At the start of the evening, when asked about potential solutions to the economic crisis, Senator Barack Obama said, “I believe this is a final verdict of the economic policies of the last eight years, promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain, which essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us. It hasn’t worked out that way.”
Really, Mr. Obama? Bush and McCain are to blame for our current economic woes? Ask Americans what they believe our greatest economic burdens are and I imagine you will hear about the housing crisis and gas prices over and over again. The recent failings of the lending market were certainly caused by greed, by only after government involvement. The pressure at the pumps could have been significantly reduced by now (and still can) if only the government would get out of the way and quit trying to regulate everything.
Later in the debate, Obama said, “Two years ago I said that we’ve got a sub-prime lending crisis. A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we’ve got to re-regulate and nothing happened.” Just words? I think so. How can he criticize McCain for “jumping on” a bill to actually do something about the lending problems when all Obama has done is talked about the problem? Perhaps instead of doing so much talking, he should have been doing his job and actually voting something other than “present” once in awhile.
Actually, let me work on a tangent for a minute. I have not watched the news or been on the Internet since the debate ended. I am sure that John McCain is being trashed and Barack Obama is being praised. Regardless of who you think performed well in the debate, let’s actually talk about something worthwhile; like who should be our next President.
Obama can give all of the inspiring speeches of hope and change he wants, but I ask you to join me back in reality where most of what Obama proposes is nothing more than fascism. I’ll give it credit for being a friendly version of fascism, but fascism nonetheless. Everything is a political matter to Obama and he believes any action by the government is justified, even encouraged, to achieve a common good. It sounds worthy of support, right?
Wrong! In Obamanation, our government strives to take on the responsibility of our lives. What does that mean? Well, if they intend to fix every problem which is broken in our lives, they will, of course, have to impose certain rules and restrictions. It’s sort of like a parent who sets rules for the child because “I put a roof over your head and supper on the table”.
Let’s use the energy crisis as an example. Obama refuses to open up America for more drilling. He knows we have to have oil. He knows that we do not yet have a practical alternative for energy. But he also knows that if we do not drill, gas prices stay high, and people cannot afford to drive as much. His grand solution to a serious problem is oppression.
In fascist theology, the state knows best and should be the ultimate regulator. It cannot grant the private sector the liberty to make those decisions. In other words, the government, in Obama’s mind, cannot allow us to have cheaper gas and decide for ourselves how much we drive.
Obama believes in the need for an all-powerful government to coordinate society. Now I’m not calling him Hitler or suggesting he’s genocidal, but he is a subtle fascist. Everything is a political matter to him from what you eat to how warm you keep your home to how much money you make to how you educate your children. While Barack makes promises to socially engineer a near-perfect society, the rest of us who still understand the fundamental truth that life is unfair and man is flawed, knows that it will never happen and that every attempt to do so makes us worse off.
What are you thinking America?! I saw the polls yesterday. This man admits that raising the capital gains tax hurts revenue yet he still wants to do it for the sake of fairness? Either the poll numbers are inaccurate, the general population has no idea what’s going on, or we are truly becoming a socialist nation. I could rant about his horrible associations or his battle in Illinois to assure that born-alive infants be left to die, but his politics are more than enough.
Forget the tangent. This is my subject now.
Come on, America. Are we really this naïve? Don’t tell me you’re willing to hand over your personal freedoms to power-hungry politicians. Can you honestly not see where the road of modern liberalism is taking us? Can you not read between the lines of “hope” and “change” that Barack Obama spews out on a regular basis? I’m not overly thrilled with Bush, McCain, or the rest of the Republican party either, but the alternative is downright scary.
I am not overstating this problem in attempts to be dramatic either. I am being dead serious. The American life of liberty is being traded away for empty promises of security. It is like the liberals believe we can convert the nation into a college campus where food, shelter, and recreation are all provided for us. If this were accomplished, we would be robbed of opportunity, liberty, and satisfaction.
Let me leave you with a quote by Richard Weaver as you ponder all of this…
“The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a loud bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.”
6 Comments
Permalink
By the way, if you want my opinion on the whole debate, I agree with Rich Galen:
“For the most part they used their stump speech segments to answer the questions without paying much attention to one another… Who won? Neither. It was the rhetorical equivalent of bobbing up and down in the water.”
Permalink
I think the debate was another draw, but John McCain really hurt himself in mentioning a new $300 billion “bailout” plan to buyout failed home mortgages. Many people, including myself, think the previous bailout was a horrible decision, giving a pass for people who didn’t deserve one with little accountability. And even in light of this, he kicks off the debate with mentioning this, for the first time in which some of his advisors (interviewed afterwards) had no idea about.
Whether its fair or not, public image is everything. McCain came off as angry, and condesending in a few places, calling Obama as “that one” instead of by his name and telling a person in the audience that he (the audience member) probably didn’t even know who Fannie and Freddie were before a couple weeks ago. That may be true, but you never want to vocally assume that of someone in a forum in which the voter cannot respond. People will say that public image shouldn’t mean anything (and it technically shouldn’t), but then they will turn around and talk about how Obama is so “inspiring” or Palin is “just like one of us”. So it does matter.
I didn’t think either candidate did very well, as they both dodged questions and stuck to their talking points. Both of them did a lot of finger pointing and playing the blame game. I think they both made a few good points last night, but they are the same points we’ve been hearing for months. And I’m afraid, that is almost all we’re going to get from either Obama or McCain from here on out. Goodbye issues! It was nice knowing you.
Truthfully, I’ll be glad when next month is over. This political season is wearing me out.
Permalink
Great post Jeremy. I suppose we will find out next month what Americans value more – freedom and liberty or promises of security.
Permalink
In addition to my usual Ben Franklin quote “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I would give you this one, also by Ben Franklin, “All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.”
I found neither candidate impressive last night, but was appaled to hear Obama slip in the reference that we must cut down our energy consumption (not up our domestic sources), how dare he think that government can tell me where to go and what to do and how often I may do so.
Permalink
Have you thought about this parallel?
Osama Bin Laden Osama Bin Laden
Obama Biden
Permalink
http://zazzle.com/politix*
Several years after his terrorist bombings, Bill Ayers received his professorship in the field of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He became involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), an ‘educational’ directive to radicalize American school children by reteaching them a revisionist version of American history (wherein Ayers attributes our government as being unjust, racist and imperialist), he was able to secure a $50 million grant. To administer these grant monies, Barack Hussein Obama was hired (Obama and Ayers knew each other at this time). These funds were increased to a final total of over $100 million which were, over a five year period, distributed by Obama to radical, left-wing extremist groups, such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). ACORN is a marxist organization promoting “affirmative action” lending practices by pressuring banks to make sub-prime loans to unqualified recipients under the guise of “fair housing”. They have been involved in many cases of voter fraud, as well. Principally, however, groups such as ACORN were instrumental in fighting to require mortgage lenders (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to push the envelope of irrational lending practices, and threats of legal action for “redlining” played an important role in their success, unjustly promoting a perception of racism.
In conjunction with a well documented history of predominantly democratic senators and house representatives protecting both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with congressional support (including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer and Barack Hussein Obama), an assurance of government backing were these institutions to need help, has led America today to the edge of financial chaos. Aside from Dodd, Obama received more monies for campaign support (over $126,000) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than did any other member of Congress! Furthermore, it would seem appropriate at this point to question how it is that psyeudo-governmental agencies are legally able to in the first place extend finances as donations to political candidates? People need to be aware that it was in fact John McCain who sought to impose increased regulation on the mortgage lending industry, sponsoring a bill to do so in 2005. That bill was killed by democrats, the most outspoken of which was Barney Frank (D-MA, Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair). Recently, it was revealed that Frank had a gay-lover whom he referred to as his “spouse” that was an executive for Fannie Mae.
So, is it any surprise that, as part of the first “bailout” package that democrats in the House of Representatives brought forward sought to include a slush fund for ACORN? Were that initial House bill to have passed with republican support, then a provision to move 20% of all profits from the bailout into a “housing trust fund” (a fund which the democrats have traditionally used to infuse monies into political-action groups such as ACORN) would have carried.
One Trackback
[...] The Presidential Debate and Obama’s Fascism [...]