Skip to comments.(Vanity) The Obamanation of Defenestration, or Dreams from my Fascist
Posted on 06/16/2009 12:48:55 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of clarion calls that "Obama is trying to overturn democracy" or "he is trying to destroy capitalism". Interspersed with these claims have been choice quotes from Rahm Emmanuel "never let a crisis go to waste" and Joe Biden's quote "He's going to be tested in the first six months", which only serve to keep Obama's detractors guessing between the Heinleinian choice between malice and stupidity. I think it would be worthwhile to take a step back and to look at several different fronts on which the Obama machine has been moving -- as the military teaches us, when one is under attack, it is all to easy to get caught up in subjective assessments of the situation and panic, rather than looking at the real picture and opportunities for counter-attack.
First we have the nationalization of the banking system. While this would not have been easy without the assistance of George Bush working with Congress and Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Fed, to create a credit and housing bubble, Obama deserves credit -- he could have used his immense political goodwill to force examination of the TARP bill, or second bills to revamp it. Instead, he has lied about "shovel ready jobs" and "transparency" even as he has moved forward plans to dictate (yes, as in salary czar -- WTF?? even Carter didn't go that far) how much executives can make.
Closely related is putting the nails in the coffin of the financial system of the United States, by increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels. Remember when George Bush ("Dubya") presided over a $400 billion deficit? That's chump change. Obama's budget deficits go to a trillion a year -- or, in other words, truly astronomical. A light year is six trillion miles, more or less, so by the end of Obama's first term the additional deficit spending will be approaching (with some confusion in dimensional analysis) a light-year of dollars.
Why is the deficit so bad? The typical SRM ("state-run media" as per Rush Limbaugh) comment is, "the national debt is money we owe to ourselves." And as usual, the SRM is dead wrong -- but in a way uniquely destructive to the United States, by lulling us to complacency when alarms are needed. We don't owe the national debt to "ourselves". The national debt is money borrowed by the government, from other people: individuals, pension funds, or...other countries. Like Japan. Like China. And these countries are beginning to wonder what will happen when we can't pay them back. There are three possibilites:
1) We default on the loan. The US government collapses.
2) Since the US *must* have money, we have to raise interest paid out on the bonds, in order to
sucker entice others to keep buying them. This makes mortgage rates go up, and means our taxes have to go way up just to pay the new, higher, interest. To pay to other countries. The money isn't ours, it's borrowed. So it doesn't stay here, it goes back home.
3) When the other countries have their fill of our bonds, they will either buy up our national assets (land, commodities, and the like), or we will have to pay off the bonds with worthless dollars, by running the printing presses, in ever larger denominations. You know, like Weimar Germany, or Zimbabwe. Hello hyperinflation. (And since inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods", the loss of industry (see below) will make everything more expensive. Can you say "falling standard of living"?)
The next Obama agenda item is the destruction of key industries, such as the auto industry. Following the rigging of the banks' collapse, it was easy to predict the demise a number of companies which (because of tax law) chose to finance their operations with debt instead of equity; or those industries so poorly managed (high fixed union costs; no captive market) that they needed constant bank funding to survive. And so GM and Chrysler are biting the big one. It is surely just a coincidence that the dealers who are being closed are generally republican donors, or in competition with dealerships run by powerful Democrats (Google for McLarty Dealership closings Obama for more on this).
Another step is the subversion of the election process. Just look up Acorn election fraud, census statistical sampling, and recall that the bailout bills gave *bilions* to ACORN. Not much more needs to be said.
Still on the burner is "health care reform" -- it looks like he wants socialized medicine, defined as "doctors get paid squat, but lawyers still get to sue them, and the doctors are presumed guilty." Did I mention that health care is
a) 20% of the US economy (more, now, after the recession)
b) a way to allow government hacks to find *everything* about you (think Joe the Plumber during the campaign)
c) a way to, if you get sick once, to allow you to die by neglect or error, without accountability? (Abortions and full funding for any AIDS-related care, regardless of cost, are likely to make it into the final bill, if Democrats hold to their usual shenanigans, though.)
And there is also Homeland Security (I just notice a chilling resemblance in the name to the "Committe for State Security"...), who released an infamous memo talking of "right wing extremists" while wistfully admitting "they're not violent, YET, damn it." Put this together with Obama's talk of a civilian force as well-funded and well-equipped as the military; it makes me nervous.
Speaking of the military, recall that Obama is "refusing to weaponize space" at the same time he is speaking of large cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, and at least two rogue dictatorships (North Korea and Iran), both of which are batsh*t crazy AND opposed to the US, are developing nuclear weapons AND long range ballistic missiles. And what does the President do? Luxury flights to New York and Paris for dream dates with his wife.
Then we have the Courts. The key here, is a radical Supreme Court, which has authority to overrule all other courts. With this in mind, I am going to drill down a bit on the latest nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
It has been fascinating to watch the political gyrations over recent Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The Democrats began by parading her as the poster child of the American Dream -- born in Puerto Rico, orphaned as a child, summa cum laude at Princeton, first nominated by Republican George H. W. Bush, and so on. Her love of learning and insistence on rising through the system has made her something between a cause cél@#232bre and a wet dream to liberals.
Conservatives, of course, beg to differ. Her "judicial temperament" has come under fire, as critics find her harsh and abrasive in questioning. Interesting tidbits have come out, such as the percentage of her decisions which have been overturned by the current Supreme Court (60%). But the most controversial feature associated with her life is her long association with the National Council of La Raza, or "La Raza" for short. Some people claim that it is just a lobbying group, pushing for greater opportunities for Hispanics, including relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, driver's licenses for non-citizens, and the like. But then you have Sotomayor's own comments such as I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life -- which reeks of racism, given that she has attended prestigious prep schools and Ivy League Universities as the white males. Apparently her reading of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is as follows: "...that my four little children will one day grow up in a country where they are judged by the color of their skin, which is the content of their character."
In an attempt to deflect such criticisms, the Huffington Post has produced articles which quote her decision in Pappas vs. Giuliani which defend a government employee who distributed white supremacist material, on "free speech" grounds. Obviously, this person herself can't be anti-white, she defended a white supremacist, right?
WRONG. She didn't defend a white supremacist, she helped establish legal precedent that even government employees can't get in trouble for association with racist groups, including distributing their literature. In other words, she has helped insulate *herself* from her own racist associations -- because public opinion is one thing, but the law is often quite another. And politically, it was a stroke of genius: she gets the credit for being "open-minded" in a way which allows anti-white-male, anti-Eurocentric racists--(say, a politician who has called the US one of the worlds largest Muslim countries, who bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, who refused dinner with the first pro-American French Prime Minister in ages, who gave as a gift to the British Prime Minister a set of DVDs which wouldn't even play on European video equipment) to advance their own agenda with fewer consequences.
So what do we have, in summary?
A concentrated, systematic, multiple-pronged attack on ALL of the major institutions of the United States at once. The America we grew up in, is going right out the window.
Where is it going to land? Well, the first thing which occurs to me is to read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, linked here in cartoon form.
But there's another way. Godwin's Law dictates that in any internet conversation, the first person to compare their opponent to a Nazi has (by definition) lost. I'm not comparing Obama to a Nazi, yet. But he is just as egotistical as any dictator -- from the creepy two-handed "O" salute, to the "this is the moment the oceans began to fall" comment. And these narcissistic politicians simply can't keep their mouths shut about their plans. So -- just as Mein Kampf contained Hitler's opinions toward the Jews, presaging the Final Solution, why shouldn't we look at Obama's pre-election writings (Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope) to see what HIS next steps are likely to be?
Facism in Musolinni's initial effort after he left the international communist movement and adopted a "Nationalistic" brand of socialism and it was praised by many politicians here, in Britian, and in Europe.
The Third Way was being looked for then because the socialists knew they could sell or succeed with international stateless communism and because the groups in power wanted a third way to stave off revolutions.
with the nationalization of Banks, Major Manufacturing and the Healthcare system, he will have got us to the definition of a fascist state and economy in a little less than a year.
I think I will change my tag line to the following for a while.
A good vanity, nicely written.
Let the US government collapse. Then we can start over.
Bravo !!! May I copy/e-mail your thoughts?
Yuo know the answer. War is coming. Here. Soon.
But it occurs to me why it's always the Jews. Because they have a strong sense of group identity. This manifests itself religiously and professionally.
It is more the latter than the former now but still enough to give a socialist dictator fits because socialists want uniformity of identity and loyalty to their aims.
This way the dictator achieves two objective in one stroke.
Hugh Hewitt committed a three hour radio show to Dreams, using the audio book version. Guess what? Obama actually narrated it himself!
Haven’t run across you for a while. I hope you have been doing fine. (Present facist takeover aside.)
Oh for those days in the colonial america of the later 18th century. We had a population with a lot of common heritage of colonization in the current or prior four generations, we lived in generally similar circumstances. We all read the same media. With various denominations, we were still a largely similarly faithed religous people.
When we "start over" now, we will come with interests and chacters as varied as the Mad Hatter's tea party guests.
As the queen said then, "Off with her head."
Here's the 4th OF JULY 2009 TEA PARTY SPEECH that I plan to give. I figure that I might as well stand up and say what needs to be said - while I can still say it without being jailed or shot.
John Adams, quotes about Liberty:
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.
Woodrow Wilson, quotes about Liberty:
Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.
Samuel Adams, quotes about Liberty:
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
Justice William O. Douglas, quotes about Liberty:
The privacy and dignity of our citizens [are] being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen — a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a [persons] life.
Thats what the Civil War will be for.
If the government collapsed in 1799, would the average family had been harmed at all? not likely.
And I don't even have a blog.
Fresh birdcage liner *PING*!
The America we grew up in is already lost. It’s a damned shame.