When he was on the campaign trail, then candidate, Obama talked a lot about change, and said that it was time for new, fresh ideas. However, as soon as he became President, he bought into the same old arguments for Government intrusion into the Economy and American life. Something always seemed really off to me about the whole "too big to fail" argument. And as for Obama himself, he likes to say that he really doesn't want to take over companies and such, but he just has to, because of the economy. Basically saying that, while having the Government take over everything would be bad, the economy would just collapse if he doesn't do it.
Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.
While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.
It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There is no hope in Socialism. Obama lied about "change" during his campaign. His idea of change is - as you stated in your essay - "a very old argument."
I attended a TEA Party in Temecula, Ca. on July 4th. One young man's sign at the TEA party protest stated: "Oh...Now I see. Change means Socialism."
It made me think about how many young people were duped by Obama's lies during his campaign. So many people were all excited about those cliche's of "hope" and "change." Next time, people better wise up and learn just what kind of "change" a person means!
Too many young, college aged students don't know the dangers, errors, tyranny, and loss of freedom that Socialism ushers into a country. Why? Because they have only known freedom (in most cases) here in the United States.
Russian immigrants (like the lawyer, Orly Taitz, for example) have lived under the rule of tyranny in the former Soviet Union. No wonder she is so fierce in her lawsuit attempts against Obama. She knows what the U.S. Constitution says about the position of POTUS. Obama cannot be a "natural born citizen" due to his father's Kenyan/British nationalism - and the fact that he (Obama Sr.) never became a U.S. citizen means that Obama Jr. wasn't born to 2 U.S. citizen parents. At best, Obama is a naturalized citizen (like Arnold S.) At worst, he is an illegal alien.
The fact that Obama is a usurper makes all of the Marxist policies being inflicted upon America that much worse. He isn't eligible for the position of president in the first place. The man is a BIG FAT liar. A dangerous one, too.
God save us from this evil man!
Christine, Thanks for the comment.
Yes, too many people, young and old alike, just don't really pay attention. They think, oh, Obama's not a bad guy, he won't do anything to hurt us, and just ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
I think that one thing that kind of sums this up, the other day I saw something on the History channel, and they said that people hire a President to take care of their problems, so they don't want to think about their problems, they just want the President to deal with them. I said, NO, we elect, or hire if you wish, a President because Government is required for a narrow swath of responsibility, like national defense and infrastructure and a few other things, and our system, laid out in the Constitution is a good one and calls for a President. That's it. We don't (or at least shouldn't) want the President, or the Congress, or the Courts to take care of all of our problems, just the ones they are legitimately responsible for, and not to cause others, and leave the rest to us. But insofar as people are looking to the Government, be it the President or anyone else, to solve all their problems, those people are all but asking for tyranny.
Post a Comment