Our Benevolent Marxist Masters
Well, once one got past Whitney Houston and the Romney wins on Saturday, the big news of the Sunday talk shows was a reported and repeated gaffe by White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, when he falsely claimed that sixty votes are required for the Senate to pass a budget. Sufficiently egregious was the error that even the Washington Post called him on it, issuing him four not-so-coveted Pinocchios:
Lew is completely wrong when he claims that 60 votes are needed to “pass a budget in the Senate.” As he well knows, a budget resolution is one of the few things that are not subject to a filibuster. In fact, that is one reason why a bill based on reconciliation instructions cannot be filibustered.
As they note, a two-time budget director should know better. And it’s pretty pathetic spin against the fact that the last time the (Democrat-majority) Senate passed a budget, no one outside of Apple had ever heard of an iPad. There are precocious children in pre-school who have never lived in an America in which the Senate has passed a budget.
But I want to comment on something else he said, and it’s a pretty standard line among Democrats defending the president’s policies, so much so as to draw no comment whatsoever from news show hosts when it is expressed — it’s just part of the collectivist ocean in which they all swim. Here’s what he said on This Week (and I’ll bet he said it on the other shows, too, because it is clearly one of the talking points that he’s been memorizing): “…we have tax cuts that go to people who don’t need them.”
Even ignoring the issue of the ongoing general lack of distinction in the media between “tax cuts” and “tax rate cuts,” think about the implications of that statement.
By all accounts, Mr. Lew is a good man, and almost certainly considers himself such. He’s reportedly an observant Orthodox Jew, and a dedicated family man. I assume that he loves his wife and children and pets, if any. He would certainly be appalled at the thought of gulags in America, or deliberate famine, or economic oppression. And yet, throughout history, those have been the ultimate results of his apparent belief system. Because if one is to properly parse his comment, the president’s chief of staff, like the president himself (and his crony Warren Buffett), reveals himself by this simple phrase to be a Marxist.
As I’ve noted here previously:
…[Marxists believe] the notion that what people “need” is an objective rather than subjective notion, which can be determined by benevolent third parties. After all, if one is going to reorder society and redistribute wealth, it is only “fair” that people be allowed to get what they “need” before depriving them of anything beyond that to satisfy the “needs” of others. This concept is exemplified by the famous phrase: “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.”
But of course, in the real world, the difference between “need” and “desire” is purely subjective, and varies with the individual and their degree of self-actualization. At its most basic, there is no “need” for anything except air, food, and shelter. And such needs can be met in a North Korean prison. But when someone is lecturing someone else about what they “need,” what they really mean is that because they don’t perceive a need for those things, no one else really has one either — whether it’s flat-screen television, an SUV, a lobster dinner, a second home, or another handgun. They are perhaps happy to live in a rabbit warren, eat macrobiotic food, and ride their bicycle to work, and don’t think that anyone else should “need” more. And of course, since those selfish people don’t really need more, the rest of their resources are now available to satisfy the unmet “real” needs of the rest of society.
Similarly, Mr. Lew believes himself in a position to be able to judge how much of their own money the taxed “need,” and should therefore be allowed to keep. Ayn Rand encapsulated this attitude in section 2, chapter 4 of Atlas Shrugged:
Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that “the good” was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they believe to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.
Nor does he cloak his burglary in the faux language of “reasonableness” and “fairness” and “moderation” and “balanced approach.”
And as Larry Kudlow points out, the mindset shows up in the president’s budget (no doubt with the approval of former budget director Lew):
…it’s really a class-warfare, tax-the-rich budget. Layer upon layer of tax hikes are piled on successful investors, small-business owners, and corporations.
The capital-gains tax goes from 15 percent to 24 percent (including Obamacare). The dividends tax goes from 15 percent to nearly 40 percent, and that’s not including the double tax on corporate profits embodied in dividends and capital gains. The Bush tax cuts for top earners are repealed. There’s the 30 percent Buffett-rule minimum tax on millionaires. The carried-interest tax for private equity, hedge funds, and other investment partnerships goes from 15 to 39.6 percent. The estate tax jumps to 45 percent. Oil and gas companies get hit. And there’s probably more stuff in there I haven’t read yet.
They continue to make it clear that the time for austerity is never, except for the productive. They intend to ensure that the resources will continue to be taken from those with the ability, but who don’t “need” them, and provided to those who they think do, so they can continue to purchase the votes of the latter with our money, and maintain their grip on power. And as they did yesterday, their fellow-traveling lapdogs in the media will remain complicit in helping them cover up what they really are, and what they really do. But we don’t have to help them.
The entire farce, captured in one phrase: “…the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”
Barack Obama, Crook in Chief.
This so-called budget is straight out of the public employee union playbook. When I watch these communists at work, I feel like Col. John Buford on the first day at Gettysburg; you know what they’re going to do, they’ve done it every time, and you know your people will do the same damned thing again and lose again. Well, as it turned out, for once Buford’s people didn’t quite do the same thing, and Gen. Lee’s Army wasn’t quite the army it had been before Chancellorsville. That said, I’m not seeing any Hancocks and Chamberlains or even Meades on our side of the ditch.
No Obama budget will ever be a serious proposal, just as no union proposal is ever serious; it is all calculated to pander to the craziest of their crazies. It is calculated to give the opposition something that any sane person would reject. Then the Left goes to their lapdogs in the media and starts the starving children and mommies dying of cancer for lack of healthcare crap because the evil Republicans won’t pass the stupid budget. So, the stupid Republicans who can’t stand to hear the media say bad things about them start bargaining with themselves to try to counterpropose some of Obama’s stupid effing ideas back to him so they can say they’re working with him. Of course, he won’t accept even his own crap coming back from Republicans so this danse macabre goes on until election time whereupon all things wicked are blamed on the obstreperous do-nothing Republicans who wouldn’t pass his budget with all the fruits and nuts and cherries and sprinkles on it that would have made everybody happy. Damn, I’ve seen this movie so many times and there are still stupid Republicans who fall for it. Counterpropose a real budget based on a reasonable assesment of our ability to manage the debt; no we’re not going to a recurring revenue budget unless y’all just want to saddle up and ride to the sound of the guns, and I mean real guns. Make the proposal and tell the American people what it is and why you’re doing it; something around half of the res publica is still relatively sane and we might be able to find 50% + 1, and if we don’t; invest in precious metals: brass and lead.
We do pass counterbudgets. The lapdog media then says we are trying to push grandma off a cliff.
This, and the kick in the nuts to freedom of religion is yet another example of his desire to “save” this nation by destroying it. I have recently formulated a new theory. It’s not so much that maybe he’s a Marxist but that he detests this nation so much, with a seething fire of hatred that he knows the most satisfying way to punish it is to make it a purely socialist nation.
I have said, as many others have, that his sole motivation is anger. And anger is a very powerful emotion and he has it in abundance. It can motivate people to do things that a normally calm and collected person would not do. And the most interesting thing about anger is that it can last a lifetime without ever diminishing.
But of course, it has ruined more than one person and destroyed many around them. But this is what happens when a nation elects a petulant, tantrum-ridden child to its highest office. I hate to relate it to Hitler but it’s been very fitting. I think Obama is also bi-polar. He’s certainly passive aggressive, narcissistic and detached from everyone but himself.
To many, he’s a psychological mess but also a person who should be in therapy, not telling congress what to do. He never grew up and is a very angry little boy. For a fun example, watch the old Star Trek episode, “The Squire Of Gothos” where Trelaine is an alien who’s taken the form of a human and who delights in tormenting the crew of the Enterprise. I watched it the other night and found it a perfect example of Obama.
At the end of the Episode, Trelaine’s parents materialize and whisk him away and tell the crew that he will be punished.
Sadly, if only we could have a similar intervention. For Barry’s been a very naughty little boy and his torment and tantrum continues.
I don’t put much stock in the psychological explanations of Comrade Obama’s behavior. Yes, he’s a sociopath. Yes, he’s narcissistic. But what he is more than anything else is a Red Diaper Baby raised and groomed to this mission; he’s a communist apparatchik before all else. Unlike most Republicans, I dealt with Alinsky disciple union reps for most of my career; I knew Obama the moment I laid eyes on him in that convention speech. I said to myself; so you’re the one they think they can dress up and “pass,” to use a black folks’ word. He’s as predictable as the day following the night if you know what you’re looking at. Unfortunately, most of those nice Republicans just won’t accept what their eyes and ears tell them.
Sooooo, I guess that means you’re not going to watch the old Star Trek episode, either. (j/k)
I’ll certainly defer to your explanation though. However, I still contend he has psychological problems of a very significant degree. Everyone, everywhere has their “psychosis” but it’s a matter of degree. I still think he’s extremely angry and desires nothing more than to break all the nice things in our house to teach us a lesson.
But again, I find your assessment perfectly valid. In a sense, it’s useless to try to figure him out but it is sufficient to know that whatever he says, he will do the opposite and will continue to work at the nation’s destruction.
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not denying the psychopathology. How could he not be seriously aberrant with his background? I’m just saying that the psychopathology isn’t really the explanation; he was bred and groomed to be a communist apparatchik and that is what most informs his actions.
I agree with you; Obama is psychologically pathological. I consider him a clinical narcissist, which is not one of your run-of-the-mill egoists but a serious and dangerous psychological state.
Obama needs to control others – and his socialism, his Marxism, may have been embedded in him via his upbringing, but he is not an ‘ideological’ socialist as his mother/father/grandparents were. Obama is a psychological socialist; that is, he, emotionally, needs to control and dominate others. He needs to reject others as equal to him, he needs to denigrate and reduce the ability of others to act as individuals.
With this psychological aberration, which I suggest he moved into as a young boy, when he went into politics, he would readily move into socialism.. That’s because socialism operates within a two-class system of Rulers. And ruled. Obama is not an ideologue; he has no intellectual interest or even ability to analyze and critique theories, policies, issues. His primary need is: Control and disempowering others.
All of Obama’s activities are geared to disempowering and disabling the ability – legal, economic, political – of individuals to be free, to be independent, to make their own wealth and decisions.
Notice something else about Obama. His role is always the ‘up-front’ man, the campaigner, …and behind him, is the Strong Dominating Woman who actually makes the decisions. His mother, grandmother, wife…Valerie Jarrett, Sebelius..whoever.
Obama is alienated from others; he is unable to feel empathy. His only need is to dominate and denigrate others. Leave him as a local community organizer and Obama’s pathology would be manageable. Put him in a powerful position, where he can’t control everything and everyone, and he’ll feel threatened and will become even more openly controlling and ..destroying the very infrastructure of the power of the people in this nation, ie, destroying the democratic infrastructure. That’s exactly what he is doing..
That makes him a good Comrade Strelnikov, and I see that. But if Obama is Strelnikov, who then is Lenin?
I don’t see him as anything more than a tool, but I can’t figure out who is wielding the tool. Soros? I don’t really think he’s significant enough to put together a cabal that has essentially destroyed the United States as a great power, but clearly somebody has.
Art Chance – I’m not sure that there is a behind-the-scenes agenda/person who runs Obama.
That is, most certainly, there IS what I call The BackRoom Gang who run Obama’s policies. I don’t think that Obama is an intellectual; he is ignorant of economics, of history, of political theory. Policies and programs are developed by others: Obama just sells them via emotional manipulation and misinformation – he lives in a fictional world and has no connection to facts and reality.
This Gang – Made up of Soros, Jarrett and his wife Michelle etc. I’d see them as more involved with crony socialism; ie, their focus is on taking power and wealth away from others, for themselves. Not ideological socialism – the focus probably only of aberrant academics secure in the isolation of the tenured seminar room. It’s all about power and amassing wealth. That is, this Obama regime is totally, completely, corrupt.
How did it happen? A nation tired of war, of being hated, a nation tired of reality. Along came Obama, with his shining heroic stance of Hope and Change – terms which are meaningless in themselves, offering not hard messy reality but a pure mythic fictional narrative. Where the oceans would cease to rise and peace would be on earth.
And what did we get? heh. He’s the most polarizing, divisive ‘leader’ we’ve ever had, purposely dividing people into adversarial identity blocs, setting them up as racist, ignorant, bigoted, partisans. He is contemptuous of people, ordinary people – whom he must control – or he feels threatened. So, he ignores the Will of the People with his denigration of Congress. Rejects the laws made by Congress. Sneers at and ignores the Constitution. Sets up his own unelected agencies that make laws unvetted and unvoted on by Congress. Divides the people from their religion. Silences debate and discussion. And, if you reject him – defines you as racist and/or ignorant.
It’s very hard for a people to admit they were so fooled and so wrong. And hard to reject someone whose skills, whose sole skills are manipulative rhetoric and who will reject YOUR rejection of him – by informing you of your innate racism.
But – he’s destroying, not merely the economic capacity of the US, with his attacks on private enterprise. He’s destroying the democratic infrastructure of this nation with his attacks on Congress, the Courts, the States and the Church.
@ETAB – Then you essentially have Hitler; same dynamic of a nation having lost its confidence in itself and being promised hope and change – yes, we can = one people, one nation, one leader. I don’t see it, but then I’ve seen so many like him that I’m contemptuous of them, though I recognize their charm to those unfamiliar. I think he’s a front man, the President Manque; he’s simply not smart enough to have done this himself, and not he, Ayers, Jarrett, the lot of them could have. Somebody with REAL money was manipulating the World economy in the summer and fall of ’08.
“put together a cabal that has essentially destroyed the United States as a great power, but clearly somebody has.”
That Somebody shorted the ABX index, where $600 Trillion worth of derivatives are priced, that somebody laid a $2 Trillion short on the index for 5 hours on 9/17/2008;
this caused the chaotic reset of all asset prices globally and the freeze of the LIBOR,
the “meltdown” that stopped the world in 2008 and secured the Key Man’s election.
Nobody has $2 T laying around.
Who Did This? Who?
I don’t think there is anyone who could do it on their own; somebody organized a cabal. It would take the kind of money that you can only organize in the Middle East and some European interests, and, especially, some American foundations and such would be in as junior partners. I can think of some big university endowments who’d want to play such a game; the World will be a better place when Hahvud is razed and the grounds sown with salt.
The coup d’etat worked well enough to establish the President manque, but they really can’t govern this ungovernable Country yet. They’re smart enough to know what Yammamoto knew; there is a rifle behind every blade of grass in America. The people who hew to Comrade Obama are basically urban sissies who couldn’t find their ass with a backhoe. Some of them are the sorts of sociopathic SOBs that would make a good Comrade Strelnikov, but most of them are just wastes of protoplasm. They need another term and a good crisis. We just can’t give that to them.
@ETAB – “I don’t think that Obama is an intellectual; he is ignorant of economics, of history, of political theory.”
It’s so obvious that you’re right. The MSM doesn’t see it, preferring to lay those adjectives on G. W. Bush. Whether they didn’t really believe it about Bush and therefore can’t bring themselves to believe it about Obama, or if they really don’t recognize his failings and incompetence, is open to conjecture.
Not sure you would actually need money to do this. But you would have to have intimate knowledge and access of technology behind the meltdown. The unwinding in hedge funds began before the ‘event’.
@flagstaff – Always good to see an old friend from Ban Central and that other place we won’t tell them about. Anyway, the Left defines “smart” as thinking like them and stupid as not thinking like them. Since Comrade Obama thinks like the Left he is smart. Since GWB doesn’t think like the Left, he is stupid. Simple as that.
@Bear – I’ll be the first to admit that deriviatives and such are an arcana to me, but I know there are some people in the financial world that I’d like to round up and shoot and sell their wives and children into slavery.
Art,
I/My (former) co. was pitching a major project with a firm (hedge) at the time. The project was put on hold late spring, proposed a pilot in the summer…then the unwinding came….it was a DR project, so transactions could be recovered in near real-time to a remote site. Something came along with a higher priority. The unwinding came long before the ‘event’ I wish I had done the same with my own accounts. It’s technology that gives the edge to hedge.
The history of “fairness” in the arena of taxation at no time suggested that we should steal from small business owners so that the Constitution would be re-written that a class of persons would pay taxes that were not uniform and equal burdens upon them.
It has no basis to steal from small business owners (or any other person or entity) for “redistribution” to a class of persons who pay nothing. That was NEVER the intent, nor should it ever be.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…is NOT an American principle for taxation. It comes from someplace else…in a system…that has NEVER worked.
“Redistribution” based upon revenues as a guide…is a fatally flawed notion.
First, the “weigh station” of bloated small c communist government and the thuggery of Workers Party sticky fingers…ALWAYS “filters” out so much money, that it simply becomes a beast that feeds itself first…and whatever “entitlements” trickle down to the “intended recipients”…got eaten nearly whole by the REAL intended recipients. Every time. Without fail.
Secondly, as an economic model it’s incredibly stupid. Punishing small business owners, entrepreneurs and the “hiring class”…and making them the “enemy” by calling them “rich” …is an attack on the middle class…NOT the true wealthy.
Which is why Buffett, Kerry, Hollywood…love the concept. It let’s them play footsie with the dictator, while he calls the middle class his “enemy” and assigns them the role of villain…for not paying “enough” taxes…to feed his state beast and the Workers Party.
The intent is not “income equality”. It’s not even “benefit equality”. It’s the destruction of capitalism and the free market. It can’t be done unless you kill off the entrepreneurial class…and THAT can’t be done, unless you demonize them as “rich”…and steal their money.
Since they are the true “hiring class”…you hit them with taxes, fees, rules, regulations, obstacles, blockades, lawsuits, …everything you can to slow them down, stop them, freeze them, kill them. “Redistribution” is a sleight of hand trick. It’s a head fake.
Killing capitalism at its core is the game. And small business is the real intended victim.
Great outline. Says it all.
As I’ve been repeating ad nauseum…an economy operates within three entangled phases: Investment; Production; Consumption.
Socialism focuses only on Consumption and ignores Investment and Production.
Investment requires a longterm input of wealth..to build the factory, research and develop the new technology, build the bridge, ..gather and invest the money/wealth into these long term projects.
Production is more immediate – it kicks in once you’ve got your invested infrastructure ready; it’s hiring the workers, buying the resources, making the goods, shipping them..
Consumption – is daily. Consuming the goods/services. Now, this HAS to provide a profit or wealth. And this profit must NOT be taken by the govt but returned to the private investor/producer..Because it’s the private investor and producer, those small and medium businesses, that make the wealth of a nation. That create the jobs.
Obama’s destructive fiscal policies focus only on Consumption. He lives in a fictional world where money emerges, not from private businesses producing goods and selling them. No, in Obama’s world, money comes from a Magic Cauldron (aka ‘The Rich), and he wants their evil-gotten gains. To, in his magnificence, give to the peasantry for their ongoing, never-ending consumer demands. And votes.
Obama is destroying the capacity of the US economy to ‘make wealth’, ie, to Invest and Produce. He’s making it a nation of Consumers. And since he’s taxed the wealthy as much as he can – and he wants more – he’s switched to borrowing money. Trillions of it..to give to the peasants. For Consumption.
It’s disastrous.
There’s reason for hope. America and Americans are in a unique position (happily) that will make it a tough nut to crack for the Marxists in the Obama administration. According to the Small Business Administration website 99.7% of employer firms are classified as “small business”. Over half of all private sector employees are employed by small business. Why do I mention this? This is an environment almost exclusively American. And it is certainly not an environment in which Marxism can flourish. As the Marxist vice begins to squeeze the pain is going to be felt rapidly by simply too many millions of small business employers and employees…the so-called middle-class. This sets the stage for a blowback like the Obama collectivists never imagined. There simply isn’t a peasant class out there to submit to Marxism in America. We can’t go where Obama and the left want us to go without enormous pain and suffering. That’s baked in the cake. Also baked in the cake are the numbers cited above. Therefore, when this substantial majority begins to feel the pain and realize the tragedy, as it must and will with absolute certitude, of the failure of this collectivist regime the blowback will be of historic proportions. At that point Obama had better plan to seek friendlier shores. He and his ilk may have pulled off their bullshit in other demographics elsewhere but the numbers don’t favor him in America.
I think your breakdown is appropriate, because you isolate fundamental aspects of economics, as if it were simply a machine, regardless if government exists or not, which is not the question; but I believe that is what America and the world faces in the Progressive Liberal: one who begins with a perogative to uphold government first (essentially, giving thanks), because none of this modern world would be possible without government building roads, providing police, subsidizing, etc. So, in this sense, they do become religous in that they recognize the “godhead” of economics, and comfort. (Very ironic, since liberals are so keen to dismiss the Godhead of Creation.) And for sure they, in theory, do discover a pure strain of love for government, which when opposed has a very politically uncomfortable reality.
This is why, I believe, they can maintain a certain appearance of credibility, because who is anyone to say they are not right, or simply, indeed, have the right to bow down to government? And how many are willing to forego a looming shadow of oppression in favor a looming “friend” with the turn of the head? Here are your papers, no need to worry. An age of innocence, and ignorance, indeed.
Also, it creates a real dilemma in anyone who wishes to think of the right approach to appraise Liberalism, as who is to say what the left believes is Materialism, or Mysticism? It can appear as either, or both, and while in our “confusion” (appraisal) they are at liberty to hot-foot from one foundation to the other, and so any angles of attack that adhere to established rules of logic and civility are essentially rendered useless. If one were to say their economics don’t work then they will be quick to say, “fairness, justice, equality”, and if someone points out that they are targeting the rich, for instance, they may point out the simple math, “the poor have less money and work just as hard”.
I want to make one other point in all of this that is not easily seen. It may be said that if my analogy is correct, then it applies towards religion as well, with an equal message of duality. I agree it is so, but there is a significant point to understand. In a religion, namely Christianity, there is the prospect and happenstance of grace. In a government there is not. However, I think that is what the Liberal is after, and perhaps that first real projection has fallen on Barack Obama. The man who could bring “grace” into government. They believed.
I just wish that some Republican would actually go on one of the network news programs and tell them how biased they really are. For example, why is it that when the Republicans pass a budget in the House (such as the Ryan Plan), the mainstream media just either ignores it or calls makes fun of it. But when anybody asks why the Senate has NOT passed a budget in well over 1,000 days, nobody in the mainstream media notices it, let alone questions it. When was the last time you heard anybody, ANYBODY, in the mainstream media grill Harry Reid on why he hasn’t passed a budget? That’s why I’m getting so sick of even listening to people like Reid and Pelosi. If you’re going to lie, at least do a better job of it. Guess it doen’t matter, though. The mainstream media will lap up anything either Obama or Reid will say, and that should be just plain wrong in this country.
Trying to fight a 2 front war — defeating Barry “the Weasel” and discrediting the MSM is a monumental effort. Yet both are necessary for longer term liberty.
However, I think the institutional inertia in congress is non-partisan and Obama is simply capitalizing on the selfishness of incumbents who have gotten comfortable there.
And without a systematic strategy to thoroughly discredit media’s sins of commission — and worse, its ommissions — we are destined for more of the same. It all may seem to wane in the future — but it will be the equivalent of calling a reduction in the rate of tax increases a “cut”.
Small cracks may be forming. Caught a few moments of the noon MSM news and the reporter, a young black woman, referred to the Obama budget as a “massive” spending plan.
To hear a MSM reporter refer to anything Obama using such a term was so startling, I almost fell out of my chair.
Keep in mind that to some people (e.g. Krugman), massive spending is what the economy needs. She wasn’t necessarily being critical by accurately describing the spending as “massive.”
Excellent reminder, thanks.
Dems had control of the House, Senate and the Presidency for two years….NO BUDGET
Sounds more like a Kingdom
Now the do nothing Dems trying to blame Congress who have submitted several bills
Were in for more
Republicans want the working class to starve
Republicans only care about the rich
Were cutting 10,000 military but have money for the Islamic Brotherhood and the Unions Chevy Volt
Throw in the Presidents “truth squads” and we look more like Mussolinnis Italy than the USA
Heaven help us if this Dictator gets another 4 years
“totalitarian” is a word that was coined to describe Mussolini’s ideal society. The government involved in the total society–everything. This is where we’re headed with Obama, but nobody seems to want to hear it in the MSM.
Obama and the rest of his administration leftists have never hidden their belief system. I seriously doubt that any 2008 voter believed Obama to be anything but whom he is: a socialist. Nevertheless, he won with a greater majority than either of G.W. Bush’s elections, and according to recent polls will probably be re-elected in 2012.
Frankly, I think conservatives are in serious denial. The Left’s “long march” through the institutions has succeeded. Now the left-wing point-of-view is the default position of most Americans, and will remain so until O and company have destroyed the country so thoroughly that even the brain-washed among us can’t ignore it.
“The Agenda – Grinding America Down” expounds on this theme.
They have taken over most of the introductory educational system and almost all of the collegiate system. IMHO, they are now in the process of destroying those systems so they can’t be used against them in the same way. That could be a reason behind their resistance to school vouchers and especially the resistance to home schooling.
What motivates Obama is his nature, which is similar to that of a vampire squid, ramming his blood funnel into every part of America to suck dry all remaining freedoms. His lust will not be satiated unless the United States Constitution is a withered corpse. If this throwback fascist monstrosity wins reelection this November the mask will come completely off and he will go into a freedom killing frenzy.
This is actually good news, I think, because…
…Goodbye, Independents.
It’s not just democrats, establishment republicans who are trying to maintain status quo are also to blame for the mess we are in. Ultimately we are the fools who put them in power. The good news is thanks to the tea party movement at least more Americans are talking about fixing government.