America has faced crises before, from having to defeat the world’s greatest military power to gain national independence (and then again to keep it), to fighting a bloody civil war over regional differences and the evil of slavery, to facing a Great Depression and fighting two world wars, to facing down a communist empire, to confronting international terrorism from religious radicals.
Each of these crises was an instance where the country had to face and overcome great pain and adversity, but each occasion also gave rise to great leaders: Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, and (in the War on Terror) G.W. Bush.
Today we face a new crisis. Our country is mired in a debt so large that the human mind cannot comprehend it. A debt so large that no one anywhere seriously believes it can ever be repaid. A debt so large that it has caused the greatest economy in the history of the human race to begin to crumble under its weight.
But unlike in the times of those previous crises, we don’t have a leader equal to the task of overcoming the current crisis because our current president caused it – on purpose.
Would everything be perfect if we had not elected Barack Obama? No, of course not. But would we be in the worst debt crisis in human history while also being bogged down in the worst economy in over 70 years? The answer is an unequivocal no.
It is true that Obama inherited a bad economy – but he considered himself extraordinarily lucky to have done so.
First, it gave him a bully pulpit from which he could revise history to blame Republicans for an economy that was wrecked primarily by his own party’s policies (forcing lenders to give mortgages to thousands of families who could not afford them and then obstructing every effort by the Republicans to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
More importantly, though, it gave him a crisis to exploit in order to impose his statist religion on the country.
And impose he did.
He started by stealing $1.3 trillion (counting interest) from our kids to give as political spoils to public sector unions in the guise of “stimulus.”
Then he spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to bribe senators from his own party into casting the deciding votes to impose a government take-over of our health care system on a public that vehemently opposed it – and still does.
But he didn’t stop there. He had the federal government take over banks and car companies, and he nationalized the student loan program. And he used the regulatory process to impose thousands of new government regulations on businesses that will cost them billions of dollars in compliance costs.
And by the end of his second year in office, he took a debt of $9 trillion that had taken 43 previous presidents 232 years to amass and he added $4 trillion in just two years. And worse, he created budget deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion every year – until the economy simply collapses.
This kind of statist fundamentalism was not what the American people signed on for when they elected a dynamic young newcomer who promised “hope and change.”
So, in November 2010, Americans showed up at the polls by the millions to throw Obama’s party out of power in the House and sweep in literally scores of new Republicans who were elected with the mission and mandate of stopping Obama from going any further with his statist agenda.
But Obama remained undaunted, continuing to write and enact new anti-business regulations and obstructing any effort by the Republicans to rein in spending.
And as a result, for the first time in history, American lost its AAA bond rating. And, predictably, the stock market crashed. And, predictably, Obama stepped out and blamed everyone in the world but himself. And, predictably, the stock market crashed again while he was giving his speech.
So who did Obama blame? The tea party. Yeah, that tea party – the movement that developed organically in 2010 with the singular mission of cutting spending and reducing the size and scope of a grossly overbloated federal government.
To say that blaming the tea party for the debt crisis is ridiculous is an insult to every truly ridiculous idea. Barack Obama blaming the tea party for the reduction of America’s bond rating is like parents who smoked around their kids blaming the oncologist for their kids’ lung cancer.
But then, since when has intellectual honesty ever mattered to movement leftists like Obama?
Conservatives love to characterize Barack Obama as incompetent and unqualified. These characterizations charitably assume that Obama would take the actions that would solve the crisis if only he were competent enough to figure them out.
That assumption is wrong.
To understand Barack Obama and his national Democrats, it is vital to understand this fact: The priority and mission of Barack Obama and the movement leftists who currently control the national Democrat Party is not to solve the current crisis. Their priority and mission is to impose their leftist religion on as many Americans as possible to the greatest extent possible. They see this crisis, like every crisis, as an opportunity to advance that mission.
So, let’s explore this assertion: The top factor preventing an economic recovery is the uncertainty in the market as to whether Obama will succeed in raising taxes and, more importantly, imposing even more regulatory burdens on them. Obama is smart enough to know that. He just doesn’t care.
Obama’s mission is not to restore America’s economy. Obama’s mission is to fundamentally change it into a government-controlled economy. His concern for the state of the economy is limited only to how it affects his chance to get reelected and continue to advance his statist religion.
That’s why he is out there blaming a movement that is centered on spending cuts for a reduction in our bond rating that was based specifically on out-of-control spending. Obama knows that his blaming the tea party is nonsensical on its face, but he also knows that the movement leftists in the establishment “news” media will parrot his propaganda.
And Obama knows that raising taxes in the middle of a recession (and yes, we are almost certainly in the middle of negative economic growth) will make the economy worse. But his priority is not to restore the economy; it is to redistribute wealth.
So, in the spirit of never letting a good crisis go to waste (especially when he worked so diligently to create it), Obama is exploiting the current crisis to demand tax increases or, at least, create an environment that gives him political cover to veto any renewal of the Bush tax cuts next year.
To understand Barack Obama one must understand that Obama’s loyalty is not to the economic health of the United States. His loyalty, and that of the leaders of the national Democrat Party, is to their leftist religion.
And that’s why Barack Obama is not only not the answer to the current crisis – Barack Obama IS the crisis.
