Thursday, July 16, 2009

Obama, More Dangerous Than Marxism

Biden: We Must Spend More Money To Keep From Going Bankrupt

Joe Biden is not saying anything the Democrats haven't been saying all along. That is the purpose of the bailouts and stimulus packages. To spend more money.

When critics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt provides evidence that FDR's policies not only did not slow down the Great Depression, and it in fact worsened it, the liberal response has been that FDR didn't spend enough money fast enough. Even Obama has used this argument.

Think about the insanity of this. They believe to keep from going bankrupt the nation must go further in debt. In fact, what they are doing is doubling the national debt, and then some.

Remember, these are the same Democrats that have been hammering the Republicans for the National Debt for the last few decades.

I could just imagine my wife's response if I walked in the door and said to her, "I have our financial worries solved, my dear. We simply need to go more in debt. In fact, we should more than double how much we owe. That ought to straighten things out, and keep us from going bankrupt."

My wife would have me committed.

But this is exactly what the liberal Democrats are doing. And while they are at it, they are expanding government into every corner of the private sector.

The question is, why would they do that? Isn't it obvious to them that to grow an economy you encourage the components of that economy? Without the growth of businesses, and emerging business should their competitors go under, the economy will remain stagnant, and in the long run, the economic strife will worsen. Failed businesses should be allowed to fail, and eventually be replaced by emerging competitors. It would create a downturn for a short while, but then with pro-growth policies, including easing regulations and cutting taxes, the economy would flourish and prosper down the road as a result - and liberty would reign supreme.

In order to bring about change, the old system must be destroyed. What is the old system? To Obama and the far left, the American Form of Government, and Capitalism, are the old system. A new system of communism, without personal liberty, cannot exist until the old system is destroyed. To destroy the old system it must be riduculed, demonized, and made to be considered obsolete. Then, use government takeover of the private sector using the excuse that it is necessary to save the nation. The private sector must be destroyed, and the middle class must be slapped down to the level of poverty. Misery breeds dependency on the government, and then once in place, there is nearly no way out of it without revolution.

Explains why Obama and the liberal Democrats are working so fast, doesn't it? They want to get the system in place before Obama's brainless disciples realize the truth.

Remember, Barack Obama comes from the cess-pool of Chicago Politics - a place coincidentally that Saul Alinsky, communist and anti-American radical, comes from. In fact, the folks that recruited Obama as a community organizer (a tool of Marxism), were sprung from Saul Alinsky's influence.

Marxism has been a term that has been brought to the table often when describing Obama, but in reality, he is not only a Marxist. I believe he is something much worse. If you dissect what Barack Obama is doing, it is perfectly in line with Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.

Obama, therefore, is not a Marxist. He is something worse. And what he is doing to America is exactly in line with what Saul Alinsky had planned for America, and eventually, the world.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Joe Biden: ‘We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt’ - CNS News, Penny Starr

Obama Explains FDR's Folly? - National Review Online, Guy Benson

A chilling comparison: Obama & Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - Brookfield Now, Kyle Prast

Saul Alinsky - yet another Obama mentor from his Marxist past - From The Duke

SAUL D. ALINSKY: Teaching Obama - David Horowitz and Richard Poe

No comments: