A strange thing is happening on the way to Obama’s final term as Impostor American President: Ultra-Liberals are starting to bash him on his core beliefs.
Recently we had Bill Maher sounding almost sane as he pondered the implausibility of more and more citizens jumping in the wagon while fewer and fewer are left to pull the wagon <link>.
I just discovered a recent, very spicy entry from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Before he exposes Obama for what he is (an anti-wealth committed Communist), he re-assures his Liberal friends:
I expect nothing from the G.O.P. It’s lost and leaderless. I expect a lot from Obama, who knows what needs to be done and has said so in the past. <source>
Okay, got that out of the way — Republicans are BAD, Obama is GOOD.
But then he says this:
Obama has spent a lot of time lately bashing the rich to pay their “fair share.” You know what? There are definitely some Wall Street bankers and C.E.O.’s who deserve that bashing. But there are many successful Americans who got their wealth the old-fashioned way — by risk-taking, going into debt to start a business or pursue a dream. It’s time for the president to do some risk-taking — to stop just hammering the wealthy, which is so easy, and to start selling the country on a strategy to multiply them. We need to tax more millionaires, but we also need more millionaires and middle classes to tax. The president was elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it.
Praise the Lord that paragraph is rich with juicy morsels.
Let’s enjoy each one.
First, he isn’t afraid to use the term “bashing” to accurately report mr. Obama’s anti-American campaigning. Friedman knows that such bashing is destructive and the opposite of what we need right now. Is Obama going to stop, as Friedman suggests? No, he is just getting going.
Second, he correctly identifies the true bash-worthy bums who took advantage of the bounty of capitalism and trashed the system: Wall Street CEOs. The intense irony is that Barack Obama, five years into his regime, has done NOTHING to hold such people to account, and in fact has done the opposite, promoting their ongoing gluttony that even now imperils the world financial system (check out Bill Gross’s recent column “Credit Supernova” if you want to be terrified before bed tonight).
Third, Friedman makes laudatory comments about American entrepreneurs — imagine that! — and points out that their wealth is a result of having taken risks and having gone into debt, something that few people are willing to do.
I know first-hand what entrepreneurs go through when betting their life savings on an idea, and even further when providing banks with Personal Guarantees (“PGs” in the trade) on loans to their fledgling businesses. Not only are they risking their direct investment in their businesses (equity), they are also risking a bank coming and looking for repayment on a loan that defaulted in a failed business (that is, a bank will ‘pierce the corporate veil’ when a PG is in place and come after you for your personal assets if your business venture fails). These are the people Barack Obama wants to punish.
Next time you ask yourself if you have what it takes to be an entrepreneur, think about whether you would pledge your house and any other possessions to a bank for the sake of getting a new business off the ground.
By the way, do you think Barack Hussein Obama knows anything about entrepreneurship? About risk taking in business? About what it feels like to give a bank a PG in exchange for a desperately needed loan so a company can make payroll?
Fourth, Friedman says it is time for Obama to “stop hammering the wealthy”. WOW. A Liberal has had enough of class warfare? This guy Obama must really be outside the normal limits (but we knew that).
Fifth, Friedman indulges in a delusion that mr. Obama would ever consider “…selling the country on a strategy to multiply [the wealthy]“. Really, Thomas, do you think for one minute that Barack Obama could ever be persuaded to “multiply the wealthy”? Wake up, hombre, and accept the truth about the man, which is that he wants to destroy the wealthy and he’s having a damn good time doing it.
Finally, Friedman closes with a dramatic statement: The president was elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it.
Uh, are you sure? Did the people who elected this man do so on the mandate that he “grow the national pie, not just re-divide it”?
Unfortunately Friedman’s last statement is not just in the realm of fantasy, but in the realm of butchery of history. Those who voted for mr. Obama harbor no illusions that he will “grow the national pie”. Oh no, when such voters cast their votes for the Manchurian they gave into their most base instincts of jealousy, envy, and greed, all cultivated and whipped up by Axelrod and Obama himself; they want him to re-divide the wealth in this country, to make the “wealthy” pay for their alleged sins.
But I don’t want to make too much of Friedman’s gaffe here: overall, he eviscerated Obama’s statist, collectivist, anti-capialist message of hate, and we can rightly say: BRAVO.