The 2008 Obama ElectionVic Biorseth Friday, November 07, 2008, The election is over, and this is the last of the “2008” web pages that will be submitted. I apologize for allowing current events to monopolize my limited time and keep me from what I was supposed to be working on. After this submission, I will go back and finish the Byzantine 4th Crusade page, then rework the needed site updates, and finally begin the “Arguments” section spoken of earlier. Sometimes I allow current events to drive me to distraction, and this has been one of those times. This series began with the 2008 Financial Crisis page, expressing concern over the American government invented and supported “sub-prime mortgage market” crash, and the elaborate and typical neo-Socialist Keynesian interventionism rushed into action by the Bush administration and the Congress, with both major candidates and both Parties in near full agreement. I stated that these actions could only make the situation worse and would resolve nothing. Then there was the 2008 Pres. Debate 2 page, an actual election forecast, in which I expressed alarm at the near identical neo-Socialist economic plans of the two top candidates, and at the apparent depth of Marxist ideology shaping the motives and driving the ambitions of Obama. Which then led to the 2008 Marxist Crop page, a description of the Marxist seeds of disaster, in which I talked about the Marxist “social seeds” planted long ago in our public education system and in upper academia, about the growing networks of Marxist grass-roots organizers, about the linkage between Liberation Theology, including Black Liberation Theology, and Marxism, and the seeming ideological shift in the citizenry aligning itself with our own fairly solidly Marxist SLIMC and most of American Show Biz. Then I published Reverend Robert Legg’s 2008 Obama’s Ethos page, which presented a pretty good outline of what drives Obama based on Obama’s own words in his own published books. Obama himself describes his flirtation with and dabbling in Black Liberation Theology and Marxism. And finally I did the 2008 Marxist Infiltration page in which I expressed alarm at how apparently (or possibly) deep Marxist ideology has penetrated into the collective psyche of the highest sitting officials in our government, and perhaps in the people themselves. It is time for an awakening, and for a light to be shined in dark places. Lastly, I updated and re-presented the old Marxism page for people to familiarize with the dramatic differences between the Marxist-Socialist and Democratic-Capitalist systems, and to see that the two systems are far too antagonistic and even mutually exclusive to successfully coexist in any kind of government arrangement. The more a society includes Socialist controls, the more they injure the free market, eventually killing it altogether. 
Now, the election is over, and Barack Hussien Obama is our President Elect, and on January 20 2009 he will become the next President of the United States. If it is a victory for race relations in America, it is a hollow victory, for it is overshadowed by the risk to our nation as constituted, which brings up the first and perhaps most immediate concern. His own quoted words describe our Constitution as – paraphrasing here – a set of negative constraints on government, that describe what government cannot do to people, but not what he thinks government should do for the people. Huh? He’s an American lawyer? For the record, the American Constitution is a legal document, written in English, that says very specific legal things, pertaining to, Number One, the constitution (or organization and working method) of the government of the United States of America, and, Number Two, the specific Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States of America. Obama would like to change that; he said so. He would prefer to use our legislature, rather than the courts, to substantially change the constitution (or organization and working method) of our government. Despite the fact that on January 20 2009 he will be required to swear a solemn oath – again – to protect and defend the American Constitution as written. He believes that our government organization and our Constitution should be changed from what it is in order to enable and mandate government redistribution of “the wealth.” That is what his stated goal is. That is what he considers to be the primary purpose of government. He is clearly a Marxist ideologue, and as such, an enemy of America as constituted. Watch out for his Supreme Court and other court nominees, likely to be rubber-stamped in by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Note well that he has solemnly and publicly promised multiple Leftist grass roots political organizations, including ACORN, that they will be invited into the White House to advise him and to fully participate in the formation of his national policy. He is not only willing, but anxious to “negotiate” with Islamic terrorist governments and organizations, which in some cases (Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO, etc.) are one and the same thing. The annihilation of Israel and the death of all Jews in Israel, at least as a beginning point, is the beginning negotiating point from the side of every Islamic nation and organization standing opposed to Israel. That is their sworn and unchangeable position, from which they refuse to relent. To negotiate is to reasonably reach a compromise position between two divergent positions. So, Obama’s only possible result of negotiating with these people will be some form of partial annihilation of Israel, and perhaps only a partial genocide, perhaps under the softer and more palatable term of ethnic cleansing. If President Obama keeps his campaign promises and implements half of the major plans he has elaborated, he will cause, at least, a serious, deep recession on the level of the one Jiminy Carter brought us, and at worst – if he lasts more than one term – a depression comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s. And as that one was known as the depression of Hoover and Roosevelt, this next one will be known as the depression of Bush and Obama. The economic scenarios are very nearly identical. See the 2008 Financial Crisis page for the details of how the Hoover-Roosevelt depression began, and ran for almost a decade and a half, until well into World War II. It is important to note that the war boom was so great that our free market economy recovered in spite of the government interventions, most of which are still with us. Including Fannie Mae, which was invented back then, and has come back to haunt us again. Now, as then, Wall Street didn’t cause the economic crisis; our government’s intervention did. If the market had been left alone, the market would have recovered. Both times. Markets go up, markets go down, and sometimes people panic over it. Especially if they’re over invested on a small margin and suddenly have to pay the piper. But if the market is left alone, it takes care of itself. Gamblers are supposed to lose on occasion; that’s why they call it gambling. There is also a very good reason why a mortgage is a legal contract, and outsiders, including government officials, ought to stay out of other people’s legal contracts, except when called upon to enforce them. If the sub-prime mortgage market had not been created and fed by our government for years and years and years, we, and the rest of the world, wouldn’t be in this financial mess at all. It appears that nearly everyone in government today goes by the failed and flawed neo-Socialist Keynesian economic theory that involves government intervention in the free market, despite the fact that Keynes thought that Capitalism had failed back in 1929, and based his whole theory on that failure. It did not fail. Nor did it fail this time. All you have to do is look at the history of it. Then as now, Wall Street didn’t cause the economic crisis; our own panic stricken government did. As major economic systems, between Socialism and Capitalism, the only one that ever catastrophically failed is Socialism. (Does the name Soviet Union strike a familiar note?) And the only one that figures most prominently among so-called third-world nations, and that figures most prominently in nations that always - always - exhibit lower standards of living for the majority of the populace is, of course, Socialism. Lefties at home and abroad think that we Americans are spoiled, and that we should be taught a lesson. Ask any Frenchman. Jiminy Carter said we all needed to tighten our belts, turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater, and ride our bicycles more, as he froze wages and fixed prices of everything, driving us into recession for our own good. Algore thinks we need to pay +$8 per gallon of gas like all the Europeans do, thanks to their theoretically superior gas taxes and less free market systems. Nobody can seem to stand the fact that we are all always so much better off than everyone else. We have fat poor people, who have cell phones. Most of all, we have far fewer poor people. We live better than anyone else on earth, and that just seems unfair. But none of them seem capable of grasping the simple reason we are so much better off than they are, which is, that we are more free than they are. Or, more precisely, that we operate in an open market place that is freer than theirs, more automatic, and less controlled by the government. We use our dollars to vote for goods and services that are competitively offered to us in a fiercely competitive environment. Their market is less competitive than ours, or not competitive at all. Our goods and services – those sold in America, no matter where they originate – keep getting better and better, and cheaper and cheaper. Automatically. And the exact same free-market, supply-and-demand forces that provide our better and cheaper goods and services also provide us with businesses, employers, and, very importantly, jobs. Businesses compete with each other, and with the world, for workers, based on supply and demand, just the same as they compete with each other to produce goods and services better and cheaper. Or to warehouse them, or to transport them, or to service some part of some good or service. Supply and demand naturally establish profitable prices for goods and services, and supply and demand naturally establishes the cost of labor for businesses. When allowed to do so freely. Even when restricted, as in our current American market place, so long as the restriction is not complete or severe, innovation will still find a way to bring something to the market for a profit, which is a bad word to all Marxists. It is amazing to me, and it should be to everyone, that Detroit produces cars that are as fuel efficient, innovative and cheap as any in the world today, regardless of how demonized they are by our own so-called intelligentsia, and most especially, even in spite of the huge cost of mostly union labor in the American auto industry today. If you still think that America does not produce as many fuel efficient, clean, hybrid, innovative, high quality and competitively prices cars as any other nation or all others combined, then you really haven’t done your homework on the subject. The widespread belief that American cars are inferior on the world market, like the belief that Capitalism failed or cannot work, is the result of concentrated disinformation. Now, gas prices are falling dramatically, because our crisis has affected the whole world. China and India are no longer demanding the huge increases in oil their expanding economies needed, because their economies are now in contraction. Thanks again to FDR’s Fannie Mae, and Congress’s Freddie Mac. World demand is way down, and so the per-barrel price on the world market, set in Rotterdam, is also way down. Regarding small businesses that have been so much in discussion the last weeks of the campaign, it seems to me that most of the more successful ones are family businesses. Note that “family” is a negative to Marxists. Now with the death of his grandmother, Obama is all alone, if we forget his brother; he said she was the last of his family. I’m sure he misses her. Back to small businesses, most non-chain restaurants seem to me to be family operations. The typical Greek restaurant, Jewish deli, Oriental restaurant, etc., are mostly family businesses. The local body shop or auto repair shop is typically family operated. Most non-corporate farms and ranches are family operations. Note well that Marxism opposes the family, and would like to not only redistribute your wealth, but alienate members from families. The fact that large families are more successful, and each member more potentially successful, than “only children” or alienated individuals presents a thorn to the Marxist. Businesses run by parent-child, brother-sister, first and second cousin relationships do well, probably better than one man shows. The family is a natural support network. The Marxist animosity expressed against private business in general is partnered with animosity toward the family itself, and toward inheritance, and toward allegiance to anything other than the Party. Again, much of this stems from Socialism’s perverted view of wealth, as a fixed and permanent pie in need of being divided up, rather than as a dynamic, constantly changing thing, being constantly created, destroyed, and created again, building, shrinking and changing hands in a never ending succession. Remember the threat posed by the “revolutionary” spoken of before in many places on this site, including the Marxism page. He is alienated from everything: religion, morality, family, soil, country. He is created in academia, on purpose, by academics, many of whom don’t even know what they are doing. What they are creating are anarchists. Now, you may think of an anarchist as an historic figure, like Attila the Hun, with the motto, rape, pillage, plunder and burn. Or, you may think of an anarchist as the typical Hell’s Angel or other habitual criminal or sociopath. But you probably wouldn’t think of one as being a highly respected professor with an important post in a prestigious university. Well, take a closer look at Bill Ayers; that’s exactly what he is. Or, look at Noam Chomsky. His “philosophy” states that all authority, from all sources, is to be assumed to be illegitimate authority until proven legitimate. Every time authority is encountered in life, it is to be resisted until the observer is somehow convinced otherwise. See? This is just nuttiness on a grand scale. This is a man who is highly respected by a lot of, really, silly people. How did he get this way? He learned it in school. This level of stupidity doesn’t come naturally; you have to be educated in it. In the cases of examples like Bill Ayers and Noam Chomsky, you need to be immersed in academia for years and years, to earn a Ph.D, at least, and maybe more than one, and attain a professoriate or an important academic chair in some notable and prestigious university. It’s not easy ascending to this level of being a truly ideologically inspired and ideologically inspirational stupid ass. It takes a lot of indoctrination. When I finish the 4th Crusade page, and the site updates, the new Arguments section will contain some arguments that should form the basis for conservatism, in religion and in politics, including the points that the GOP seems to have completely forgotten and dropped from their arsenal, even as they became more Leftist. Conservatism needs to return to basics. Most important among these points is the need to please God. Once upon a time conservative political office seekers and political office holders were not afraid to speak openly and freely of their wish and their intention to please God, and the need to discern and do the will of God. All real Marxists are necessarily also materialists, and materialists don’t even believe in God, only in matter. Any utterance sounding religious from their mouths is purely and exclusively politically motivated. Today’s Marxists, at least in America, only pretend to be religious in any way. We need to remember that our religion gave birth to our morality, and that our religious morality is the very basis for our civil law, including our Constitution – the very design of our nation’s government. Before we do anything at all, we need to turn our faces back toward God, the Author of all that is good and decent and beautiful and noble. Pray for America; please God, and live forever.
Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page Return to HOME PAGE Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement) CommentsDate: Sun Nov 09 10:13:34 2008
I think you are getting a little too excited about President Obama padding the court. His statement was that he did not want to use the court to implement his changes. He said he wanted to use the legislative process, which is the right way to go. We do need change, and he will bring it about in a legal way. Date: Mon Nov 10 12:54:25 2008
Joe: What’s the difference? The “change” he intends to implement, and that you seem to think we need, is to enable our government to spread other people’s wealth around. The only way that can be done is to involve a major, seismic change in the organization of the government and method of governance of the United States of America, because it involves doing something that is, in a word, unconstitutional. Our government is not constituted to do that sort of thing. There is currently no legitimate Federal ability to do such a thing in America, whether by legislation signed by the President, or by executive order, or even by some new, weird Court “interpretation” of some principle not even in the Constitution (although that hasn’t stopped the Court so far.) He may start out with the legislative process, but it will wind up before the Court, and that is where it will be decided. See the Abortion in America page for a gross example of how a Leftist Court can actually bypass the other two branches of government and simply make new law completely on its own. Just as a previous immoral Court decided Dredd Scott once upon a time, judging people to be property, a future immoral Court will be able to “decide” a government right into being by which private property may be expropriated for any purpose or use whatsoever. Regards, Vic Date: Sun Nov 09 14:13:52 2008
If you read Chomsky in depth and did some of the critical thinking you’re always harping on you might not be so quick to use the snide insults and demeaning language to describe people and issues you obviously do not understand. But then, that’s to be expected from the Right. Date: Mon Nov 10 13:23:28 2008
Brian Q: Sorry, but it doesn’t take too much depth of reading and critical thinking to be able to identify Chomsky’s anarchism for exactly what it is, and that is: unmitigated stupidity. I’m not particularly sorry that there’s really no nice way to say that. Stupidity needs to be identified by someone, especially when so many people play it up to be somehow wise, and even spend money to buy books to learn all they can about it, and study it in depth, and praise it. It’s still stupid, and I’m still not sorry to say so. What we have here is every-man-for-himself law, and every-man-for-himself morality, and every-man-for-himself rules of behavior, in every environment and circumstance. From traffic law to table manners to criminal law to common civility, to every circumstance involving more than one person. It seeks to make each individual man an island unto himself, separate from everyone else, in his judgments and in his resulting individual actions. Since no two of us think alike or have the exact same values, all behavior would become random. How, exactly, is complete chaos, complete disorder, good? This is, almost definitively, sociopathic behavior. It just doesn’t get any more anti-social than this. Regards, Vic Date: Tue Dec 02 17:00:32 2008
In regards to "padding" the court, any "padding" of the court is wrong. Clinton did it, Bush did it, and Obama will do it. They, like any well-educated individual, knew (and know) that the court has entitled *itself* to all the powers it has today. Every major court case concerning judicial vs. legislative power, or executive vs. legislative/judicial power has always been ruled in favor of the judiciary, thereby self-entitling the courts to their own particular brand of legislation sans oversight. Clinton's appointments were all done with a particular political bent. Bush's were the same, and Obama will continue the trend. The very definition of our judiciary according to the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers is that it should be apolitical, that is, without political bias. You do not appoint conservative judges because they will defend this right or that right. You do not appoint liberal judges because they will promote this freedom or that freedom. You appoint politically-neutral, unbiased, apolitical judges because their role, simply stated, is to interpret the law as it applies to the current day. They cannot rule on a law that does not exist, which they do every day. This creates precedent which creates bench-created law. Senators and Congressmen exist to do this. The judiciary exists simply to rule on infractions of law or to provide judicial oversight on legislation and executive order. They are not empowered, except by their own oversight, to do otherwise. Anyone saying that any harping on Obama for wanting to pad the judiciary with judges who see the constitution as liquid and open to interpretation does not realize that such a judiciary would only further empower itself until the articles and sections concerning the courts are moot and all oversight of the judicial system removed. From there, the legislature and executive are either whittled away or equally empowered until we have a bureaucracy on the level of the Soviet Union (or France, God forbid) or we have political chaos and mutual antipathy at all levels of government. The courts should not be padded. They should be expunged, purged, and purified (with fire, if at all possible) until such a time as a truly apolitical body of genuine students of the law can be allowed to sit and preside at the bench. Date: Thu Dec 4 08:29:23 2008
Brandon: Well said. My only comment is that, the newer definitions of Liberal and Conservative being what they are today, conservatives are forced by circumstance today to “pad” the court with nominees who simply know how to read and correctly interpret the simple English words in the Constitution, as a matter of political self-defense, and defense of our Constitution as written. That is what Presidents like Nixon and Reagan meant by the term “strict constructionist.” Putting aside for the moment the horrific Constitutional issues that may not even be found in our Constitution (right to privacy; right to abort someone; separation of Church and state; etc.) let us just consider the main thrust of Obama’s political intentions here. In this particular case, Obama would like to change the fundamental nature of our government in order to use taxation not for support of government, but simply to redistribute other people’s earnings; to take from some who have earned more, and to give to some who have earned less. To put it rather harshly, this is to simultaneously punish hard work and reward laziness. Marxists call it “fairness” and “giving back,” as if these earnings were originally somehow taken from someone rather than simply earned in the free market place. Unfortunately, conservatives have a real need to proactively pad the courts, hopefully with "politically-neutral, unbiased, apolitical" judicial nominees, as you describe. I pray that one day we will have the ability to impeach justices for good cause by citizen vote. We should never be allowed to elect them, but perhaps we should be allowed to throw them out, although only with great difficulty. Regards, Vic Date: Wed Aug 05 10:56:14 2009
Vic, excellent analysis. Only one correction or omission on your part. American cars are inferior in quality, that is why I have had multiple Toyotas and Hondas that have lasted to 200,000 to 250,000 miles. All of my American cars have some type of drive train issues after or before 100.000 miles. I am not part of the American intelligentsia, but a lover of the American Constitution. Date: Wed Aug 05 20:28:09 2009
Bill:
I agree with you on America and her Constitution, but disagree on your judgment of quality of American cars. My Chevy pickup has over 550,000 miles on it, and my wife’s Pontiac has over 180,000. We have never had an American car that we bought new that had less than 250,000 miles on it before we traded it in. Our first Volkswagen Beetle only had 125,000 when we got rid of it, and our second (and last) never saw 50,000 miles before it blew an engine. A Fiat 128 was the last foreign car we bought, and the only car we ever got rid of before we even finished paying it off because it just gave us so much trouble. See the article at The SLIMC Vs. The Truth for some of the more gross examples of how our major media has been purposely demonizing American cars for so many generations now that most of us just “know” that American cars are inferior. Nevertheless, in my experience, so long as you take care of them from the beginning of their life, American drive trains are very nearly bullet proof. Regards, Vic PS: See also Poor Vic's Old Truck. Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.
|
