Monday, October 6, 2014

Is President Obama really interested in the welfare of America?

I remember when then Senator Barack Obama was campaigning for President. Someone in the audience asked him if he were aware that, by lowering taxes, he would actually increase revenue flowing into the U. S. Treasury, and decrease the deficit. His reply was both astounding and revealing, and I paraphrase: "That is of no concern to me. I am more concerned about fairness."

What that told me was that he was more interested in taking money from one group of citizens and transferring it to another group of citizens than he was in improving the financial health of the country. His view put into shoe-leather the political / economic philosophy of Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." In short, President Obama is a Marxist, though few dare to be that honest about him.

Five days before his inauguration early in 2009, President-elect Obama made an ominous prediction. He said, "We are five days away from beginning the fundamental transformation of America." He wasn't kidding. Having watched and listened to Mr. Obama for over six years now, I have become convinced he is a global Marxist. Not content merely with national socialism, the President is systematically pursuing global socialism, in my opinion.

His global socialism can be seen in  his approval of allowing hordes of illegal aliens to cascade into our country. He makes a token show of enforcing the borders, but his policies encourage a flood of illegals. And why? you ask. Well, if one is a global socialist, he wishes to redistribute the wealth of America to the disadvantaged masses of Latin America. What better way than to allow them to flood across our borders, their well-being subsidized by over-burdened American taxpayers.

From the President's perspective, it is unfair that Americans should have it so good. It is morally incumbent upon Americans, whether they agree with the idea or not, to have their wealth transferred to the poor of the world.

President Obama's global Marxism can also be seen in his response to the Ebola outbreak. Where past policy and common sense would dictate that we should close our borders to all visitors from infected countries, that is not the President's policy at all. One can almost hear him reasoning to himself, "Why is it fair that poverty-stricken African nations have Ebola and Americans do not?"

So the President's political and economic philosophy, it seems to me, is not directed toward "What is good for America?" Rather, it is directed toward, "How can I best advance the cause of global Marxism?"

I am neither the first, nor the only American to think this. Thomas Sowell, who can hardly be accused of being a racist, has written an interesting article. It is entitled, "Obama's Priority: NOT Protecting Americans."

Here is his assessment of the President's refusal to bar infected Ebola carriers from entering the US:
At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans’ interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise.
As we move closer and closer to the end of the President's second term, I suspect we will see more and more decisions and policies that will help answer the question, "Is President Obama really interested in the welfare of America?" He would insist that he is, of course. I suspect I will differ with him.

Friday, November 1, 2013

An Eerie Comparison between Dictator Fidel Castro and President Barack Obama

The Bible instructs us to honor and pray for our government officials.
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 1 Timothy 2:1-2
Furthermore, it is God who places all rulers into office. As Daniel asserted, God "removes kings and establishes kings." Daniel 2:21

Nevertheless, those facts do not exempt us from scrutinizing and knowing who our officials are.

Rafael Cruz, father of US Senator Ted Cruz, gave a speech based upon his own experience. He grew up in Cuba when Fidel Castro was laying the groundwork for a Marxist Revolution in the island country. He watched dictator Fidel Castro make unilateral moves to silence the press, condemn rich people, and lower the wage of a typical laborer to $14 per month.

The elder Cruz sees some eerie similarities between the modi operandi of both Dictator Castro and President Obama.

View Rafael Cruz' impassioned speech yourself. Make your own decision.

An uniformed public is a public at risk of tyranny.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Syria, Puppet of Iran

If there was any doubt that Iran uses Syria as a compliant base from which to attack Israel, that doubt can safely be laid to rest.

Hassan Shateri, Iranian general, was "a high ranking member of the Quds Force." He was overseeing the shipment of Russian-built SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah in order to disrupt Israel's ability to fly reconnaissance missions over Lebanon.

When Israeli intelligence spotted Shateri actually joining the convoy tasked to deliver the missiles, Shateri and the convoy became a high-level target.

It was only reported last week that Shateri had died. However, his actual death occurred when Israeli forces decimated the convoy clear back in January, according to a UK report.

Of course, the Iranian press, back in January, had predictably denounced Israel's attack on Syria, but it was not really the Syrians who were the target. It was General Shateri of Iran.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

The Party of Santa Claus

I agree with Rush Limbaugh that the Democratic Party won the election of 2012 by becoming the Party of Santa Claus. Establishment Republicans are completely in error, for example, when they insist that the GOP must alter its position on illegal immigration. Voters did not vote for President  Barack Obama on the basis that he would give illegal aliens unconditional amnesty. The different voting constituencies voted for Obama because he would give them free handouts.

President Obama shrewdly gave his constituencies assurances they would get what they wanted from him, and he succeeded in portraying Mitt Romney as the person who would take them away. Obama promised women the ongoing freedom to practice any form of sexual activity they wanted without fear that the government would take away from them their rights to kill their unwanted babies. And he portrayed Romney as someone who who would take away those rights from women. Obama succeeded.

To students Obama promised they could get a loan for college no matter what, and they voted for him. To lower classes, Obama promised Obamaphones. One woman had 200 of them. To unemployed workers, Obama promised almost unending months of unemployment compensation, that which Romney would have greatly reduced.  To Union Workers Obama promised their pensions would be subsidized by the government. And of course to all, Obama promised free health care insurance.

And America bought into the Santa Claus mentality. GOP blue-bloods have contented themselves with becoming Santa Claus Lite - as in the case of George Bush, who  pushed government-subsidized prescription drug programs. Romney would cleverly give the voters of Massachusetts RomneyCare, but he would deny those rights to the nation as a whole. But who really wants Santa Claus Lite?

When I was growing up the concern on the right was the Soviet Union's threatened takeover of the world through nuclear military might. Back in those days, the mantra on the left was, "I'd rather be Red than Dead!"

But now the mantra for those on the left has changed. It has become, "I'd rather be Fed than Free." Americans don't realize it, but when free people trade freedom for financial security, they become serfs on the Government Plantation. And that's what America has become, in large part because the left owns the educational establishment, the major news networks, and the entertainment industry. The left has successfully educated Americans into believing that those who have learned to take care of themselves exceptionally well are evil and selfish (unless they are committed leftists, of course). Leftists have succeeded in teaching many of the hoi polloi that normal people depend on the government to be their Savior. America is no longer free. We have become the country of Santa Claus. Welcome to the USSA!

Welcome to the country of Santa Claus, where the people have sold their own freedom for a loaf of bread. And an Obamaphone. And a hugely-subsidized Government Motors Volt that no one wants to own.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Bipartisanship - a Political Definition

Periodically in our national political discourse, there is a fervent cry for greater bipartisanship. I thought it would be helpful for you to know what bipartisanship means in today's political discourse.

Democratic Party's definition: Bipartisanship exists when Republicans sacrifice their core beliefs and vote with the Democrats.

Establishment Republican Party's definition: Bipartisanship exists when Republicans sacrifice their core beliefs and vote with the Democrats.

Editor's Note: This notion is part of what gave birth to the Tea Party.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Why the Revolutions and Demonstrations?

We watch with considerable interest the flames of revolt licking across North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East. We note with interest President Obama's government aiding and abetting public sector unions in their angry demonstrations against the elected Governor of Wisconsin, who is trying to balance his state's budget. We notice that US socialists applauded riots in Egypt. We observed that Andy Stern, then president of the SEIU, was the most frequent visitor to the White House in the early days of Obama's presidency. Stern has bragged that he and his compadres have organizational hubs around the world.

So I ask the question. Are these demonstrations and riots a mere coincidence? I do not believe so. I suspect there is some world-wide orchestration. Why would Marxists and community organizers and fundamentalist Muslims cooperate? Because they all wish to transform the world into their version of global government.

And the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

US pushes for global capital reform

In an article in the online version of London's The Financial Times entitled, "US prepares to push for global capital rules," Tom Braithwaite wrote, "The US is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to a push for a tough new international capital regime after the weekend’s G20 and International Monetary Fund meetings glossed over differences between leading economies."

Candid Commentator (CC) is concerned that this is just another evidence of Obama's disdain for America's national sovereignty, and is a deliberate effort to subject America to international rules. This tendency, CC fears, will eventually lead our world to a global government.

In an effort to simplify the technical aspects of the article, CC called on guest writer Brian Bartsch (BB) to give his analysis of the developments.

CC: It almost sounds as though the US is pushing for banks to have a bigger capital reserve than they do now - 8% to 25%. That is a HUGE increase. What are your thoughts? What does the government stand to gain from this except more power through the regulatory door? (I don't trust the government.)

BB: Like you, I’m suspicious any time the government wants to increase regulation. I have a couple of thoughts:

First, if they raise the capital reserve requirement that much, there’s a progression that will be hard to stop:

  • Banks will be forced to call in loans in order to generate the high amounts of capital needed to meet the new reserve requirement.
  • The aggregate amount of liquidity will dry up as banks won’t have any money to lend.
  • Interest rates will skyrocket as the demand for financing will drastically outpace supply.
  • Businesses will be subjected to intense pressure financially; some will fail as they can’t afford their debt service and/or can’t find the financing they need to stay afloat.
  • At best, growth will come to a screeching halt as the creation of new businesses and the expansion/growth of existing businesses are discouraged by the high cost of capital.
  • The jobless rate will consistently edge upward as businesses tighten their belts and no new jobs are created.
  • Without something to change this equation, a recession seems likely at best.

Second, the schism between the USA/UK coalition on the one hand (pushing for the higher reserve requirement) and the France/Germany coalition on the other hand (against the higher reserve requirement) was very telling. France and Germany don’t have a problem with using public funds as a safety net (read: government bailouts) or are for interventionist policies as a whole. This means they see no need to (additionally) reduce risk because the government will step in if a situation ever gets out of hand.

The USA and UK, on the other hand, are trying to move away from the government intervention we just saw under Bush/Obama. They want to avoid the need for governments to step in by mitigating risk in two ways: by removing the riskiest loans from the table (since banks who can’t lend as much will only keep their safest loans) and by creating the cushion necessary to handle future crises without bailouts.

I guess that of the two, I’m more for the US/UK option, since that is ultimately the option that lets market forces determine financial activity, whereas the idea that the government will always step in (as recently with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac here in the US) ultimately props up inefficient business practices, leading to bubbles.

However, events like this ultimately drive me to realize that the need for increased regulation (as is true with either option) only exists because of people who attempt to take advantage of others in their drive to satiate themselves. That is, if people instead made an effort to look out for the needs of others in all the arenas of business (rather than just looking out for themselves), they would act not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of their managers, employees, customers, vendors and shareholders; doing so would obviate any need for new regulation as decision-makers (by acting more responsibly) would mitigate their own risk, which would in aggregate, reduce risk as a whole.

A corollary is that rules exist because of rule-breakers, and increased regulation is ultimately a response to increased exploitation. Put another way, legislating morality only works if the people in the system are moral; if immoral people make up a significant enough portion of the system, no amount of increase in the rules will fix the problem.

A second corollary is that rules designed to help fix problems only undermine the freedom of those who don’t need the rules anyway; exploiters will find a way to take advantage of people no matter what rules are in place.