Members Login
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: What kind of president thrives on chaos?

Head Chef

Status: Offline
Posts: 4439
What kind of president thrives on chaos?

What kind of president thrives on chaos?

James Lewis

Is it conceivable that a president would want matters to get worse?

Lincoln did not pray for a Civil War to befall the country to make him look good; just the opposite. Washington and the Founders did not want the Revolutionary War. FDR did not actually want to worsen the Great Depression, though he ended up doing just that according to some economic historians.

To be sure, New Deal Democrats deliberately parlayed economic crisis into political opportunities. FDR's sidekick Harry Hopkins never stopped trying to "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect." The Hopkins formula kept the Democrats in control of Congress for forty years, and now they are trying it again with a trillion-dollar Harry Hopkins Memorial Act. Even European socialists are aghast at our gluttonous Democrats.

Needless to say, the Hopkins formula led to decades of stupid and destructive social policies, devastating Black families that had managed to stay together during the worst years of Dixiecrat oppression in the South, corroding our inner city schools, popularizing abortion and divorce, rationalizing hedonism and drugs, undermining the work ethic, setting women against men, the poor against the rich, illegals against citizens, and phony liberal pacifists against American national security. The Left sprinkles poison seeds wherever it goes -- which is why even Vladimir Putin (!!) just advised us not take the Marxist road to ruin, like Russia did. Imagine that.

What's the actual evidence that Obama is trying to make things worse? At this point, it can only be inferred from his actions and statements.Outright proof of sabotage would trigger a political earthquake. Imagine a White House insider leaking Blackberry emails between Obama and Axelrod about how to make the economic crisis last longer. Imagine evidence coming to light that the five-hour electronic assault on the financial markets on September 17, 2008, was timed to elect Obama. Imagine Rahm Emanuel actually advising the President in a concrete policy discussion, "Never let a crisis go to waste!"

I'm not claiming it's true. It's a question.

Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online seems to be arguing a similar case:
"... the more (investment) value the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress destroy - their demagoguery and fiscally insane policies eviscerating the very tax base needed to pay for their exploding liabilities - the more control they get." (italics added)
Here are some relevant facts.

1. Never waste a crisis.

The most cited evidence is Rahm Emanuel's line to never waste a crisis. But it doesn't mean you want to create or prolong a crisis. Lenin famously hoped for things to get worse, so that his revolution would be the only answer in the minds of the people. It is a typical revenge fantasy of out-of-power ideologues, but it is quite another thing to put that revenge fantasy into practice. There is a difference between rage and sabotage.

2. The O budget.

Nobody knows how many trillions of dollars of money are going to have to be created by the Federal Reserve to buy Treasury obligations, because the Chinese have signaled they're not interested in being repaid in devalued dollars, and are questioning the dollar as a reserve currency. Loss of reserve currency status would substantially weaken United States power.

That is either gross stupidity or actual sabotage. Which is it?

3. Inappropriate giggling.

Even the media are noticing: There is something weird about all the fun this administration is having in a time of national crisis. On Sixty Minutes this week, according to The Politico:
"President Barack Obama said he believes the global financial system remains at risk of implosion with the failure of Citigroup or AIG, which could touch off "an even more destructive recession and potentially depression."

"His remarks came in a"60 Minutes" interview in which he was pressed by Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world's economy."

"You're sitting here. And you're- you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money-' How do you deal with- I mean: explain. . ." Kroft asked at one point."Are you punch-drunk?"
When the lefty media start noticing grossly inappropriate behavior you know you're in trouble.

The odd laughter did not seem to be a nervous giggle, but rather laughter of someone who sees an irony he knows others won't appreciate, because they don't see the larger game at hand. If they only knew.... If he wants chaos, and all the media and public concern over job losses is beside the point. He is succeeding. They don't get it, but he does.

4. Spreading alarm and scapegoating during a crisis of confidence.
"... Obama made clear that he's afraid the nation hasn't seen the worst of the economic crisis. He said the recession deepened faster than he expected, particularly in terms of job losses." Obama also cited Wall Street's high-risk, high-reward culture as a main cause of the economic meltdown. He took aim at traders and executives in personal terms-saying they need to leave New York for North Dakota or Iowa to appreciate how out-of-whack their pay looks to the average American.

"I mean there were a whole bunch of folks who, on paper, if you looked at quarterly reports, were wildly successful, selling derivatives that turned out to be. . .completely worthless," Obama said, with a chuckle.
I don't know what else to call this, but there is something badly wrong with the tone of Barak Obama going on the Tonight Show to trade gags with Jay Leno, when the market value of American investments has been cut in half. Or calling for "a new era of responsibility" after passing the most grossly irresponsible piece of piggery in American history. Those things are either deeply cynical and malevolent, or deeply out of touch with reality. Either one is bad news for the country.

5. Incompetence or worse in foreign affairs.
"We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said at the Brussels Forum conference to an audience of senior world politicians and experts." He was talking about Obama waffling about the missile shield the US promised to install in Eastern Europe, to defend against Iranian, and if necessary against Russian missiles. The Poles have a history of being betrayed by the West in World War Two and the Cold War. They see a militant Russia again, and Europe is being pathetic. No wonder they are afraid.

"I am afraid Russian generals and even the Russian president continue to threaten us with the deployment of medium-range missiles," Sikorski said.
The US rep naturally pooh-poohed all those fears.

We'll see what happens.

I don't think we have proof -- yet -- of outright sabotage at the very top. We do have reason to worry.

The time to rein in this administration is right now: All House members are running for re-election, and a third of the Senate. They are raising money and making plans. Democrats are seeing the Obama glamour wearing off so fast that they are getting that terrible sinking feeling: Uh-oh, the Messiah is in trouble. Americans are not helpless against this president, and conservatives should be working to support the best candidates for Congress at this very moment.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
- Samuel Adams

Profuse Pontificator

Status: Offline
Posts: 876

I am convinced that most major crises are carefully planned by nations or groups that transcend their own normal sphere of influence and threaten the entire world with conquest and/or control.  The planners of the current crisis know that they cannot induce the United States to give up national sovereignty outright or grant government powers to the UN as long as the world is relatively at peace and the US is the dominant economic (and military) force in the world.  Thus the destruction of Americas economy (and military) has been planned to force the United States to join and support a global government that provides the prime motivation of US global leaders 

It is important to understand that most US Presidents in recent decades have been and are puppets of what David Rockefeller described in his 2002 book "Memoirs" as  "a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, .... and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will."  And Rockefeller added  "If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." 

President J. Ruben Clark, who in the course of his professional life said: "Do not think that all these usurpations, intimidations, and impositions are being done to us through inadvertancy or mistake, the whole course is deliberately planned and carried out; its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our Constitutional government."


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard