There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
Friday, February 6, 2009
11 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
ReplyDeletebwa ha ha ha ha hahahaha.. ho ho ha ha...
Well, at least on this one paragraph, you are correct (except for the "traitorous" part, of course). Your fears and whinings have lost the day. You and your ilk have become irrelevant. Sorry, that's gotta suck.
That's right, Danny, follow the rest of the lemmings off the cliff gleefully. You will be one of the first to be executed for your loyalty, as is the case with all traitors.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, Mark, but I recall you recently admitted to having been underemployed for at least the past several months. Should the stimulus bill now before Congress pass in a similar form to its current one, and it offers you the opportunity to be gainfully employed at a better-than-living wage, will you turn it down? Would you turn down construction work on a highway funded by this stimulus bill? Or construction work on a new post office, say, for your municipality? Perhaps you have techinical training, and one of the many opportunities offered to be a subcontractor through the Army Corps of Engineers comes up - say, on how to carefully dismantle those damns that Sen. McConnell is making fun of, but take an enormous amount of ingenuity to dismantle without causing serious environmental and other damage. Are you saying you would refuse these jobs out of principle.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoy the fact that you tick off as evidence of Pres. Obama's movement toward a dictatorship the closing of a legally-questionable prison where torture took place; the reinstatement of the rule of law, including habeas corpus for all suspects of crimes - these are a return to Constitutional norms, not the destruction of them.
As for "who he thinks he is" - he's the President of the United States saying that people who are receiving what amounts to very large welfare checks shouldn't be moaning that they're only getting a measley half-a-million dollars. They're lucky they aren't out in the streets pan-handling with a sign that says, "Will invest your money for food".
Geoffrey, exactly what part of the Porkulus bill will help me get a job?
ReplyDeleteLet's see. investment in highway construction, perhaps, unless that kind of thing is beneath you. The building trades, too. All sorts of various projects - the one cited by Sen. McConnell is probably something the Army Corps of Engineers has had in the planning stages for years, but has needed Congressional approval to greenlight - requiring people to work, get paid, get benefits, and then take that money and spend it, save it, invest it, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not sure what's so difficult to understand about this. This is Politics 101 - one person's pork is another persons investment. There's education investment, local police force enhancement, support for college tuition for middle and lower income students. There's middle class tax relief - I would like to see some working-class tax relief, including a temporary lifting of the withholding tax, which would put a whole lot more money in the hands both of workers (who would no longer get that money taken out of their checks) and employers (who have to match that money they send to the IRS) - an enhancement of the EITC, and, yes, all sorts of things that, out of context, one could say, "OOO, that's just a whole lot of pork!" Except, it isn't "pork". It's money that's being spent, sometimes to create jobs through government contracts, sometimes to invest in physical plant. Investing in green technologies, or at least greener technologies certainly gives a boost to an industry that could die in a serious recession, giving people jobs as the government invests in, say, hybrid vehicles for the federal fleet - someone has to build those cars, then transport them. Last time I checked, those were jobs. Someone has to build the buildings, the sidewalks, the roads, the bridges, repair all the things neglected by decades of people saying, "It's pork!" whenever a highway project came up, or a bridge repair came up, or a dam building or improvement arose.
Now, I do not know what your professional training is, Mark. However, semi-skilled labor doesn't require a whole lot of it. One can work on a construction crew without a whole lot of it, and if the bill passes there will be a whole lot of jobs available that pay well (in IL, these are union jobs). What you call "pork" is a way to put people to work, not working for the government, but rather working for various corporations that now have government contracts to do various specific jobs. The multiplier effect works well here; all these people working have to buy food, they may have some extra cash to buy that Wii for the kids now, or a new game for the XBox 360. Maybe they were putting off buying a new car, but the promise of steady work gives them the incentive to go ahead and do it; as someone whose livelihood depends in large part on a Chrysler plant, that might be a good idea.
That's how this works. Once the wheels of commerce start working, they will no longer need these kinds of things, which is why Obama isn't proposing, say, a new PWA or Federal Arts or Writers Project (too bad, but this works pretty well, too). While the economy continues to contract, and hundreds of thousands and then millions lose jobs; as banks continue to fail; as money becomes more and more scarce - this is the market at work, BTW, that we should just leave alone - sitting around and waiting for it to right itself could take years, decades. Japan has yet to fully recover from its serious contraction of the early 1990's, and now the global economic slump isn't helping their efforts to recover.
I'm no fan of giving free money to the banks and other big corporations that brought this mess on, on principle. Yet, I also realize that this is not a time to stand on principle, when people are hurting, losing their homes, under all this enormous emotional, psychic stress. Where's the compassion? Where's the sense that in all this we are talking about the suffering of our fellow citizens, fellow human beings in real need?
Will, the stimulus bill work? I have no idea. Will it be a magic bullet? Even the President says, "No", because, of course it won't be. Even the most rosy economic forecast has a contraction continuing through 2010. That's a long time for a lot of people sitting idle, and for the economy to just sputter along on life support.
The trick here is not to get caught up in trying to get it all right right away. It is time to act, and there is a whole lot of prudence, a nice mixed bag, in the stimulus package. Some of the stuff taken out, well, maybe it should have been, maybe not - some might get put in other bills, certainly. The point is that action is necessary. A trillion dollars of demand is going to just disappear - that is to say, there will be a trillion fewer dollars chasing goods and services next year. Something has to plug that enormous, Titanic-like hole in the economy.
Giving people free money that doesn't cover the cost of a car, say, or giving a whole lot of people who don't deserve it bonuses they didn't earn, or extending tax cuts in to infinity that won't matter a whole lot when more and more people aren't earning income to pay taxes on - that will solve nothing. We've been down this road, and it's bumpy, and it leads, in the end, to the precipice we find ourselves at right now.
All you folks screaming "pork", and "tyrant", and (worst of all) "markets" - I want your answers. Answers that help real people. Not principles that might sound all high and mighty. I want some specifics (I gave quite a few, and I'm sure if I sat and thought I could come up with more) as to how your proposals would be better.
I still would like to know, Mark, how reinstating Constitutional norms for the treatment of terror suspects will lead to tyranny. I realize that's all counter-intuitive and stuff, but I seriously would like to read your explanation (no snark here - I want to understand your thoughts).
Here are some answers here. If you'll recall, much of the New Deal included "shovel ready" projects of its own, and none of it resulted in the type of recovery it promised to provide. Spending won't get it done, because like socialism, history proves it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteBut let's look at Geoffrey's comments for a moment. If we concede all those projects, the package is still woefully bloated with greatly unnecessary spending. 937 trillion is just unconconsionable, and it is already being said that we'll likely need more. But as far as any of those projects proposed, there are still some that don't need to be done now and doing so to provide only temporary jobs won't help anyone long term. I have no trouble with the feds repairing federal structures that have a real need for it, but that would be true in any economic climate.
So the alternative, and one that has proven itself time and time again, is cutting taxes and tax rates. Leave the money where it has historically always done the most good: in the hands of private enterprise, the hands of people who understand business.
Obama does NOT have to do anything right now, except for tax cutting and spending cutting. If he proposed THAT, you'd see an immediate jump in the stock market and their confidence would soar that business would begin to turn around, as it always has when such things are done.
937 trillion?? You're worse that Pelosi!! ha ha.
ReplyDeleteSo the alternative, and one that has proven itself time and time again, is cutting taxes and tax rates.
Actually, there is no such proof. According to Moody's, for stimulus:
Tax rebates:
$1.00=$1.02 economic activity
Infrastructure spending:
$1.00=$1.59 economic activity
Food stamps:
$1.00=$1.73 economic activity
Those commies at Moody's!!!
Whoa! Good catch, Jim. But worse than a member of Congress not knowing the population of the US? Not even close. In this case, we're talking about massive numbers of taxpayer dollars and even the correct number is way too freakin' much. (But it is a hoot--"trillion"!)
ReplyDeleteNow about your Moody's bit, it would be more relevant if it was in response to what I suggested. I never suggested rebates. Rebates are the $300 and $1000 type checks that Bush sent out. I'll take any amount of my tax money sent back to me any day of the week. But I never said mere rebates have any real effect on anything. It certainly didn't have an effect on my standard of living. Nor will this so-called stimulus package, no matter how cool a frizbee golf course would be.
By the way, I never mentioned one word about the so-called stimulus package in my rant. But since it's been brought up, there is no way throwing a trillion dollars at the economic problem in this country is going to solve the problem. Throwing money at problems have never solved any problems to date. Why should we expect a different result now?
ReplyDeleteThe reason we are in this economic mess in the first place was twofold:
First, Democrat controlled federal agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed because the Democrats forced mortgage companies to make high risk loans to irresponsible people.
Second, the Democrat controlled Congress offered to bail out irresponsible corporations and then allowed them to squander the money.
Last year the Government (under Bush and a Democrat controlled Congress)sent out millions of dollars in the form of rebates, ostensibly to stimulate our teetering economy.
Did it work? Was our economy saved?
Apparently not, because now, the government thinks they have to do it again, only this time on a much larger scale.
As a caller on the "Grandy and Andy show" on WMAL radio said, "You don't give a crackhead money and expect him to pay his bills with it."
Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".
Our Democrat President and the Democrat controlled Congress is doing the same thing Bush did last year over again and expecting totally different results.
They are insane.
Wow, Mark interesting. Nonsense, but interesting.
ReplyDelete1. First, Democrat controlled federal agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed because the Democrats forced mortgage companies to make high risk loans to irresponsible people.
This is a lie. First, these agencies were not controlled by a political party. Second, nobody was forced to make loans to anybody. Got it? It is a LIE to say that any mortgage company or any body else was forced to make a high risk loan, or any kind of loan by anybody. It's simply untrue to say so.
2. the Democrat controlled Congress offered to bail out irresponsible corporations and then allowed them to squander the money.
Untrue. The DemocratIC-controlled Congress, passed AT THE REQUEST of President Bush and HIS Treasury Secretary a bill to help keep the economy afloat. Good or bad, it was Bush's urging and it was his Treasury Department that failed to monitor how the money was used.
3. Last year the Government (under Bush and a Democrat controlled Congress)sent out millions of dollars in the form of rebates, ostensibly to stimulate our teetering economy.
The DemocratIC-controlled congress passed at the urging of Bush the tax rebates. I was against that, as I am against the possible coming tax cuts. People won't spend the money. They'll pay down debt or save the money. That doesn't stimulate anything.
The economy needs demand. If people are afraid to spend money, there is no demand. The government needs to create demand by spending money. That's what a stimulus bill is. The fact that the money is spent on things this country really needs like bridges, highways, schools, and energy efficiency, makes spending it all the better.
4. Apparently not, because now, the government thinks they have to do it again, only this time on a much larger scale.
This is not again? This is different.
Sorry you don't get it. I can't help that, but I try.
"People won't spend the money. They'll pay down debt or save the money. That doesn't stimulate anything."
ReplyDeleteThis is naive. Even if all they do is pay down debt and save money, they are circulating the money through the economy. Saved money doesn't sit. It gets used. Those who are paid what they are expecting to be paid, now have funds for whatever THEY want. It is a far more stimulative effect then the government spending borrowed money in their usually inefficient manner. Also, cutting taxes means cutting taxes on businesses who will DEFINITELY use the funds for a variety of expansive options. Go back and look at my last comment and check out the link where there is a list of examples of how government spending doesn't do a damn thing but hurt, while cutting gov spending along with cutting taxes has ALWAYS worked to stimulate an economy.
AS to the rest of Mark's comment, Dem interference and its effect in creating this mess has been well documented.