"There you go again"



Click here to go HOME  

and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of uptospeedgoforit.com


Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...


Subject: American Politics, the Democrats, and this Administration

(Wed., May 26, 2010)

(approx. 3295 words, 6 pp.)


Obama, El Presidente for life? Not out of the realm of possibility?


Taking Over the Big Banks, Mr. President? "There you go again..."


As Will Rogers used to say, "All I know is what I read in the newspapers."


In the 1980 Presidential debates Ronald Reagan had a great and famous line in debating Jimmy Carter.  Carter was, as I recall, explaining how yet another tax hike in some area would solve all of America’s problems, and in total exasperation Reagan retorted, "There you go again."  I was reminded of that as I listened to the debate surrounding the pending financial reform legislation. And I thought to myself, "There you go again, Mr. President..." nationalizing, or trying to nationalize, or setting up to nationalize if possible yet another major private sector of America?



As Will Rogers used to say, "All I know is what I read in the newspapers."

Clearly financial reform is needed, big time (as was healthcare reform), but Obama’s bill is widely said not to address the numerous systemic problems in both the public and private sphere, and it is said to be a clear set up to attempt a possible government take over of the nation’s largest financial institutions a la General Motors, when and if the economic circumstances are right.

The practical issues and problems are pretty widely reported to be off the table such as Fannie and Freddie mismanagement, bogus derivatives, questionable ratings system, massive leveraging and market manipulation, the wall between investment and commercial banking, etc., etc. but not the possible take-over provisions by the federal government and executive branch of large financial institutions when circumstances are right! How interesting! But as Will Rogers used to say, "All I know is what I read in the newspapers."

However, this is classic Obama and classic Radicalism and not really a Liberalism of say a Clinton or Carter, and certainly not a Conservatism of even a W Bush. Look, Bush wanted to bail out GM so it could survive; by contrast Obama as a liberation theology (Marxist) kind of guy wanted to bail out GM in order to take it over, and he did. The clear fact is Obama is simply not into capitalism. Obama is in fact a Radical intellectually, politically, and economically speaking, and in truth he is pretty up front about it.


Liberalism is generally not Radicalism

By contrast to Obama, people like Carter or (Bill) Clinton are not Radicals, but Liberals, and they have no personal or political desire to take over private industries or institutions. As Obama himself says (in his book) there are 3 major political and even religious groups in America today (discounting Libertarians, I would say, who are not a major group), and they are Radicals, Liberals and Conservatives. And Obama sees himself as being half way between the Radical and Liberal positions, and he sees the Conservatives as just being wrong whether politically, religiously, morally, legally, spiritually, economically, and so forth.

So, what is the bottom-line on Obama’s often self-professed Radical plans to "re-make" America?  Let’s get a little historical perspective, please! What will President Obama’s so-called "legacy" be in 10 or 20 years? Will he be seen as a genius and a visionary, as he is widely seen today? Or will he be seen as a very confused camper, perhaps even diabolically confused since by their own statements community organizer means follower of Lucifer, and as Alinsky says it is hard if not impossible to say where that stops being a figurative following and starts being literal one!

This is their own self-description, and it seems to me to be a good bit of truth to it, though I am not completely convinced the community organizers are really into the Lucifer thing as much as they claim to be. I take it with a very large grain of salt. Many times the Lucifer thing is just rhetorical bravado, of course. "We are bad as the devil" etc., etc. However, it is my personal opinion that both religious Liberalism and its child political Liberalism are not just philosophical foolishness but generally demonic deceptions (literally), and certainly the same can be said in stronger terms for the Radicalism of a Jeremiah Wright or Fidel Castro.  


If Obama is seen as a confused camper, Republicans will un-do his mess?

In any case, in my view, one way or another, in 10 to 20 years Obama will be seen as a very confused camper (perhaps even diabolically confused) and not a visionary and a genius, but who is to say how this is going to play out? It depends on when and if some significant numbers of Americans and even Democrats start getting cold feet on his Radical agenda, in which case the whole thing will be a bust, but it is not clear we are anywhere close to there yet, especially among Democrats specifically. In truth, much of the mess so far can be pretty easily undone in 2012 by a Republican Congress and President, and a President who would no doubt start his Presidency as Obama did with an international apology tour, but this time to our historical friends and allies in order to apologize for this Presidency and Congress!

Presumably this financial reform bill can be re-done fairly easily, and further the healthcare bill will have to be re-done after it is thrown out by the courts no matter who is in office, and it will be fairly easy to re-privatize the cars companies and even the banks if Obama takes those over, and it will be fairly easy to re-start the space program since it will have only been out of commission 2 or 3 years, and if ridiculous cap and trade is passed that is pretty easily voided as well, and I do not think card check will pass the Senate, but Obama may get amnesty, and this may be what he is counting on, as his ace in the hole, to maintain El Presidente forever with a possible reversal of the twenty second Amendment, if need be? (Let us not forget South American Marxist dictators are Obama's heroes, no less, as are the SDS and Jeremiah Wright, all outright Radicals!)


Is Rush right on this one? Maybe?

This possible reversal of the twenty second Amendment is Rush Limbaugh’s theory, and I think there may be a good bit of truth to it. If, indeed, Obama plays his cards right and keeps himself healthy and fit, he could pretty easily stay in office until 2040 or 2050. That would only be 8 to 10 Presidential terms, not that many in the big scope of things when you stop and think about it?

Though such a scenario is something of a nightmare for 30 or 40% of the country, for at least that many it would be downright heaven on earth. I actually had a nightmare last week that I went to a hardware store to buy some light bulbs, and the shelves were almost entirely empty, and I asked the clerk for some light bulbs, and he said "the Commissars" have determined each house only gets three!  I woke up in fright and distress! (Could I make this up?) 

What is so inspirational and at times a bit scary about Obama is I think that it is clear to everyone that in his heart Obama really does want to "fix" America forever, as our great leader, of course, no matter how many terms it takes? And Obama has a clear ideological agenda of black liberation theology (racial Marxism). And, to be fair to him, he is pretty, even at times very, up front about it.


Political Liberalism is generally not Radicalism, and its source is religious Liberalism

Look, Clinton, Carter, and Gore (except on the environment) are not Radical ideologues; they are Liberals. Clearly Clinton and Gore had a plan of 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Gore and then 8 years of Hillary, but this was not some ideological Marxist "re-making" of America but rather just good old-fashioned American politics, which they almost pulled off but didn’t. (They were stopped by just a handful of votes in Florida in 2000?)

But the key here for us today is Liberalism in politics will implode, when Liberalism in religion (of no all-righteous Creator God of Genesis 1:1, no Atonement, no bodily Resurrection, no salvation, etc.) implodes, and turns back to a Bible Christianity but almost definitely not before then. Bottom-line? Keep your eye on the mainline Protestant churches because that is where the battle is being fought in the realm of the spirit and will presumably be lost or won. Why? Virtually no one goes Liberal politically unless one first goes Liberal religiously, and religious Liberalism is an outright demonic deception in the realm of the spirit, while political Liberalism is just faulty and fuzzy thinking and confusion that follows, once one goes Liberal in the larger spiritual sense.


When will the religious shift happen?

When will the religious shift happen in the mainline Protestant denominations? In my opinion the mainline Protestant denominations will not come to their senses and throw out their ridiculous theological Liberalism and phony "higher criticism" short of a great tribulation. However, in my view, a great tribulation could very possibly bring the mainline Protestant churches back to a clear sin-and-salvation Gospel message. Clearly profound and rational philosophical argument by Conservative Christians has not done it for over 100 years, and even with intense Christian worldview thinking for about the past 20 or so years now, the Liberals don't budge off their foolishness and sometimes outright nonsense.

By contrast, though many individual Roman Catholics may also come to a Conservative Bible faith (as well as Liberal Protestants and Jews), Roman Catholicism itself is not going to come to a Bible faith until the Vatican does officially, and that is not even on the horizon at this time, and it is hard for this writer to see even a great tribulation bringing them to a Bible faith specifically, tragically, for a variety of reasons which I have written about somewhat extensively elsewhere.

In my opinion, there is also little or no chance of the Black Church coming back to a Bible faith (and abandoning its equality of outcomes, not opportunity, Civil Rights agenda) so long as Obama is in the White House because black folks like everyone else are mere mortals, and the lure of the political power thing is too spiritually captivating, and they can’t give it up, even at the risk of their own souls, though a great tribulation might possibly bring the Black Church back to a clear sin-and-salvation Gospel message as well as the Liberal Protestants and individual Catholics?


A cult-like President is a bit surreal for me...

In any case, America has never really had a cult-like President before, and in truth this is not really very American or republican, which is the troubling thing for this writer more than the citizenship and birth certificate thing. The stipulation of American-born citizen for the Presidency is obviously to avoid divided loyalties in the Commander in Chief, but Obama, bless his heart, admits to divided loyalties as a person-of-color "citizen of the world," whether he is specifically an American citizen or not! This, for me, is not corruption or immorality, so much as it is just plain crazy; it is, yet again, surreal.

What Rush simply does not understand about all of this, I think, is that there are people (black and white) who virtually worship the ground Obama walks on (as the expression goes), and Obama has this very deep and broad support among 30 to 40% of the population, just as 30 to 40% of the country is just as equally troubled, at times appalled, or even outraged at what is happening.

However, if Obama and the Democrats still have close to a 45% approval rating after the first totally outrageous 18 months of "re-making America," Obama is, actually, in a very strong position to be El Presidente for life, in my opinion, even without immediate amnesty! Obama and the Democrats need only 6% of the 20% mushy middle vote to institute the Liberal to Radical agenda "forever" under a possible El Presidente for life, or a hand-picked successor.

However, I think Rush is right that with amnesty Obama probably cannot be stopped in his self-professed effort to re-make America with his "transformational" agenda as Mark Stein (Rush’s sometimes guest host) calls it. (Great word.) Quite simply amnesty could carry Obama from simple majorities to super-majorities necessary for a Constitutional amendment. So, even without amnesty before November, if he maintains simple Congressional majorities through November (hardly impossible), he will certainly get amnesty after November, and, hence, probably get his amendment?


On Obama’s possible 50-50 chance of becoming El Presidente for life?

In short, Rush may be wrong in that Obama may have a 50-50 chance to re-make America forever, even without immediate amnesty, given the fact his soaring popularity has actually fallen very little, to date, with this supporters and cult-like followers. And, repealing the twenty second amendment? I think if Obama can, he will, and if he can establish strong Democrat super-majorities with time, he can, and, hence, he will because there is supposedly so much transformational work that must be done to "reclaim" (Obama’s word) America, and only he can do it as our great visionary and progressive leader, etc., etc.

However, in truth, as I read the Constitution, Obama might not need a repealed twenty second amendment for a third or fourth or even fifth or sixth term (while amnesty waits in the wings or if amnesty is insufficient to create super-majorities). He could simply pull an out-but-not-gone Putin?  Or, he could just run as Vice-President (no prohibition on that?) but serve as the de facto President, if he really is as needed as many people think he is in order to "re-make" America as only he can do it, etc., etc. Or, as is not at all unheard of in such situations, Michelle could run in order to continue the much needed and extremely popular Obama dynasty, etc., etc. Or maybe his brother from the hut could run? (He was actually born in San Francisco?) Still, things may have reached a tipping point this past week?


Unprecedented in America or history?

Things may have reached a turning point, however, last week when a visiting head of state bashed American domestic policy in a speech before Congress of all places and to standing ovations from the Democrat Party!!! This must be one of the strangest things I have ever heard of, and I sure hope the RNC has it on video to possibly play over for the American people in years to come? The Democrats are siding with a foreign power on a domestic issue, no less, and further against the will of 60 to 70% of the American people? What is going on here?

This strikes me as unprecedented in American history and maybe even world history, and to make the whole thing even more bizarre and surreal, the speaker’s own country has outright draconian policies while America and Arizona have relatively mild policies on the very same issues under discussion. This has to be the most outrageous thing Obama and the Democrats have ever done, and politically suicidal presumably?

In short, a phony foreign head of state standing before a joint session of Congress lecturing American on domestic policy issues to standing ovations of the entire Democrat Party is a bit over the top any way you figure it? For example, can you imagine Tony Blair pulling such a stunt? Of course not. I think Obama is leading the entire Democrat Party over the cliff, and they are willingly and enthusiastically following him with their blinded eyes wide open?


Will Obama’s radicalism and anti-Americanism be his undoing?

Obama’s undisguised radicalism and anti-Americanism are the gifts that keep on giving to conservatives? But will they be his undoing? Maybe, time will tell. But El Presidente for life is definitely not yet a done deal, though his Democrat coalition is still quite strong at 45%. Amazingly strong, I would say. So, if Obama can win in 2012 on the strength of his personality, he may still have El Presidente for life within his reach because he will at that time probably recapture the House and Senate even if he gets shellacked in November 2010, which itself is not even a done deal.

However, if there is a great spiritual awakening, all bets are off? Because? Political Liberalism and Radicalism are the children of spiritual Liberalism and atheism, and if the nation turns back to the God of the Bible in true repentance and individual salvations, there will be not enough political Liberals or Radicals left in America to elect any Democrat to office, Obama or otherwise?


Bottom-line: IF there is a great spiritual awakening, all bets are off?

It is entirely possible Obama and the Democrats may become victims of larger social, cultural, spiritual, historical, and political circumstances, that are quite simply beyond their control, whether America comes under a very possible Judgment of God for its many sins and misdeeds, or not.

In short, bottom-line: IF there is a great spiritual awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel in the off track in spirit and truth churches (which is most of them?), it would drain off millions upon millions upon millions of voters from Obama’s self-professed Liberal to Radical agenda and pull them into the Conservative traditional morality and traditional view-of-government camp. Only time will tell?

Outside of 1776, this must be the most exciting and inspirational time in the history of the Republic, and maybe even mankind, to be alive? And much of this, it would seem today, is going to unfold in the next 30 months, or so, and virtually all of it in the next 5 to 10 years! There must be a God in heaven? And while no one wants a Judgment of God to fall upon us, in the end it might well work out for the best if that tragedy does indeed befall us? Quite simply, we will turn back to God in Christian salvation as a nation and as individual citizens in it?


And Real Financial Reform?

And what of real financial reform, the issue currently at hand? Who knows at this hour? Our plate is becoming increasingly full on what will probably have to be re-done entirely when Democrat Liberals and Radicals are finally swept out of government by the American people in 2012, '16 or '20? In any case, in my view, we will not return to traditional or conservative views of government generally, nor rights and morality and law in particular, nor even God, for that matter, without a great awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel, and in my opinion this awakening will probably not come short of a significant judgment or chastisement by God on America for our many sins, if not outright hedonism and even at times we put "darkness for light" and "call evil good" and "declare (our) sin like Sodom."  God says in a similar situation in Isaiah, "Come now let us reason together," but it may, in fact, be too late for that for us now?