Sunday, March 8, 2009

Lessons from History...

...both recent and distant.
This comes from the Great Hairy Silverback - our friend and the Original pre-Core, Core-Member from Bill's Site. Originally a couldn't-stop-himself rant in the comments-section of another post, it was just too good to leave it tucked away and unseen. And so - with permission - take it away, GHS...

Let's see...

What was it... 1932? A financial crisis -- already roughly two years in existence, and on a scale unprecedented to that point -- panicked the citizenry into crying out for a savior... not just a competent helmsman, but a veritable archangel, to sweep the deeply corrupted status quo aside, to heave the baby out with the bathwater, to wipe the proverbial slate clean and start anew. And once they found one, they granted Him carte blanche to Do As He Would, risky, borderline illegal, even unconstitutional as it might be.

Enter an elitist arch-liberal with a complete disconnect with the Common Man, but with a confident swagger (so to speak), a jaunty, smooth-talking, unflappable self-assurance, and Big Plans for boundless employment opportunities, government-provided entitlements, landslides of socialist largesse, and chickens in every pot... Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Regardless of their popularity (or un-), (1) his Lend Lease actions stretched, if not blatantly violated, the definition of a neutral nation in a time of war, arguably "justifying" any commensurate German aggressions against the United States, (2) his four consecutive terms in the White House defied the Constitution, (3) the shamelessly socialist programs he rammed into law burdened an already over-burdened economy when it could least afford it, and has continued to drag the economy down like an anchor ever since, and (4) turned a two-year depression into an EIGHT-year DEPRESSION. And while it can be argued whether, item for item, these issues might have served a greater good despite their destructive short-term impacts, the fact is that these were solutions that would have been -- and WERE -- rejected out-of-hand prior to the advent of the "economic crisis," and would never have even been considered (with any seriousness) were it not for the extreme fiscal pressures.

In other words, these were recognized, during a period of greater levelheadedness, as radical, unhealthy, and unacceptable solutions, and gained acceptability only because of (a) the atmosphere of fiscal panic, (b) the perceived "need" for an absolute, far-reaching, even all-encompassing "clearing of the board," and (c) because The Savior SAID it was needed. And people listened with their quailing hearts rather than their brains.

Obama's been called "Lincoln-esque." What horse-pucky. The only thing remotely "Lincoln-esque" about Barack Obama -- aside from his long neck and big goofy ears -- is the fact that he rode into Washington for his inauguration in a TRAIN (which he chose to do for precisely that reason).

No, for all the reasons and historical parallels described above, Obama is purely 100% "Rooseveltish." And, much like FDR, he will likely be remembered (by the emotion-based crowd) as the calm, confident hand at the helm of the ship of state during its time of crisis... and (by the cold, clear examiners of data) as the disastrously naive, blindly idealistic, arrogant elitist, who exacerbated an otherwise easily corrected problem, prolonged and even worsened the country's agonies, and burdened the economy for generations to come... just like FDR.

He will also, in my opinion, be renowned (by anyone NOT completely smitten by his exalted visage) as a liar, a fraud, a reckless amateur, and from many perspectives, even as a traitor... the man who singlehandedly did his level best to end the most successful, fruitful, and beneficent experiment in self-rule in history.

Dick Morris was asked in an interview about a potential comparison between Obama and Clinton, economically speaking. When Clinton charged into HIS administration six-guns blazing, jacking up tax brackets, instituting retroactive debt loads on the wealthier demographics, and promising/threatening even more radical, draconian, and again SOCIALIST programs, he was pulled aside and basically told that he needed to calm down, slow down, and leave at least one piece of furniture upright in the house... and he DID. So, couldn't that be possible for Obama as well? Couldn't he be "whoa'd up" a bit by a few strong calming words? And Dick Morris -- who was one of those involved in the reining-in of Bill Clinton -- said, quite categorically, "No."

Unlike Clinton -- who had, as one of his primary motivators, the quest for a second term -- Obama is ALL ABOUT HIS AGENDA. He wouldn't MIND a second term, but the far greater priority for him is the establishment of his outright socialist agenda. So, no matter how many (or how firm) the hands are on his shoulders, Obama is going to blast full speed ahead on his "mission"... that being to nationalize as much of America as possible as QUICKLY as possible... before the momentum can peter out. And from what I've seen, his actions of the last eight to nine months bear that assessment out fully.

He wouldn't issue a statement of policy until a day or two before the first debates. Thereafter, he spun and evaded and stuck to carefully crafted (and Teleprompted) scripts that screamed vague promises of undefined Hope and radical Change. He kept his secretive past, his questionable affiliations, and his staggering lack of qualifications or experience as far from the limelight as he could manage. But still...

He was voted into office on the basis of only a handful of passionate but typically ill-informed reasons, ranging from the novelty of electing the nation's first (mostly) black president, to slapping the much-despised President Bush in the face, to the promise of freebies and bolstered welfare and "deserved" entitlements for the so-called "lower classes." And with the aid of an enamored media that not only went to great lengths to inflame the causes of panic, but smothered any negative examinations of the long awaited Savior, He was swept into office on the shoulders of adoring minions willing to turn a collective blind eye on His excesses, His reckless oversteps, and His baldfaced efforts to socialize the world's most successful capitalist nation.

His first interview as a freshly inaugurated president was with el Arabiya, in which He fawned and patronized the Muslim world, apologized for American actions of the past, and promised to "listen" more and "dictate" less... only to be criticized by the Arab press days later as a coward for his weak and simpering sucking-up. His first "legislation" was the largest, most pork-laden monstrosity in American political history, which he handed off to the most unpopular congress in American history to do all the writing. Then he whipped up an even greater storm of fear and dread (which the media ran with, trumpets blaring) to ensure that everyone believed that any delay in signing this legislative outrage would result in hundreds-of-millions of jobs being lost EVERY MONTH... in a country with only THREE-HUNDRED-million men, women, senior citizens, and infants living within its borders (apparently there are many times more jobs in this country than there are people -- of ANY age -- to fill them).

And then... and THEN...

In that downright blasphemous "speech" he gave to Congress, he had the unmitigated gall -- the sheer baldfaced temerity -- to look into the eyes of the Republican ranks (who weren't leaping to their feet and shrieking like high school cheerleaders at every sentence he uttered) and into the eyes of every American watching on TV, and say staggeringly stupid and outrageous things like, "I'd like to thank the Congress for creating a bill WITHOUT A SINGLE EARMARK in it," and "I know this bill is a tough pill to swallow, but it is only the beginning... there will be more to come," followed shortly thereafter by, "I can assure you that by the end of my term in office, I will have cut the deficit IN HALF."

Outright lies -- so bold and cavalier that you almost have to believe he's joking -- followed by mathematically impossible fictions, undefined reparations that will magically fix everything, and wishful thinking on an epic scale... all "reassuring" little bandages to counter the added panic he took such pains to foment over the previous several months, and somehow "made more real" by his even more-utterly-baseless assertion that he'd "already found TWO-TRILLION-DOLLARS worth of budget cuts" that they could implement (one of which, by the way, was the cost savings of cutting short TEN-YEARS of full-scale military operations in Iraq, which wasn't going to happen anyway). Pure hog-twaddle.

This guy is either the most cynical, anti-American, anti-capitalist, politcal anti-Christ this country has ever seen, or he's the most blindly naive and amateurish political dupe the Demogogue... er, DemoCRAT party has ever had the good fortune to have as a frontman.

And either way, he's a disaster on the hoof.

Not a POTENTIAL disaster, or a disaster-waiting-to-happen, but a disaster HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, crippling and further burdening an already reeling economy, nationalizing everything he can get the government's tendrils into, ramming home the guaranteed ruinous and proven-failed tenets of socialism, screwing the achievers, success stories, and job-creators, and encouraging the unmotivated, the unprincipled, and the irresponsible... weakening our defenses and our global reputation, alienating our allies, emboldening our enemies, and killing the independent and self-reliant spirit of this once great pioneering nation.

He may be my president by name and by legal definition, but in every other way, he's my ENEMY just as much as the barbarians for whom he's swinging the door wide open.

To hell with him and the horse's asses he rode in on. Stop him... NOW. Bombard your "representatives" with protests, throw out the ones who refuse in 2010, and make a long-standing example of the catastrophic failings of unbounded liberalism, and heedless Marxism.


But at least, as one commenter once wrote, he's a nice guy, a bit of a geek, and a decent bowler.

I am completely reassured now.



  1. Oh, and apparently a good basketball player.

    Who cares if he has pointed America towards a cliff and is running at it full speed, he's got GAME and the Brits can't touch him on the court.

    Wonder how long it will take for the revolution to start?

  2. It's not a revolution until the patriots win the civil war, meine kameraden. You ask when will it start? Past tense is more indicative. It started when the market tanked and ammo sales went through the roof. Mark these words well: The next time a psychopath shoots up a suburban mall, the administration will call for mandatory gun confiscation. It happened this way in Britain, and then in Australia. It happened also in New Orleans during Katrina. We already know the template. Prepare yourselves.

  3. Even though I have been "laid off" due to the Obamaconomy, I have decided it is time to obtain both a CCW permit, and a self-defense (anti-home invasion) firearm, with significant ammunition supplies. I can hardly afford it right now, but I can hardly afford NOT to do so.

    Neither the permit nor firearm will have much import in any real "revolution," But it will be a beggining in the preparation for things likely to come.

    Thank you, GHS, for the rant. I more than needed that.

  4. GHS wrote: The Savior SAID it was needed. And people listened with their quailing hearts rather than their brains.

    What I find interesting in all of these revisionist rages against FDR is how they seldom acknowledge the fact that, at the time, the entire capitalist system was on trial. They rarely point our how, with the USSR, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy rolling along, how many people thought that these totalitarian states were providing the template to the future, to prosperity and stablization, a way to avoid the endless booms-and-busts of capitalism that had wracked the world at regular intervals. That FDR was one of many who were desperate to save as much of the American way of life as they could, even as they tried - often ineptly and wrongheadedly - to alleviate the public's suffering and try and shift the US towards a more equitable sharing of the wealth.

    I remember reading about letters - that were amongst the tens of thousands he received - from mid-western, hard-working, god-fearing and conservative-to-the-marrow Americans - expressing such a profound gratitude for the president restoring dignity to them, giving them a way to earn money and avoid the shame of relief, providing light at the end of a tunnel that had long seemed snuffed. The result of this gratitude? FDR was elected again, and again, and again. If only those poor schlep Americans, so deluded, so ignorant, had known the horrific travails he was leading them towards.

    As I said, it's very interesting.


  5. "Tyrone" makes a good point -- it's easy, when in the throes of a good anti-socialist rant, to focus exclusively on the negatives of FDR's administration. But the 'fact' is -- well, my VIEW is, anyway -- that FDR did a hell of a lot of good, not the least of which was keeping America's collective chin up in a time of widespread panic. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." That was good medicine, for the moment.

    And personally, considering that he was saddled with a deeply isolationist population at the time, and that he so desperately wanted to do SOMETHING to come to the aid of Great Britain and his friend Winston Churchill as the continent was turning black with the spread of Nazism, FDR's Lend Lease program was, IN MY OPINION, a 'good' (though risky) compromise, and a somewhat necessary evil. And the four consecutive terms WERE the result of popular demand, after all, and did not -- again, in my opinion -- have any profound downside.

    I brought these up NOT because of how they 'threatened to bring down the republic,' or because they were indicative of some 'inherent evil' in Roosevelt, but because they WERE examples of the kind of carte blanche an enamored electorate is all too thrilled to grant their perceived 'savior' in a time of national panic. These were 'allowances' that would NOT normally have been allowed under calmer circumstances. In a time of political and economic stability, even a popular president would not be allowed to preside over the country for 16 uninterrupted years (and yes, I know FDR only got in 12-and-small-change before succumbing to his maladies).

    In addition, one key thing that FDR had that Obama doesn't even have a GLIMMER of was SOME 'executive' or 'leadership' experience, having risen from his position as Secretary of the Navy.

    The socialist crap, though... that I DO fault him heavily for, and hold it up as howling examples of how even well-intentioned nationalized programs are destined -- BY DESIGN -- to backfire, at least here in such a powerfully successful capitalist system. This country has been dragging the deadweight anchors of welfare and social security for 70 years now, with little to show for it but a growing "dependent class," a government-embezzled "Trust Fund," and an encroaching bankruptcy that Obama has proclaimed no intention of even attempting to thwart. And, to all outward appearances, he seems prepared only to compound the problem... by MAGNITUDES.

    Well, anyway, the central thrust of my 'little' rant was mostly about the panicky similarities of the two presidents' ascendancies... which also, coincidentally, closely mimicked the ascendancy of Adolph Hitler -- a national crisis, propelling a terrified electorate to loft a previously ignored radical no-name (who couldn't generate more than an 8% interest prior to the 'crisis,' despite his near-mythological oratorical gifts) straight to the legitimate chancellorship of Germany.

    I guess it was more of a commentary about kneejerk panicky reactionary messiah-seeking. It's been done before, under nearly identical circumstances, and ALWAYS with a hefty price tag. That's -- mostly -- what I was ranting about... before my fingers took off on their own.

    I think.



We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.