Friday, June 3, 2011
Every time the current economic crisis is brought up the Democrat leadership responds with this lie, “Obama inherited this mess. It was created by Bush and the Republicans”. The big problem with this statement lies in the evidence of history. Bush was no jewel, he wasn’t even a real republican, he was a neocon who only worked deal to enrich the families of his fraternity brothers, but he had nothing whatsoever to do with the economy we are currently suffering under. That lies squarely on the shoulders of Obama and the Democrat leadership, and here is why:
Our sitting President began his political life as a community organizer in Chicago in the early 1990’s. Some have speculated that Obama even then was working specifically for ACORN under the guidance of Weatherman head Bill Ayers, however speculation is not proof. There is no doubt ACORN, Ayers and Obama are continue a very friendly and even admirable relationship today, but there is no proof the organizer Obama was able to influence the growth of the progressive PAC back then. However, an employee, Anita MonCrief who worked in the organization’s Washington DC office did have firsthand knowledge of what went on and why. This link, freerepublic article, will take you to a story with verbatim testimony by Miss MonCrief about what ACORN was all about and why.
Obama is a socialist and has always been a socialist. Every association he made as a young man and on into adulthood has been part of belonging to the ongoing socialist revolution in America. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright has had nothing good to say about this country since he assumed the pulpit. ABC ran a story, link detailing how the so-called Reverend viewed the very country that gave him the right to defame it. Wright hates capitalism and taught, along with Ayers the youthful Obama to hate it as well. The quoted passage from the story on MonCrief’s testimony exhibits the reason why Obama was so favorable of ACORN,
“In her testimony, Moncrief reviewed notes, admitted into evidence, of a regional meeting of ACORN officials. Included in the notes is a list of reasons the group who met thought that ACORN was 'good.' One of the reasons listed was 'Fighting capitalism.’”
So why does Obama, the socialist, find capitalism so objectionable? Capitalism is defined in the dictionary as “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” A simpler definition fund within Capitalism.org has the definition “a social system based on the principle of individual rights.” I would say that the last two words Individual Rights would have to be the true basis for the problem people like Ayers, Wright and Obama have with the United States of America. Individual rights, by extrapolation would also contain individual responsibility. In other words, people would have to be held responsible for their own decisions. Imagine what that portends for the civil lawsuit industry.
Back in the 1930’s Arthur Rosenberg published an article describing the relationship between the communists and the trade unions. link This phrase, “The principal task of all Communists over the next period, is to wage a firm and vigorous struggle to win the majority of the workers organized in the trade unions”. It would be a fair assumption that most union members in the United States would object to be described as being a communist, and yet they belong to what is little more than a key tool of Rosenberg’s revolution.
Why is this important? The importance is in the polar opposition between the two philosophies, capitalism and communism. Socialism is little more than communism-lite. It is a stepping stone to total state control over the lives and livelihoods of the people living under its sphere of influence. Obama was learning communist philosophy at the feet of Bill Ayers while Bill Clinton was operating in the oval office. Clinton was, in spite of many bloggers assertion to the contrary, a fiscal conservative. Some say that, rather than his philandering was the cause for his marital problems as Hillary is an avowed socialist. The aims of the American communists and socialists are the subjection of the United States to an extra continental authority and the elimination of private enterprise entirely. Nearly every point of the Obama agenda points to his distaste of personal rights and responsibility. Consider how his supporters lambasted Joe the Plumber, a self-employed man with no union tie. Consider his attempt to give the unions even more control over American industry as part of his stimulus package and his recent statement regarding giving the UAW more economic help through tax credits laundered via the sale of union-produced cars.
During the Clinton years the economy improved and the deficit was reduced. During the Bush years the Democrat controlled Congress refused to go along with any attempt to control spending, and Bush did little to prevent the congressional largess. When Obama won the White House congress was still Democrat controlled and in each of the years they had control the Democrats decided to avoid their chief responsibility and refused to bring forth a federal budget. They did, however, completely back every item on the Obama agenda, regardless of the cost. Here are some comparisons from the Heritage foundation based on a Washington Post (a die-hard Obama supporter) story, link :
•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
The above numbers, by the way, include the dollars spent in the Bush/Obama wars overseas. There is no possible way the current economic crisis can be a simple inheritance problem sent along by the previous administration. You cannot solve a problem by doubling and even trebling the same errors that began it. An honest person would have to admit that the Obama agenda has proven disastrous to the American economy. An even more honest person would have to admit that this has not been a mistake.