My Response to "Mystery Unraveled"
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/11/08/mystery-unraveled-how-a-white-moderate-churchgoing-middle-class-middle-aged-woman-could-vote-for-obama/
I
don't see where the mystery has been unraveled.
She's a moderate that believes that taking the life of babies is OK, big government, and gay marriage
is OK. No mystery here.....
The
true mystery is how a Christian could vote for Obama. A man who thinks that taking the life of a
baby, as late as the 3rd trimester, is OK?
How a Christian supports the idea of gay marriage, when the Bible is
clear that homosexuality is a sin? And
before you jump up and down, God said "love the sinner, not the
SIN". I have no problem with a
person who feels they are gay, but it is still a sin and we are not to condone
it. Just like all sin, we are not to
condone them either. And before you jump
again, yes we all sin, but true Christians tries not to sin. And too often we fall short, but we make a
attempt to not sin.
As
for her 5 reasons "moderates broke for Obama", they don't surprise
me, after all she's a moderate.....
But here they are....
1). I
don't "know" if Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, but he does have
socialist tendencies. (The Birth
Certificate and that sort of thing was put out there by the democrats to
distract the people)
The problem here is that the dictionary
definition of “socialist” sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader.
Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard. Actually, Lenin tried
to implement pure socialism when he first came to power, but when his policies
caused the Russian economy to collapse all around him, in 1921 he abandoned
literal socialism and replaced it with a pragmatic, expedient reform program
called the “New Economic Policy.” Under NEP, Lenin permitted various
privatizations while seeking state domination of the “commanding heights” of
the economy. President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state
control over such “commanding heights” of our economy
as energy,
health care,
finance,
and education,
with smaller forays into food,
transportation
and undoubtedly some areas I
am overlooking.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy
strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually
socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of
Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a
“Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian
police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There
is no comparison between Barack Obama’s
statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That
being said, Obama’s
economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the
Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama
tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics.
Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of
seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews
Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages
(“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama
and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the
goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform.
Here are some
examples, with Marx’s wording being revised for simplicity’s sake:
A). State control of real property. Team Obama
repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic
energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting
arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage.
Here is a link about how much land the
government owns......
http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-owns-usa.html
B). Progressive income taxes.
Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1
percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax.
C). Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors
re-institution of estate taxes.
D). Confiscation of the property of emigrants
and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought
legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as
well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America
(causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all
American investments);
E). Centralization
of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state.
Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction.
F). State control of means of communication
and transportation. Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets
like Fox News into submission through denunciation and has suggested reviving
the so-called “fairness doctrine” and imposing heavier licensing fees on
station owners. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into
the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle,
and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green
transportation.”
G). Increase state control over means of
production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme,
now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on
which most other industries depend—energy.
H). Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has
ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large
expansion of AmeriCorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also
has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.
I). Control over where people live. Team Obama
doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade
is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far
they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book,
“Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5,
2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be
herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural
state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted
more equal distribution of the human population between town and country,
whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people
live.)
J). Free education. Obama has sought a
federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his
2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal
education programs.
Clearly Barack Obama’s policies have a
distinctly Marxian flavor to them. Does that mean we are destined for
socialism? Certainly not yet. But Marx knew that his 10 strategies would move a
society toward socialism. The great free-market economist Ludwig von
Mises agreed with Marx that government interventions breed further
interventions and tend inexorably toward socialism. (See his class essay, “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism.”)
There is another vital point to understand
about Marxist-Leninist economics: The greatest damage is done to the middle
class. With his customary bloodthirsty malevolence, Lenin said, “The way to crush
the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of
taxation and inflation.”
You may suppose that Obama isn’t implementing
that aspect of Marxist-Leninist economics, but you would be mistaken. It’s true
that income tax rates haven’t risen under Obama and inflation has
only surfaced in a few areas (e.g., food and energy) but what you
need to understand is that government
borrowing is a tax hike on future taxpayers. Obama’s unprecedented
deficit spending has been subsidized by the Federal
Reserve, whose balance sheet has swelled as they have bought more
and more federal debt (more than 60 percent of the total last year). Whenever
the Fed’s zero interest
rate policy ends, some combination of massive tax hikes and/or
raging inflation will ensue, devastating the middle class.
Already, Obama’s economic policies have hurt
the middle class. They have enervated the job market, raised food and energy
bills, and been accompanied by falling incomes and net worth. If these are the
results of Obama’s partial steps in a Marxist-Leninist direction, imagine the
damage that would be wrought by a fuller implementation of such an agenda.
I repeat that we should not
recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and
cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic
labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is
“an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive,
free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a
Marxist-Leninist flavor.”
2). Obama's economic RECORD, has us with a 16T
debt that will take well over 100 years to pay off. This link will explain it in a nut shell....
http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/tax-richthat-will-pay-off-debt.html
She
mentions, just like the democrat talking points tell her to do, that
"we've tried that before".
Yes
we did, and it works. But what too many
people don't know is that we tried what Obama and the liberals want before and
America almost didn't happen. The
Pilgrims tried it when they first arrive here and they almost starved to
death. It didn't take long for people to
see that sharing the wealth with people
that didn't want to work doesn't work.
So they abandoned the system.
Here is the account in a nut shell.....
William Bradford, the colony’s governor its
first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the Pilgrim passengers and the
financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth
Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1,
1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to
pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade,
traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or
persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and
profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt
the Adventurers and Planters…” During this time the colonists were to “have
their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and
goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because
the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who
worked.
The first
two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists
died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was
destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of
food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.”
The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and
discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and
comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service,
did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other
men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism
made strong men lazy. In another book written by the same author, History of Plymouth Plantation,
Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created
famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by
night and day….”
After two years of such, with the survival of
the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn
as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not
still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing
socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every
family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”
The effects were almost immediate. A
delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all
hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would
have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of
trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the
field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would
allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought
great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much
greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work
because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now
God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to
the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general
want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
Like
I said, we've tried Obama and the Liberals way.......
3). Obama-care.
We won't have it for long. By
2020 or so, we will have total Government health-care. Mainly because the insurance companies will
be out of business. I believe this
because of the pre-existing conditions clause.
Imagine yourself having a restaurant and the government came in and said
that you had to feed anybody that comes in and says they are hungry. How long would you stay in business.....
4). Do the math.
X amount of people will use X amount of energy. Whether it comes from the US or the middle
east, doesn't matter. But if we use our
resources, we can drive down the cost of energy and improve our economy and at
the same time work on other forms of energy. But the EPA is out of control, it was put into
place to help business, but now it is usually a hindrance to business...
5). Here she has fallen for the class warfare lie.
Here
are links to the "Fair Share" lie.......
http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/09/fair-share.html
http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/10/obama-on-misleading-america-on-taxes-to.html
