels, and force the issue that way, they just took the military (illegally), since, by the Honduran President firing one of the generals (as stated in a previous post) he obviously has Executive Power that includes the military.

So, in light of this information, perhaps Obama is not being pro-fascist, but pro-law. It would seem to me that he is trying to show that he prefers the law of the country to be respected. I think this is a case of supporting the wrong man for the right reasons, rather than the wrong man for the wrong reasons.

Jul 7, 2009 - 5:28 pm 77. Korla Pundit:

From my understanding, the the Honduran President tried to get legislation for an amendment that would extend his term. I see new Coup on his side either, seems to me that he was going through the proper channels and trying to do things, dare I say, in a democratic fashion.

Well, you think Obama is not bound by the Constitution, so why should anybody expect you to support the Constitution of any foreign country either?

Jul 8, 2009 - 7:43 am 78. Angela:

I don’t recall stating that Obama was not bound by the constitution. Point of fact, I’ve yet to see any evidence that he is participating in unconstitutional acts.

Please, provide me with the evidence, give me facts here. Without it, words are rather meaningless.

Along with that, is there an article in the Honduran Constitution that expressly forbids trying to amend it?

Jul 8, 2009 - 3:15 pm 79. BizzyBlog:

[...] Roger Simon — “Iran, Honduras: Is Obama ‘objectively pro-fascist’?” Comments [...]

Aug 9, 2009 - 8:27 am 80. Eduardo:

As a born in Honduras and an American citizen, I am very upset about what Obama is doing in my homeland. He is supporting a wicked president and his allies (Chavez, Castro, etc.). Would you like to have a president who has ties with the traffic of drugs, wants to go to the left, wants to change the constitution so he is a president for life, spends your money in whatever he wants, etc? If you do you can have Zelaya (Honduras ousted president) for free. Guess not you have enough with Obama, good luck!

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:07 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: