Read an excerpt from Deneen Borelli's new book -- 'Blacklash'

By Deneen Borelli

Editor's note: FoxNews.com is pleased to present an excerpt from "Blacklash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation" the new book by Fox News contributor Deneen Borelli.

The Dangers of an Unhealthy Liberal Agenda

There has been a notable shift in our discussion about health care. We don’t talk about ways of using innovation and advanced technology to cut costs and improve the actual health of Americans. We don’t talk about free market approaches that would increase competition and cut costs. We don’t talk about malpractice reform that would reduce the volume of unnecessary tests that contribute to the unsustainable price tag of health care. Instead, we talk about the president’s plan—his backward vision that effectively keeps us under the government thumb, enslaving us to a cold and uncaring bureaucracy, while exploding the public debt.

ObamaCare isn’t about medicine for your children. It is not about improving the benefits you get at work. And it does not help prevent illness in order to limit health problems down the road. Rather, ObamaCare is about Obama’s overriding philosophy that decisions are better left to the government than with the individual and that the state is a better arbiter of how to allocate our health care dollars than the free market. Obama’s vision is one of a traditional liberal: to expand the entitlement state to cover health care coverage through an existing infrastructure. Once in control, however, Americans will be empowering bureaucrats to deny treatment and services, especially to the most vulnerable, in an effort to control costs.

The United States is an exceptional country—we are “a shining city upon a hill.” Americans are extremely compassionate and generous. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world, we are the first to jump into action, providing aid and our expertise. It doesn’t matter if it is on another continent or as close to home as New Orleans. We are there committed to helping people help themselves. We can do this because it’s part of our national character and because our free market economy has provided us with a degree of wealth that gives many of us disposable income that can be allocated to charity. Our economic strength has made us the single most powerful nation on earth.

But we are at a crossroads. Do we want to continue in this direction, or do we want to become a nation of people enslaved to our national debt, weakened by our country’s gross spending habits?

ObamaCare is also about spending money we don’t have and it will greatly contribute to our national debt. Sure, it has a nice ring to it—the government will be your health care backstop, ensuring that you and your kids will be safe and secure. The government will not be doing this. The government is going to be pouring money into unworkable, inefficient bureaucracies and in doing so, it will stake claim to the biggest entitlement expansion since the 1960s.

Make no mistake about it: The promises of ObamaCare are terribly misleading. Name just one government program that has delivered a cost-efficient and reliable service? The United States Postal Service? Amtrak? Compassion, caring, and fiscal efficiency are not characteristics of government enterprises—period. The care in ObamaCare is about Obama caring about a progressive legacy that will greatly expand government control over lives. Oh, yes, your care will suffer. If tragedy strikes and your child needs special medical treatment, how long will it take to get an appointment with a specialist—assuming there will be one to find?

By the time many of the adverse consequences of ObamaCare kick in, Obama won't be in office, but on the speaking circuit cashing in while the rest of us suffer.

Obama is an elite, and after his presidency he will never have to worry about money or not being able to buy the best health care for his family. Meanwhile, you will be struggling to figure out how to get quality medical services.

The liberal agenda is a double-edged sword. Sure, it always sounds nice. Clean and renewable energy from the wind and sun. Accessible, affordable, and quality health care for all regardless of your employment or health status.

It has a feel-good kind of ring to it. The government will always be there to take care of you. If times get tough: The government will pay for your health care. The government will protect your mortgage. The government will give you jobs, money, food, and housing. But the fact remains, the government can’t pay for this agenda. The liberal agenda is thick with sweeping generalizations and false promises of hope. The only consistency is its failure to deliver yet with such a dismal record. Too many Americans get lured into the progressive fantasy that through the grace of big government man can create heaven on earth.

Someone has to pay these ObamaCare bills. Sure, Obama will pay his personal share but he can afford it with his million-dollar-plus income. It is me, you, and our children and grandchildren who will pay. What we are paying today is only a down payment for the future cost of the program over the long term. Its cost will drain our economy, raise our taxes, and lower our standard of living and for all of that we will beg a bureaucracy for treatment.

That’s what I mean when I say Obama is ensuring we will always be slaves on the government plantation. We need to break these chains. We need to send those overseers packing. We need to become masters in our own homes and control our own destinies. We need to be responsible for buying our own health insurance and take responsibility for our lifestyle choices. And most of all, we need to recognize that the care in ObamaCare is an illusion, just like the rest of the progressive agenda.

The Pants-on-Fire President

Liar in Chief

By Steve McCann

This past Sunday, the Washington Post ran a lengthy front-page article on Obama's machinations during the debt ceiling debate last summer. Rush Limbaugh spent a considerable amount of his on-air time Monday discussing one of the highlights of the piece: Barack Obama deliberately lied to the American people concerning the intransigence of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The fact that a pillar of the sycophantic mainstream media would publish a story claiming that their hero lied is amazing.

The question becomes, is he a compulsive liar or a sociopath? By definition a sociopath is:

... typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused--it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

A compulsive liar:

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually developed in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.

I came to the United States as a survivor of the Second World War. I spent my early years alone on the streets of a totally destroyed city somewhere in central Europe. In order to survive I had to steal food where I could and lie to others to achieve that end. I spent a good part of my life, even after coming to America and being adopted, battling those inbred impulses. It was a never-ending struggle, with successes and failures, but I was able to finally defeat those demons.
What I say about Barack Obama I do not do lightly, but I say it anyway because I fear greatly for this country and can -- not only from personal experience, but also in my dealing with others -- recognize those failings in a person whose only interests are himself and his inbred radical ideology, which as its lynchpin desires to transform the country into a far more intrusive state by any means possible.
In the United States there is great deference paid to the occupant of the White House. Justifiably so, as that person is the chief operating officer of the country and, more importantly, the head of state, representing the nation around the globe. His actions and demeanor set the tone for not only the political class, but the country as a whole. Over the centuries there have many exceptional but also a few inept men to hold the office of president.
Today, so much power is vested in the office of president that honor and integrity must be hallmarks of a president's character. Unfortunately, they are not with Barack Obama -- he may well be the most dishonest and disingenuous occupant of the Oval Office in history, and he will do more damage to the nation than all his predecessors combined.
His failings can no longer be excused by this historical deference or timidity fostered by race with the euphemisms of spin, obfuscation, fabrication, or politics being used to avoid the truth. Obama is extremely adept at exploiting the celebrity culture that has overwhelmed this society, as well as the erosion of the education system that has created a generation or more of citizens unaware of their history, culture, and the historical ethical standards based on Judeo-Christian teaching.
While the future of the country depends on dramatically altering the economic and governing landscape, it cannot do so unless the opposition politicians and average citizens forcefully challenge and respond to the lies and machinations of Barack Obama and his allies without fear of what may be said about them or to them.
The reality is that to Barack Obama. lying, aka "spin," is normal behavior. There is not a speech or an off-the cuff comment since he entered the national stage that does not contain some falsehood or obfuscation. A speech on energy made last week and repeated on March 22 is reflective of this mindset. He is now attempting to portray himself as being in favor of drilling in order to increase oil production and approving pipeline construction, which stands in stark contrast to his stated and long-term position on energy and reiterated as recently as three weeks ago. This is a transparent and obvious ploy to once again fool the American people by essentially lying to them.
The performance by Barack Obama last August as referenced by the Washington Post was such an obvious and egregious falsehood that it could no longer be ignored. Yet there has been five years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call Mr. Obama what he is, in the bluntest of terms, a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation, those who oppose his radical agenda only adds to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by the sycophants around him; thus, he is who he is and cannot change.

Why Is Observing Obama as a Marxist Verboten?

By Bill Flax

The recent release of a tape by Andrew Breitbart's outfit sparked renewed interest in President Obama's murky past. In anticipation, conservatives were elated that the president might finally be exposed. The tape showed Obama, then at Harvard Law, orchestrating a protest on behalf of Derrick Bell.
Without providing any background on just how radical is Professor Bell, the compliant liberal media derisively dismissed it all as conservative paranoia, even proclaiming presidential vindication. It still appears preposterous to purport that America elected a communist ideologue. The world's greatest beneficiary of capitalist bounty would never willingly empower a radical socialist to "fundamentally transform America."
Unfortunately, we did, even if Americans loathe admitting it. And this ought to have been obvious even before Mr. Breitbart's valiant efforts.
Obama exploits the citizenry's concerted blindness, cloaking his views under veneers of "social justice," "fairness," and "progress." Unadulterated Marxism attracts few votes. In rare candor, sans teleprompter, Obama lectured Joe the Plumber that his prescription for widespread prosperity is "spreading the wealth around."
Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice." Obama's justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.
Still, most Americans would deny Obama's Marxist outlook, mistaking the term's meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao. Marxist theory informed many of history's most murderous tyrants, but Obama's brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge. He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.
Further confusion revolves around textbook definitions as production remains primarily private. We still exhibit generally free markets, although our economic liberty rapidly erodes. If socialism connotes complete public ownership of society's productive infrastructure, and capitalism represents purely private property with minimal state interference, then few examples of either exist.
Since the Iron Curtain rent itself, modern socialism generally entails central planning and control more than communalization. Socialist states dictate acceptable practices and uses of private resources, making outright ownership redundant -- although Obama did exploit the downturn to redistribute chunks of Chrysler and GM for the proletariat.
However, the Bill of Rights prevents Washington from arbitrarily confiscating private property without pretext. Obama's policies begin where we are in response to what is. He can do only so much ridding of capitalism, yet he acknowledges that, regarding healthcare, "[i]f I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system."
ObamaCare rolls downhill in that direction. In Obamanomics, government exists not to protect liberty, as the Founders believed, but as workers' vanguard protecting those otherwise vulnerable to "chaotic and unforgiving capitalism" -- which, Obama claims, "has never worked."
Every fiscal policy from sundry stimulus programs to tax credits is steeply progressive. Obama champions wealth-redistribution and punitively taxing the affluent, even as political reality prevents implementing his complete agenda. Still, spending relentlessly rises long after the recession's end, propelling government dependency to record heights. Meanwhile, regulatory impositions grow ever more invasive, further extending Leviathan's lurching grasp.
The administration's rhetorical assaults on business and repeated allusions to Republicans or the rich as "enemies" betray Marxist moorings. To Obama, profits represent not satisfied customers, but swindles; businesses are "greedy" until proven innocent. Acquittals come via campaign contributions or penance to progressive causes. Those who cooperate obtain ObamaCare waivers and lucrative public contracts; those who won't get vilification from the presidential bully pulpit.
But the Breitbart footage showing Obama supporting Derrick Bell's racialism highlights the precise hue of the president's Marxist perspectives. Professor Bell has been nicknamed the "Jeremiah Wright of the academic world." Bell's Critical Race Theory, the pinnacle of political correctness, applies Marxism to culture, as orthodox Marxism antagonized class differences.
Whereas Marx proffered that the pivotal hinge was economic, as explained here, cultural Marxism, aka political correctness, features other factors. It's still victims and villains, but the culprits extend beyond capitalists and bourgeois to whites, men, Christians, and other "privileged" parties. Western culture's prey are racial or religious minorities, women, and those behaving in ways previously considered anti-social.
Obama perceives society through lenses skewed by this modern version of Marxism. Obama's proposals inevitably leverage left-wing radicals or government organs to redistribute wealth, power, or caches of moral superiority under pretense of combating prejudice. Power shifts from private to public -- or from parties previously seen as oppressors to those whom progressives deem oppressed.
The racially charged efforts of Obama's Justice Department securing rights for minorities only are no anomaly. Dodd-Frank decrees further affirmative action in the financial industry. Our president sided with Mexico over Arizona regarding immigration. Obama's actions run so contrary to Western culture and Christian ideals that many surmise that he's secretly Muslim despite catering to homosexuals and feminists -- very un-Islamic constituencies.
The apologies, the appointments, the executive orders, the spending priorities -- all embody untrammeled political correctness. The consistent thread knitting this Marxist quilt is anti-traditional America, which, as the president haughtily scoffs, was founded by "men of property and wealth." Obama borrows from Marx, who thought government an instrument protecting the rich. Marx found faith, tradition, and patriotism impediments preventing the proletariat from recognizing their class interests.
Instead, as David Noebel explains in his indispensable Understanding the Times, Marxists developed an all-encompassing worldview of their own. Government is god, religion man's response to material deprivation. Karl called faith a palliative, "The opium of the people." When the political establishment provides sustenance, religion becomes irrelevant. Obama, blaming the economic failings of prior administrations, echoed that displaced workers "cling" to religion out of bitterness.
The presidential prescription: more government. Given Obama's past, why is this surprising?
Obama's maturation was influenced by Marxists throughout. Barack Sr. fashioned such screeds as Problems Facing Our Socialism advocating "communal ownership of major means of production." Obama spent high school in Hawaii under the tutelage of communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis, whom he declared a "decisive influence." In college, Obama dallied with Marxist professors and was described by classmate John Drew as an "ardent" "Marxist-Leninist."
His chosen place of worship was Jeremiah Wright's church, which extols blackness first and Christianity second. Wright, Obama's "spiritual mentor," preached Black Liberation Theology, espousing doctrines more Marxist than Christian. Wright gleefully ousted "bourgeois Negroes" from his pews in disdain for their "middleclassness," yet he embraced the Nation of Islam.
Perhaps Obama doesn't also scorn white Christians as "counterfeit" or believe that Jesus was a black socialist. He joined Trinity -- and resigned -- when doing so was politically expedient. His convictions are uncertain. But he was married and his children were baptized there; he even asserted Wright as "like family to me." The Audacity of Hope was named for Wright's sermon, from which Obama quoted favorably this gem in Dreams: "White folks' greed runs a world in need."
Obama's initial forays into politics were similarly infused with Marxism. As a community organizer, he partnered with proud communist terrorists like Bill Ayers, working alongside ACORN and other radicals. ACORN was founded by Wade Rathke, like Ayers an alumnus of the communist-sympathizing Students for Democratic Society.
As Jack Cashill explored convincingly in Deconstructing Obama and as and fawning biographer Christopher Anderson confirmed in Barack and Michelle, Ayers likely ghostwrote Dreams from My Father. Literary fraud is troubling; that our president's philosophy closely resembles a militant Marxist is tragic.
As commentator Selwyn Duke challenges, is there any indication that Obama ever renounced these long-held beliefs? During his abridged stint as senator, Obama rated farther left than even self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. His administration's every endeavor foments cultural, economic, or political formulas of Marxist bent.
Why is observing this verboten?

Republicans: Black America's True Friend

By Lloyd Marcus

Black pundits say that to be black and Republican makes one a despicable race-traitor worthy of no-holds-barred punishment. As a black conservative Republican, I'm not frightened by this; it just angers and frustrates me.
My frustration comes from the knowledge that those claiming to have black America's empowerment and best interest at heart are the "elephant in the room" problem. They lie to black America. Who are "they"? They are Democrats committed to keeping blacks viewing themselves as victims. They are racist, bitter black politicians with huge chips on their shoulders, seeking eternal "payback" for America's original sin of slavery. These black politicians are rewarded by the Democrats for delivering black votes.
So there you have it, black America: these are your so-called advocates. And how do they help you? They lie to you. They tell you that 70% of black youths dropping out of high school is not your fault. They tell you that prisons filled with black males is not their fault. They tell you that 80% of black kids growing up without a father is not your fault. They tell you that black genocide -- half of black pregnancies ending in abortion -- is not your fault.
They tell you that English is too difficult to learn and that standards must be lowered. They tell you that blacks who speak correct English are traitors trying to be white. They tell you that despite the fact that showing proper ID is required to board an airplane and a gazillion other things, requiring ID to vote will disenfranchise blacks. Thus, their message is that blacks are too stupid to acquire ID.
When I was growing up in the black ghetto of east Baltimore, several corners had grocery stores owned by Jews. Later the Jews were replaced by Asians. Huge families lived upstairs, and their stores were downstairs.
The community resented Jewish and Asian store owners in black neighborhoods. I always thought, "Why?" These people did not receive a start-up check from the government. They took a risk. They rented in the black ghetto because it was cheaper. They worked long hours. Experience taught them to install a wall of bulletproof glass, separating them from their customers. Fourteen, fifteen family members lived above their businesses. These Jewish and Asian people were pursuing the American Dream the best way they knew how. What was stopping their black customers from doing the same thing? Answer: in many cases, blacks were relying on Democrat welfare programs.
I hear you -- Democrat brainwashed fellow blacks yelling at me: Lloyd, you Uncle Tom SOB! America is racist, and blacks did not have a fair shot in those days!
Yes, racism was an issue is those days. But how do you explain the entrepreneurial success of black millionaires in Harlem in the 1920s?
Blacks have been congressmen and business owners in America since the 1800s. And yet, Democrats continue to tell us that we are incapable of finding our way to acquire an ID.
Democrats and bitter, small-minded blacks insist on forcing blacks into their "black box." They say authentic blacks must have had a "ghetto experience."
When the Bill Cosby Show first hit TV, it was highly criticized because the sitcom black father was a doctor and his family lived in a nice home. I heard the same criticism of Diahann Carroll in her TV sitcom, Julia, in which she played a successful black nurse -- not reflective of the black experience. The Cosby Show and Julia were outside the Democrat-promoted "black box."
In my youth, I met a black master swordsman. Excited, I carted him around to black community centers because I wanted black kids to see that blacks could be successful in fields beyond entertainment and sports.
Despite blacks succeeding today in almost every area of American life, Democrats continue to portray black Americans as still getting the short end of the stick. Democrats promote an image of the authentic black experience as a majority in need of government entitlements, as people who can't find their way to acquire ID -- sitting at home watching Maury on TV, anxiously awaiting for the results of the DNA test to discover the name of Keysha's baby's daddy. This is the Democrats' black America.
This is not black advocacy or empowerment. It is demeaning, humiliating, and crippling. Why can't my fellow blacks see this obvious truth?
I am a Republican because the Republican Party respects my intelligence -- no special concessions or lowered standards.
In the 1950s, my dad was one of the first blacks to break the racist color barrier into the Baltimore Fire Department. The white firefighters rejected my dad and made conditions horrific for him. Still, dad won "Firefighter of the Year" two times. That's what I am talking about!
Given the opportunity, in their typical denigrating of black intellect, Democrats would argue that requirements for Firefighter of the Year be lowered to give my dad a "fair" shot at it. Lowered standards would have robbed Dad of the dignity and pride of his achievement. Thank God such was not the case.
Dad, a black man, won Firefighter of the Year because he was the best! Yes, I am a black conservative Republican and proud of it. All you blacks who think the Democrats are your friends, wake up and smell the betrayal.