Yes the website is right-wing, and yes some is far fetched, still interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

With the election of Barack Obama as president, the liberals have launched a massive, two-front offensive they believe will end in victory. They have judged that our public education system is so degraded that only a few Americans are left who even understand what a democracy is, and how the free market actually works. They are convinced that the majority of Americans are too frightened by the current recession to care about preserving the principles that made us the most powerful, productive and innovative country the world has ever known. In short, the liberals are reaching for victory because they believe that history now is on their side.

 

 

The speed and reach of their offensive is breathtaking.

 

 

At the core of democracy is the rule of law, and we have already lost it. The liberals lecture us incessantly that everything is "relative," but that's not true; some things are absolutes. You cannot claim to be faithful to your spouse because you never cheat on her -- except when you're in London on business. And you cannot claim to have the rule of law if the government can set aside the rule of law when it decides that "special circumstances" have arisen that warrant illegality. When the President and his aides handed ownership of Chrysler Corp. to the United Auto Workers union, they tried to avoid sending that beleaguered company into bankruptcy by muscling its bondholders into accepting less money for their assets than the law entitled them to collect. These contracts, and the law under which they were signed, were mere obstacles to a thuggish President bent on paying off his political supporters.

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/revolution.html

It's going to get much worse, fast. President Obama has told us time and again that among his criteria for choosing Federal judges will be "empathy." Empathy is a wonderful quality in any human being, but a judge's job is to rule according to the law. Once our courts are presided over by judges who will reach verdicts based on how they feel about an issue -- such as abortion or the right of citizens to bear arms -- the law will be whatever the judges wish it to be; the rule of law will become an empty phrase rather than the architecture of our civilization.

 

 

We have lost our free-market economy as quickly as we have lost the rule of law. Money is to an economy what blood is to a body; life and death resides within the organ that controls its flow. The government already owns our country's leading banks, which means the government now controls our economy. (And in all fairness to President Obama, it was the Bush administration that started us down this ghastly road.) One indicator of the Obama administration's real objective: When some banks that had taken federal money attempted to repay their loans, the Treasury Department refused to accept repayment and step aside. This shows the government's goal isn't to prop up the banks, but rather to control them.

 

Here, too, things are going to get much worse, fast. The government now owns General Motors Corp., is reaching for control of insurance companies, and has launched plans to take over our country's healthcare industry. It even wants authority to set the salaries of executives in industries that, at least for now, aren't being subsidized or underwritten by the government.

 

 

 

Food for thought?

Yes the website is right-wing, and yes some is far fetched, still interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/revolution.html

 

 

To me, it smacks of hyperbole which results in the good points being made getting lost in the rhetoric.

 

Secondly, the notion that the government never interferes with our capitalist, free market economy is very ignorant of history.

 

Currently the gripe in this diatribe is that the President "handed Chrysler to the Unions."

 

Do I need to remind you of the times the government sent troops into Pennsylvania and West Virginia in order to secure the companies who were losing a strike war to unions and restore the dominance of the Company owners?

 

Pullman Strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

 

Coal Strikes in WV from 1921 when Harding sent troops to put down the Miners strike and march.

 

Another interesting read is the excerpt from this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=1_GyX9su4nIC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309&dq=Logan+County,+WV+Coal+War+1921&source=bl&ots=FmPYFEyVqQ&sig=vnKuOJ7Z0L-nHDnxiVznydAaXKI&hl=en&ei=GjIVSvbiGceMtgfj_eHhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

 

 

I guess what I'm saying JD is that sometimes perspective is a funny thing in terms of interpretation. I have not liked the way that Obama took George Bush's stupid move (bailouts) and pushed it even farther. (I tend to blame Bush for setting a precedent that enabled Obama's actions to be even more extreme)

 

It's not like the government hasn't interfered on many levels before. Sometimes on behalf of companies and sometimes on behalf of self- interest. (Check out the way in which Andrew Jackson ignored the legal rulings stopping the displacement of the Cherokees from Georgia and TN during his term.

 

The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.

 

In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state. This act affected not only the southeastern nations, but many others further north. The removal was supposed to be voluntary and peaceful, and it was that way for the tribes that agreed to the conditions. But the southeastern nations resisted, and Jackson forced them to leave.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

 

I find that often there is little "new under the sun," when looking through the lens of history.

Nothing that Obama and the Democrats have done has been surprising to me. What is surprising is the speed in which they're getting their agenda done. They have pushed more through in 5 months as I thought they would accomplish in 2-3 years. This may come back to haunt them. They're going to alert the people that something is amiss by moving so fast.

With the election of Barack Obama as president, the liberals have launched a massive, two-front offensive they believe will end in victory. Regardless of the "what", which I will refer to later, why would they do anything other try to achieve victory in what they are doing. They have judged that our public education system is so degraded that only a few Americans are left who even understand what a democracy is, and how the free market actually works. C'mon really, I mean really. This sets the tone for fearmongering, telling the audience that the subject of the peice thinks you are stupid. They are convinced that the majority of Americans are too frightened by the current recession to care about preserving the principles that made us the most powerful, productive and innovative country the world has ever known. So the author gets to define the prinicpals that made this country great and powerful. The very question of principals are what play in the division partys and political beliefs. In short, the liberals are reaching for victory because they believe that history now is on their side. Again why would they not attempt to achieve what they want?

 

The speed and reach of their offensive is breathtaking.

 

At the core of democracy is the rule of law, and we have already lost it. Oh it is, is it? I was somewhat under the impression that democracy's core was in the proliferation of power to the mass and majority, with protection to the minority. But then again I went to public school. And, We lost the rule of law?? How so, if I'm not correct is it not the conservative who are a constant push to remove law/regulation against anything under the umbrella of buisness. The liberals lecture us incessantly that everything is "relative," but that's not true; some things are absolutes. I would say this is a moderate frame of mind, most hard leftist have a strong sense of absolutes.You cannot claim to be faithful to your spouse because you never cheat on her -- except when you're in London on business. And you cannot claim to have the rule of law if the government can set aside the rule of law when it decides that "special circumstances" have arisen that warrant illegality. Guantanimo? When the President and his aides handed ownership of Chrysler Corp. to the United Auto Workers union, they tried to avoid sending that beleaguered company into bankruptcy by muscling its bondholders into accepting less money for their assets than the law entitled them to collect. No respect to the of the massive numbers of citizens whos lifes become turned upside down over the need to further fill the pockets of the investors. I have heard the arguement that says the rich being richer is more important that a strong middle class, I simply don't agree with it. These contracts, and the law under which they were signed, were mere obstacles to a thuggish President bent on paying off his political supporters. Oh humor me more. The company was going to die, thats right die. The effects would be devastationg to a great number of citizens in our, thats right, democracy. But then again this author doesn't seem to know what democracy is about does he.l

There are far better arguements for anti Obamaist than this. It is so "dumbed" I would have thought it a fake and a sarcasm if I had not been told otherwise.

Typical Chicken Little right-wing drivel ...

My head hurts.

Typical Chicken Little right-wing drivel ...

 

Ok global warming....

We have had laws to restrict our market system, but not to the point were the government is taking over businesses. Comrade Obama's march toward socialism is picking up steam and leading to destruction of American capitalism. But some do not care as they feel offended by successful people.

Ok global warming....

It's not my issue, but no argument here ...

 

Some people with an agenda seem heck-bent on fearmongering where Obama is concerned with all the talk of socialism and his wanting to destroy some of our way of life.

 

This country has survived and thrived for 233 years ... it's bigger, stronger and more powerful than any one man, and that includes the President.

It's not my issue, but no argument here ...

 

Some people with an agenda seem heck-bent on fearmongering where Obama is concerned with all the talk of socialism and his wanting to destroy some of our way of life.

 

This country has survived and thrived for 233 years ... it's bigger, stronger and more powerful than any one man, and that includes the President.

 

 

When the Dims control everything...........

When the Dims control everything...........

Just like when the Rips did?

We have had laws to restrict our market system, but not to the point were the government is taking over businesses. Comrade Obama's march toward socialism is picking up steam and leading to destruction of American capitalism. But some do not care as they feel offended by successful people.

 

I fail to see the difference you cite from the places I noted where it seems government intervened and empowered the business owners and power barons. If there is a difference it would be that the ones in power are losing more today and in those other moments it was the ones out of power being squished out.

But some do not care as they feel offended by successful people.

 

You make an excellent point here. There are some who feel that any person earning more than they earn is at the very least overpaid or if not overpaid, then became successful through ill-gotten means. When a new client comes into my office who has had success in his/her career, my first inclination is to inquire about how they became successful and to possibly learn something new to apply in my business. In the past, I think most people would also view successful people in this manner, as a resource. Now, it just doesn't seem to be the case. Too many view success with envy, jealousy, scorn and ridicule.

You make an excellent point here. There are some who feel that any person earning more than they earn is at the very least overpaid or if not overpaid, then became successful through ill-gotten means. When a new client comes into my office who has had success in his/her career, my first inclination is to inquire about how they became successful and to possibly learn something new to apply in my business. In the past, I think most people would also view successful people in this manner, as a resource. Now, it just doesn't seem to be the case. Too many view success with envy, jealousy, scorn and ridicule.

 

 

I'm not offended by successful people at all. Of course, I don't define successful by their bank balances, but by their happiness in what they do and their ability to sustain themselves with a relatively small degree of struggle.

 

I'm offended by people who tell me that my duty is an American is to ensure that someone else is successful because those that have somehow support me.