Obama's New Deal: destroy and replace?

Well, that looks like the plan for this Administration:

Does Obama Want the Best for America or Does He Want to Destroy It?

[...] Obama knows that his economic policies are productive of neither liberty as traditionally conceived by Americans nor prosperity. He would have to be, not just the most incompetent president ever, but among the most dense of human beings, for given the extensive exposure that he has had to both Keynesian and neo-Marxian philosophy -- anyone who takes the time to read his memoirs, particularly his first, and who considers the worldview of the people with whom he has surrounded himself for most of his life would know this -- he could only know by now full well the fruits that these policies promise to reap.

But from this it doesn't follow that Obama anticipates the ruination of America as such. There can be no doubt, I think, that he wants to preside over an America that is morally superior and, hence, better, than the country that elected him two years ago. The problem, though, is that the America of Obama's imaginings is radically unlike the America to which most of its citizens have an acquired affection and even more unlike the America within which their ancestors made their home. That is, the "fundamental transformation" that Obama wants to visit upon America demands nothing more or less than the death of America as it is currently constituted; only once America as a living reality is eliminated can America as Obama's ideal be substituted for it.

The philosopher Ronald Dworkin once said that "a more equal society" -- a society the resources of which are equally "distributed" -- is better than the contrary, even if its citizens prefer inequality. Anyone who has paid any attention at all to Obama must know that he couldn't agree more with this thought.

So, our president does indeed think that as a people, Americans will be "better" in the wake of the "fundamental transformation" that he wants to impose upon us. [...]

Duh! He meant what he said about "change". Too bad nobody insisted he be more specific and explain it, though I doubt he would ever admit it was change of the Cloward-Piven kind.

Elections have consequences, and we are living it now.

     

One Sided "Civility" is really just "Censorship"

Advocate of Violence
Frances Fox Piven and the New York Times's dishonest campaign for "civility."

[...] They may not agree with what you say, but they'll fight to the death for your right to remain silent.

And the New York Times will cheer them on in that fight. Why is a newspaper that has been posturing as the scourge of violent rhetoric now siding with a purveyor of such rhetoric, and blatantly slanting the news as it does so? Because her opponent is a prominent media figure from outside the old media establishment. Because Glenn Beck is a threat to the authority of the New York Times. [...]

Read the details, and weep. Talk about twisting things.

When civility is demanded from only one political side, how is that any different from censorship? Someone please explain it to the NY Times.


Also see:

HEARD OF PROFESSORS CLOWARD AND PIVEN?
     

“Reinvestment Acts" of Carter, Clinton & Obama

It's the history of the Democrats, and it keeps on repeating itself, and landing us in sh*t street:

Barack Obama, Propaganda, Jimmy Carter, Inflation, High Interest Rates “Reinvestment Act” and The “Misery Index.”

[...] If you look back in history to the Jimmy Carter Administration you will find that during Jimmy Carter’s Reinvestment Act, much the same as Barack Obama’s, we went into years of double digit inflation because the dollar was so devalued (The fed printed a hell of a lot of money to fund the Reinvestment Act). To combat high, runaway inflation the Federal Reserve kept raising interest rates. Now, much to Jimmy Carter’s credit there were 10.5 Million Jobs created under his presidency. However people could not afford to buy anything because the price of merchandise and interest were well beyond the average person. The end result was the economy did not grow thus we had “STAGFLATION.”

Here is an interesting page from the Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Note that during the George W. Bush years there was the lowest unemployment and the the lowest interest rates. One may argue that George W. Bush only created 3 Million jobs. But wait…. almost everyone was working. But as the economy began to collapse because of Bill Clinton’s expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1997, the unemployment number skyrocketed in the last months of George W. Bush’s term. This was not George W. Bush’s fault at all.

Carter: Interest rate, 21%. Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%. The so-called “Misery Index,” which Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election.

Reagan’s last year: Interest rate, 9%. Inflation, 4.1%. Unemployment, 5.5%.

George W. Bush: Interest rate, 8% down to almost 0%. Inflation, 2.6%. Unemployment, 4.5%. [...]

And it was Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act in 1997 that made all the bad loans, the sub-prime mortgages, that led to the meltdown. And once again, it looks like there is inflation in our future.

We are told that 10 million jobs were created during Jimmy Carter's presidency, but the benefits of that were negated by high inflation, which ran the economy into the ground, ending his presidency with a recession.

Obama has started his Presidency with a recession, and hasn't created any significant number of jobs. He has continually attacked the private sector, increased taxes, created uncertainty in the market place, and added enormously to our already overburdened national debt. When inflation comes, it will be worse than Carter's presidency, because we won't even have the jobs people had back then; it will be high unemployment AND inflation. And if we continue on this path, we may even be facing a U.S. currency collapse.

Think Cloward-Piven strategy. The hard-core Marxists are. I don't claim that everybody in the Obama Administration is a hard-core Marxist; some are just Marxist sympathizers, or useful idiots. But in the end the distinction won't much matter, if the end result is the same.


Also see:

Has US Currency already "collapsed"?

What happens when Tax Cuts Expire in 2011?

# Our true national debt: $130,000,000,000,000.

     

Far Left Dems: Lie, Sabotage, and Replace...

I've been saying it for years. They want to destroy capitalism and our Constitutional legal system, and replace them with something else. Here's proof. I've copied this from Nealz Nuze:

[START]

HEARD OF PROFESSORS CLOWARD AND PIVEN?

By Neal Boortz

Both were at liberal Columbia University professors in the '60's. (I know, "liberal Columbia University Professor" is redundant). These two professors put forth their Cloward-Piven strategy in an article in The Nation magazine. The issue date was May 2, 1966. David Horowitz summarizes the strategy thusly:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Hmmmmm. Does that sound at all like our current "crisis" in health care? I mean, how many people do you personally know who are in the throes of despair right now because of some needed health care service that is beyond their reach? Oh sure, I know that there are lifeboat cases; there always are, in any society. But do the relatively small percentage of people out there who are facing some sort of unmet medical disaster constitute an entire system in "crisis?" Certainly not. So why the huge push? Why the asinine idea that our economic recovery is dependent on developing some form of national healthcare? Why is this all being painted as a crisis that to be solved right-by-God-now or our entire society is endangered? Well ... Obama and the Democrats, of course, are anxious to get this segment of the economy under their absolute control before next year's mid-term elections. Time is really of the essence for them. Consider also that if you're going to use the Cloward-Pivin Strategy of manufactured crisis, you have to treat it like an actual crisis, and that means dealing with it NOW!

Here's a bit from The Nation article: The essential features of a campaign using the Cloward-Pivin Strategy.

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Needless to say we're going to be discussing my "find" here (thanks to a listener email) in coming days and weeks. But first, perhaps you would like to learn more on your own. Go ahead .. use Google. But here's two links to get you started:

1. Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, from American Thinker.com
2. The Cloward-Piven Strategy, from Discoverthenetworks.org

What do you think? Could the Democrat-Socialist party be intentionally trying to collapse our system?

[END]

Hell yes. Not all Democrats think like that of course, but the hardcore leftists, and even much of the party leadership, yes. They want our economy and our system of government to fail, so they can replace it with their totalitarian... "vision". They would call it a dream, but many of us would call it a nightmare. Most of them would not admit it publicly, but they don't have to. They know where the road will take us, they just have to prod us all down the path, till it's too late to turn back.

Pat also posted about this:

The Cloward-Piven Strategy