I stumbled upon this article here from David Limbaugh and found that it really spells out just how tactically President Barack Hussein Obama is setting up a marxist socialism scenario for our country. I'd add to this that, in my opinion, Obama has been irreparably scarred by his upbringing that instilled a class warfare mentality in him and it affects him to the core - success is bad, mediocrity is accepted, failure is rewarded. To me, Obama stands for not the American Dream but the American Allotment.
There is one section of David Limbaugh's writing that I wanted to excerpt here:
To me, this doesn't represent some ideological clash between Republicans and Democrats, hell I'd propose that it isn't even a fight between Conservatives and Liberals - there are tons of liberal Democrats in this country who, when this is all put in place, will shriek in horror at all of this. No, this is a clash, a battle per se, between Liberty and Totalitarianism.
I guess that in my view, it comes down to passion - we all have passions in our life that rise to the top, they define us. For some it might be our family, for some it might be their military career, for some it might be writing or sports....but we have a President now whose passion, real passion, is becoming more and more clear with each day, and that is his total passion of eliminating any form of inequality. Now, we must realize that Barack Obama views equality differently than the writers of the U.S. Constitution - Barack Obama has been a student of history, but we see now that his historical perspective is a bit tunnel-visioned on the history of blacks in America and the world. So Obama has muddled the ideals of "all men created equal" with his vision of all men forced to live equally. In a nutshell, Obama would prefer to see 85% of Americans' happiness and comfort quotient reduced in order to lift up that same quotient for the other 15%. Individual liberties in America that allow each of us to realize our full potential are under attack from this man - I guess the best analogy I can come up with is this:
In a sport that Barack Obama adores, the infamous Michael Jordan represents the worst of scenarios...you see, when Michael Jordan finished a game with 64 points, 12 assists, 3 blocked shots and 8 steals, in Obama's mind, he (Jordan) was responsible for placing misery and unhappiness onto the 10th man on that team who sat on the bench the entire game. Under Obama, Michael Jordan would have been benched for half of the game so his point totals would have been cut 75% in order for the 10th man on that team to have had a chance at 12 points. And the team would have lost.
I want to reiterate the net and end result of that analogy. THE TEAM WOULD HAVE LOST.
There is one section of David Limbaugh's writing that I wanted to excerpt here:
He will restore the Clinton tax hikes on higher-income earners, but there is so much more. He'll reduce the effective charitable gift deduction, thus reducing charitable giving. This is no surprise, though, because he believes "charity" is the province of government -- not the private sector.He'll impose a cap and trade tax on corporations under the pretense of making them "greener," raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, reverse welfare reform, and nationalize health care.He'll eliminate the ceiling on payroll tax contributions, which is presently about $110,000. This will be a major hit to those earning more than $110,000, not that Obama cultists will have any sympathy for those greedy beneficiaries of life's lottery, to borrow from the Al Gore vernacular.
Some might argue that this is only fair because the entire income of lower-income earners is subject to that tax. But to make that argument surrenders any illusion that this tax funds Social Security. If you eliminate the ceiling, higher-income earners will pay exorbitant amounts into a mythical fund (it's never been segregated from general revenue) with no expectation of getting appreciably more back on retirement. Fairness? Only if you believe the wealthy should be punished.
Obama is sending unmistakable signals that he has an unconventional notion -- to say the least -- about the American dream. It's as if he's saying, "It's fine to aspire to financial success, but only to a point, beyond which you'll incur the punitive wrath of the federal government."
To me, this doesn't represent some ideological clash between Republicans and Democrats, hell I'd propose that it isn't even a fight between Conservatives and Liberals - there are tons of liberal Democrats in this country who, when this is all put in place, will shriek in horror at all of this. No, this is a clash, a battle per se, between Liberty and Totalitarianism.
I guess that in my view, it comes down to passion - we all have passions in our life that rise to the top, they define us. For some it might be our family, for some it might be their military career, for some it might be writing or sports....but we have a President now whose passion, real passion, is becoming more and more clear with each day, and that is his total passion of eliminating any form of inequality. Now, we must realize that Barack Obama views equality differently than the writers of the U.S. Constitution - Barack Obama has been a student of history, but we see now that his historical perspective is a bit tunnel-visioned on the history of blacks in America and the world. So Obama has muddled the ideals of "all men created equal" with his vision of all men forced to live equally. In a nutshell, Obama would prefer to see 85% of Americans' happiness and comfort quotient reduced in order to lift up that same quotient for the other 15%. Individual liberties in America that allow each of us to realize our full potential are under attack from this man - I guess the best analogy I can come up with is this:
In a sport that Barack Obama adores, the infamous Michael Jordan represents the worst of scenarios...you see, when Michael Jordan finished a game with 64 points, 12 assists, 3 blocked shots and 8 steals, in Obama's mind, he (Jordan) was responsible for placing misery and unhappiness onto the 10th man on that team who sat on the bench the entire game. Under Obama, Michael Jordan would have been benched for half of the game so his point totals would have been cut 75% in order for the 10th man on that team to have had a chance at 12 points. And the team would have lost.
I want to reiterate the net and end result of that analogy. THE TEAM WOULD HAVE LOST.
No comments:
Post a Comment