Hi Bob, I am in a plane without internet connection as i
read this, so i can't download the rest of your letter, to which I will reply
later. I have half your letter (or less,
I don't know how long it is) and I make some comments below. As you know, I am
not a studious of each action, incident, etc. as to have all or most data
available, and that would take time I don't have. I guess the bottom line is that Obama is (in
my view and as understand he admits on one of his books plus the friends he
keeps) a full blown Socialist. I had and
have friends that are Socialists, I just understand based on my own experience
under Socialism, my visiting Socialist countries and talking with people who
live and lived under Socialism, plus my readings of both Socialist and Free
Market Capitalists, after all that I find Socialism to be the opposite of the
same identical values I cherished while I was a Socialist for some 14
years. I believe based on all of the
above, that Socialism (Social Planning by Government, enforced under the power
of Government) destroys the human spirit, takes away your freedom, discourages
independence and self reliance and ruins the economy.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the richest people
are Socialists. The Koch brothers put
together don't have half the money that Soros has, and much less than Gates or
Buffet, other Socialists. BTW, Koch made their money with Industry, creating
things and jobs. Soros is a speculator,
like Buffet. like Rockefeller.
I think they turned the tables on us, and some of us did
not noticed. They stole the flag of
'social justice ' and the words liberal
and progressive. They are not liberal,
progressive and definitely not proponents of social justice when they take away
money from one group and the independence from the other by making them
dependents of the State. The same way
unions secure for their bosses great benefits and pay, they ultimately hurt the
workers by bankrupting the companies, cities, etc. where they work. The teachers unions sacrificing generations
of kids just for their own gain, are not the exception, they are the rule. Who do unions support?
From what I read below, please note that the financial
disaster that Obama 'inherited' was of his making, as I documented with a
timeline on a previous. He and his buddies
forced Fanny and Freddy and even the banks to lend money to people who could
not afford it. This in fact destroyed
our financial system, which is exactly what Saul Olensky (or something like
that) wrote in the Rules for Radicals and Obama not just read and adopted, but
he taught in class.
They created the conditions to take over the Government,
and they succeeded. Yes, there were many
republicans who helped them, but the actions came from ACORN and others similar
organizations and under President Clinton they abolished that Glass Eagle (or
something like that) act that separated banks into lending and investing. Remember, that was under Clinton.
I am not interested in defending every republican, in
fact I disagree on many things they did and I think the war in Iraq was
uncalled for. I agree that the prescription drug policy of Bush was a disaster,
but if anything, a liberal should applaud it, not criticize it.
So as for the financial situation he faced when he took
office, it was of his (and friends) own doing.
If banks would have continued to lend money only to people who could
repay it, this would have not happened.
Find out why they violated that rule.
Now, even if he inherited that situation, what happened
during the following 3.5 years? At what
point the President owns his economy?
After 8 years? He himself said
that he would be a one time president if he did not manage to bring
unemployment to under x %, and like many other promises, he violated that one
also. He promised to bring the deficit
to half after one term. He called
unpatriotic to raise the debt ceiling when Bush asked for it, and he raised it
himself.
How about not a budget in 3 years, with two of them with
complete control of power? This means
nothing either? By Law he has to have a
budget.
How about all the other decisions he made through
regulation which he could not get (or did not care to during the first 2 years)
through a Law, like immigration amnesty?
That means nothing either?
When once has to overlook so many violations of the law,
broken promises in order to support a person, something is wrong. BTW, self-indulgence is also a Socialist
prerogative, as while they know that so many of the things they do are either
illegal, immoral and unfair, they find solace in the overall fundamentally
honorable mission their doctrine demands.
In the name of social justice, millions have been slaughtered. All is permissible to attain their extraordinarily
important and just mission of compassion.
So they kill people, deprive them of their rights, confiscate what they
won through their work, silence them, etc. in the name of compassion. Interesting.
The bottom line is that Social Planning ultimately can't
tolerate dissent: they won't let some deranged people get on the way of such
extraordinary mission, so there goes your individual rights, and there you go
to Gulag, or worse.
About to land, so quickly: they stopped subsidizing banks
on student loans? they took that market
over!!! Instead of letting banks
compete, they just took their business away.
How about they stop subsidizing supermarkets, car dealers, private
medical practices, transportation, banking all together and just take it all
over? Clearly that will benefit the people... no? Then you have the perfect form of Socialism:
Communism. It never worked, but why not
try again?
How taking over private business becomes a victory?
Bush had already declared the end of the war on Iraq...
twice. Troops were already planned to
come back home. Obama did not end the
war in Afghanistan, we are still there but we may not be winning after he told
the enemy to wait us out and he told the friends better to become friendly with
the only force that will remain in place after we leave on a certain date. That insured failure of the entire mission.
If you find that Obama and the unions don't support each
other, please show me. Until then,
please accept that they are on the same side, as Dems and unions have always
been. Can you find anything unions are
doing today that are good to your standards?
Can you find many examples of very bad things they are doing? You don't see any story on that? Should this association be dismissed as a
coincidence, exception, immaterial or
aberration?
He betrayed Poland and Czech republic on the defense
agreements Bush had made with them. He
trusted Russia. How well is that working
out?
China is taking over the entire China Seas and our
weakened military won't be able to cope.
At the end of the day, the President is expected to be
the Leader and the buck stops with him.
The President owns what happens under his watch and the rest are
excuses. Presidents and Governors have
been able to work with legislatures of the opposite party, in many situations,
and still did a good performance. This
guy that came as the unifier, divided us more than ever before and he owns the
disaster we are living in. At least that
is my conclusion, for whatever is worth (Very little indeed).
I believe you mention in your letter you agree with the
basic Social (ism?) ideas of Obama. He
is a Socialist, I don't think you are. I
can't change your mind, like nobody could change mine while I was a Socialist
myself. If anything, time, etc. may
change your mind as I changed mine, or maybe I change mine again, but it won't
be through these emails, that is for sure :)
It was interesting and a good exercise, but probably not
very conductive. If you want to talk
sometimes about this or anything else, of course I am available, but the emails
will probably stop because I enjoy them so I rather do this over the 'difficult
and hard ' things that I should be doing instead :)
No comments:
Post a Comment