All right class! Sit up...pay attention; we're about to pose a thought-provoking historical question:

 

What if President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had lived 6 more months? Would he have dropped the BOMB? And would we have witnessed the end of World War 2 by August, 1945? 

 

And could the war have evolved into a worse conflagration? Raise your hand if you know.

 

After Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta in early 1945 to Josef Stalin, the Red Army had a "green light opportunity." With eastern Europe in hand, Stalin directed them to head south, and by August 1945 the Red Army was massing on the border of Iran.

 

So what would Roosevelt have done? In all probability-- nothing.

 

Stalin would have then proceeded straight to Tehran, and installed a new Tudeh (Communist) regime in no time.

 

But most fortunately, it was Harry Truman at the helm, who would literally terrify Stalin out of Iran-- purely on a bluff. 

 

Truman-- immediately upon being sworn-in-- recognized Stalin's true intention: Communist expansion, not only into eastern Europe, but also into the oil-rich Mideast.

 

But Stalin believed that America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, calculating that Truman would not at all want to risk extending the war onto a new front (Mideast). Stalin would be proven wrong-- very wrong!

 

Truman immediately had made up his mind; he would send Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith to personally meet with Stalin in the Kremlin, to deliver the most "strongly worded" message in presidential history.

 

But for the sake of historical context, a little backround on the country formerly known as "Persia." 

 

In 1908, British colonials discovered oil in Persia, and formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company-- later evolving into British Petroleum.

 

After World War I, Persia's ruler, Ahmad Shah, proved to be grossly incompetent, and in 1921, the pro- British "Reza Khan Merpanji" (1877-1944) was put on the throne, who then changed his name to "Pahlavi" (in deference to an ancient Persian language translation).

 

But the "Reza Khan move" eventually backfired on the British.

 

Ol' Reezy turned out to be a political weathervane, and in betrayal, he decided to entreat Adolf Hitler in Germany, even going so far as to decree that Persia would henceforth be known as "Iran," meaning..."Land of Aryans".

Hitler felt genuinely complimented that the country had re-named itself as home of the "Master Race", and recognizing Iran's strategic importance, a German-Persian alliance was formed in 1939 after the start of the war.

 

The Allies, greatly alarmed, invaded Tehran in August 1941 and deposed the pro-Nazi Reza Khan, installing his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1917-1980) as the next leader.

 

The Russians stayed in Iran until Autumn, l942 when they were forced to withdraw and reinforce their army against Hitler's invasion into Stalingrad. 

 

To this day, historians question Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his huge Stalingrad force to surrender. But if one examines the world map in mid-1942, it reveals expansionist Nazi armies; one moving east toward the Suez under Rommel, and a huge, 600,000 man force moving south on Stalingrad under von Paulus.

 

If Hitler had struck at Stalingrad only 3 months earlier, he would have taken the city, moved south to hook up with the Iranians, and could have met Rommel closing in from the west--possibly winning the war as early as mid 1943.

 

Stalin (like Hitler) understood Iran's strategic importance, so upon meeting with FDR and Churchill at the Tehran Conference at the end of 1943, Stalin conned the trusting Roosevelt, and agreed..."In exchange for continued U.S. aid, I will make no post-war move on Iran." 

 

This was one of many of Stalin's big lies, which set the stage for Roosevelt's disastrous giveaway at Yalta.

Four months after Roosevelt's death, Stalin dispatched a Red Army column to march from Soviet Azerbaijan across the border to Iran, with orders to seize the capital, Tehran. 

 

Now enter the firebrand, no-nonsense persona of Harry Truman, who--via his ambassador-- then delivered his fateful "ultimatum" to Stalin, which in so many words had said:

 

"Dear Mr. Stalin; we think you're just a bit out of bounds, and have violated your agreement at Tehran. Thus, if you recall the 2 big bombs we recently dropped on Japan, if your army doesn't withdraw from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch ANOTHER atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped Soviet heads!" 

 

Stalin complied--and rather quickly.

 

But liberal, revisionist historians have downplayed Truman; so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. actually had no THIRD atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all Communist, and to this very day, the Russians might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

 

Indeed, history has completely ignored Truman's sheer cunning;

 

The U.S. was at least 6 months away from assembling a third atomic bomb. But the media despised the blunt-talking, monotone-voiced Missourian, being the reason why it took so long for Truman to take his rightful place in history as perhaps the boldest and most intuitive president of the 20th century.

 

And on the flip side of fate, what if FDR dies a month EARLIER, say around March 12, 1945?

 

It's not the least bit of a stretch that a highly-aggressive George Patton would have told a newly sworn-in Harry Truman..."Mr. President, l can chase these Russkies all the way back to the Ukraine-- just gimme the green light!"

 

By March '45, given the arrival of the newly-upgraded, General Pershing tanks, replete with a high-velocity 90 mm. main gun, and the legions of B-24 & B-17 bombers-- plus heavily-armed P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt fighters (6 or 8 .50-caliber Browning machine guns)-- the United States was indeed the most powerful war machine the world had ever seen.

 

And despite the numerical superiority of the Soviet armies on the ground, the Americans could have thrown 10 times as much steel as the backwardly-armed Russians (particularly the Red Air Force), and General Patton, and 8th Air Force General Curtiss LeMay, could have blasted the Soviets all the way back to the Ural Mountains-- and beyond.

 

And  the Cold War? it would have been nothing but a figment in Winston Churchill's imagination.

 

But what would FDR have done if he had lived 6 more months? Let's pontificate:

 

In his trusting liberal heart, FDR may have told his generals..."Oh, let Mr. Stalin go; he can have Iran, it's only fair; the Russians did most of the anti-Nazi fighting; they're our allies; no sense in arguing; bring our boys home; we have no interest in those deserts; we've got plenty of oil back here at home"... etc.

 

And in a perverse way of reasoning, if not for Roosevelt's April,1945 cerebro-vascular accident (stroke), what then? In retrospect, it may have been one of the most fortunate "accidents" in modern world history.

 

Beginning with FDR (and his Yalta fiasco) liberal presidents have always trusted our enemies, and have had a compulsion to be "fair" to them. But  fortunately (for America) a conservative president came along every time to sweep up the mess.

 

In the post-war era, it was the liberal Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), who decided to escalate a regional overseas conflict into a full blown war (Vietnam), for reasons that are only known to him.

 

But Johnson not only blundered America into an unnecessary conflict, the LBJ presidency was also germane in debasing our currency.

 

In the late 60's, Vietnam war costs were spiraling out of control. The Pentagon's war budget was exploding; inflation was bubbling up. The dollar was sinking.

 

So Mr. Johnson 'cleverly' decided to set a economic precedent that has flourished to this very day-- unleash a new federal reserve strategy-- run the printing presses.

In all its previous wars, the U.S. had enacted either tax hikes, or selling what the old timers refer to as "war bonds". But LBJ had the fed crank out approximately 80 billion in unbacked paper currency, to keep his Great Society ship of state afloat.

 

So by March of 1971, the wolf was at the Whitehouse door, and with inflation spiraling out of control, Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard, and the irreparable damage to the U.S. dollar had been done-- never again would it be pegged to the price of gold-- it would float up or down in relation to the other currencies of the world.

 

Then in 1977, liberal democrat Jimmy Carter (Mr. Human Rights), immediately began his naive destruction of our foreign intelligence agencies, approving the firing of 400 of our best CIA agents(many of them in the Mideast)-- an ongoing disaster that has affected America calamitously to the present day.

 

Carter intuitively MISUNDERSTOOD the depths of hatred that the radical Islamist movement would have toward America.

 

Once the surprise revelation became known that the Shah of Iran was in trouble, Carter actually sided WITH Ayatollah Khomeini, because he, like himself, was a "religious man", and would "never violate the human rights of the Iranian people" as the Shah had done with his secret police force (SAVAK).

 

Carter foolishly failed to realize that Khomeini could actually be more "unfair" than the Shah; and would employ Iran's oil revenues AGAINST the United States.

 

Carter let the Shah fall in ignominy. And just as history blames Roosevelt for the Cold War, Carter could be considered the defacto founder of radical Islam.

 

And what about the liberal Bill Clinton, and his baseless trusting of our "ally," the Chinese?

 

In February of 1996, President Clinton authorized the export of critical booster-rocket and satellite technology to China, undercutting the Justice Department's investigation that it would greatly harm U.S. national security.

 

A New York Times reporter uncovered the actual plot:

 

In an admission by Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, it was revealed a quid-pro-quo had occurred-- Clinton had received nearly $100,000 in Chinese "contributions" for his re-election campaign of 1996.

 

Currently, China is practicing how to shoot down orbiting satellites; and to our peril, the media has deliberately ignored Clinton's responsibility, having saved China approximately 15-20 years of difficult research-- all for campaign contributions. 

 

And now that the Chinese are flush with cash (most of it ours) they are going all-out to develop a threat the U.S. hasn't witnessed since Stalin acquired our hydrogen bomb secrets in 1949: the DF- 21 missile, a  'kill weapon' to target & destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

 

The DF-21 rises above the atmosphere at Mach-10, then plunges rapidly with "smart bomb" guidance capability to strike a large moving target at sea-- thereby rendering the U.S. naval carrier umbrella almost useless.

Imagine all American carriers-- going the way of the World War II battleships-- becoming obsolete almost overnight; all through the courtesy of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton's reckless actions with China may now have now greased the skids for a possible future war, but you'll never hear about it in the pro-liberal media, who-- ever since the days of FDR-- have covered up the sinful mistakes of democrats, and the reason why the U.S. military is as necessary now as it was in 1941, or at any other time in America's storied history.

 

But despite all the negative slant of the media, the United States has been an honorable country, and has never kept territory, or plundered any land we've conquered.

 

Nuremberg Germany--1936: Hitler's 8th Party Congress "Rally of Honor" (Reichsparteitag der Ehre) celebrating the invasion of the demilitarized Rhineland, which back then, constituted the restoration of Germany's lost World War I military honor.

Today, everyone is familiar with that frenzied scene from the incorporated footage made at that Nuremburg rally, where Hitler spoke to the masses positioned in front of three towering columns-- emblazoned with 3 huge swatstikas as the backdrop:
 
"Seig-heil...seig heil..seig heil", shouted the frenzied crowd, as Hitler would pause after delivering one of his classic motivational one liners, as he sought to infuse his fellow Germans with the basis of Nazi fanatacism-- absolute unquestionable allegiance to "Mein Feuhrer!"
 
And late last summer in Denver-- as if a Rocky Mountain coronation were not lofty enough-- Barack Obama, in his best imitation of the rally at Nuremberg, seemed to aim for Mount Olympus when he stood  atop a podium in front of an enormous, Greek-columned stage, to accept his party's nomination for president of the U.S.

But just like Herr Hitler, Obama brazenly told his BIG LIE..."We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country". And then, came forth the biggie.... "I will never hesitate to defend this nation."

But don't hold your breath waiting.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has announced plans to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, to halt military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual’s rules on interrogations .

And by his mixed messages on all foreign policy fronts, he puts America in jeopardy for another Sept.11- clearly illustrating he's yet another flaming democratic liberal appeaser.
 
During his campaign, Obama purported to expand the size of the Army (false) and repeatedly suggested that he would launch unilateral military strikes into Pakistan in an effort to kill bin Laden. But that tough talk has now been toned down, and "unilateral" has been changed to "only after consultation" with the Pakistani government.

Barack talked Reagan-esque bold during his acceptance speech, but predictably, has shown Carter-esque appeasement in his first months as our anti-president.

Obama sees the world as though the enemy is just  like us. But they view his administration as an opportune time to time to extract apologies, build up their nuclear and conventional forces, and are secure in the knowledge that they'll be no consequences to aggression.

Meanwhile, to show his "toughness", Mr. Obama has pledged to send additional troops into Afghanistan to push back against the Taliban insurgency. But to what end? Unlike the Bush doctrine to eliminate al Quida and establish democracy in Iraq, there has been no definition of winning in the Afghan theater, because Afghanistan has been determined by most experts to be...the "unwinnable" war.
 
In his first fifty days, Obama sent out peace feelers to Iran, and offered a compromise to the Taliban. And now, he's proposing huge new aid to Pakistan (the same failed policy of the past three administrations).

Is Obama the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter-- or worse...Neville Chamberlain?

With his new, "get-nice-to-our-enemies" policy, he might as well have mailed engraved invitations to Bin Laden and al Qaida, to let them know it was open season on Americans again.
 
Appeasement is a formulation for disaster. It goes against our long-held foreign policy that the United States, as the world’s preeminent power, can only be secure if it reinforces its strength throughout the globe, and with no exceptions!

Throughout history, America's strongest presidents achieved greatness only through their projection of absolute military power--not through weakness by being some lily flower:

-Bush I rolled Saddam out of Kuwait
-Reagan bombed Libya and ended Moammar Khadaffi's international terrorist party
-Kennedy caused Khruschev to blink and then to withdraw Soviet missiles from Cuba
-Truman rolled back Stalin and the Communists, immediately after taking over for FDR
-Teddy Roosevelt walked with a big stick
-James Monroe in1825, said "keep out-- don't dare come into our western hemisphere!"

But as of now, we've returned to the Carter era of the late 70's, projecting nice-ness, and turning the other cheek.
 
And what if ruthless Islamic radicals test Obama? They tested President Carter and he failed-- and the cost of his failure was calamitous-- the radicalization of Iran, the rise of violent Islamist movements, the loss of a strategic ally, and the emboldening of America's adversaries worldwide (i.e. Osama bin Ladin), which culminated in 9-11.
 
Then after a "post-Carter' pause, Islamic radicals tested the next nice guy--Bill Clinton.

They tested Clinton in Somalia and he failed; they tested him in Tanzania and he failed; they tested him in New York City in 1993 and he failed. Finally, they tested him in Yemen in October of 2000 by ramming an explosive-filled boat into the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and nearly sinking that ship.

Clinton failed his tests, confirming to Osama Bin Laden his view that America was a paper tiger-- prompting Sept.11.

And now we have Barack H. Obama, and his aversion to the use of force is written on his sleeve.

During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to hold non-conditional talks with America's foes-- making his bold statement that if elected..." he would open dialog with the enemies of this nation"

Then he "misspoke" about the "tiny" country of Iran, and about preemptively invading Pakistan, illustrating his shocking ineptitude in the realm of foreign policy and basic geography. And for sure, none of his statements (or his gaffe-prone political posturing) escaped the notice of America's enemies.

Even Joe Biden mused about the prospects of... “An international crisis.. a generated crisis...to test the mettle of this guy.”
 
So with cowboy-six gunner Bush long gone, and Mr. nicey-nice Obama on board, could our Muslim extremist friends be racing each other to "test" the mettle of our anti-president?

You can count on it.

Appeasement is always is provocative. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull-- a sign beckoning… "here we are, come 'n get it!"

And in yet another genuflection to our enemies abroad, Obama took another step for political correctness (and to please his radical Code Pink and ACLU supporters) by ending the classification of “enemy combatants." Then in a memo to the Pentagon, he changed the verbage from "war on terror" to..."overseas contingency operation".

How sweet! Imagine how our enemies in the Middle East must have interpreted it:

"Oh that Barack Obama, he's such a nice guy! We'll have to be nice in return. We'll just forget about all the Great Satan nonsense and let bygones be bygones-- and forget our Muslim extremism. And oh, that Obama has such a way with words! We just love his desire for a new America before the eyes of the world."

Obviously, Mr. Obama thinks he can use his speech abilities to entice Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, etc., into falling in love with him and becoming a fan, just as he's always managed to do with all his other "fans" around the world.

And of course, in the eyes of the Obama administration, Ahkmadinejad, Putin, Bin Laden, Kim Jong II, Hamas, and Hezbollah, are all very obviously such nice guys themselves, and honest, forthright, open minded leaders; so we best trust them to behave as good world citizens.

Meanwhile, Obama can't turn away fast enough from the Bush policy of an aggressive war on terror:

First, he appointed an inexperienced lily to run the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has zilcho familiarity with espionage. Then he sends a letter to Iran expressing his willingness to open dialogue with that rogue nation.

And in an "outreach" to our enemies, he recently mailed a sweet letter-candy gram to the so-called moderate factions of the Taliban, proposing to end the Afghan insurgency. But it's blatantly obvious that it's the inflexible EXTREMIST Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war-- not the moderates.

Maybe he can win over al Quida if he called Rocky Mosele of the international star registry, and named a heavenly body after Bin laden. Wouldn't that be nice?
 
But whatever, Obama believes that America is ALWAYS the bad guy, and that we should rehabilitate ourselves through following the wisdom of all liberals-- being nice and giving the other side a chance to "love" America.
 
So as his liberal supporters urge, let's all be patient and give Obama a chance:
 
-a chance to invite a domestic attack
 -a chance to reduce our military by 25%
 -a chance to be viewed by the world as a contrite nation, rather than carrying a BIG STICK
-a chance for Iran to complete its nuclear program to fruition
-a chance to leave our borders wide open, and for al-Qaida to sneak piece-by-piece an atomic weapon through  Mexico,  assemble it some mosque basement, then detonate in Times Square
-and a chance to blunder us into a flash war in the Middle East

And so far, all the nicey-niceness has worked just as we'd expect:

Iran has recently declared itself to be a space and nuclear power; North Korea is testing its ballistic missiles; and Russia is now using bases in Cuba as well as Venezuela.

America is a Christian country that values life-- while our terrorist enemies live to DIE for their beliefs. So we cannot ever let our guard down, because that can only have one eventual outcome--we will be attacked again, even with a nicey-smiley Obama in office.
 
Our enemies see Mr. Obama for what he really is-- a callow, accommodating, wildly inexperienced and weak foe. Unfriendly regimes and networks-- like oil-rich dictators (Hugo Chavez) and radical Islamist countries-- will always seek to exploit a tepid American foreign policy.
 
Will Russia take the opportunity to gobble up Ukraine? Will al-Qaeda now “pull out all the stops” to kill Americans? Will Lebanon “disintegrate"? And will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahkmadinejad  attack Israel and possibly sink ships at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, and cut off our Mideast oil supply?

So what would Mr. Smiley Obama do then... call the UN? Go on a "diplomatic  rampage" and send a strongly worded message?
 
Can you be a world class appeaser without being, at the same time, the enemy?
 
And worse, the effect of the recession now gives Obama a chance to weaken the entire infrastructure and personnel of the US military. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, "The spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing."

Obama promised, "I will cut tens of billion of dollars in wasteful spending." Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, thinks we can cut 25 percent from military spending WITHOUT impacting national security.
 
Once again, like the Carter--Clinton days, we'll have yet another attempt made to wreck our military by the liberal lunatics within the Democrat Party, who are not democrats, but are more aptly described as Communists in bureaucratic clothing.
 
If President Obama "brings the troops home" and dismantles much of our military to save money to help the poor masses, it will be an open invitation for Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China to attack us, and attempt to wipe us out once and for all.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Let's all play pretend for a minute; pretend that an oil strike was discovered along the Israeli-Gaza border. Like the fabled story of Jed Clanton- a wayward Katusha rocket exploded somewhere in a field and..."up from the ground came some bubblin' crude"...a new, 5 billion barrel oil field!

Something like oil wealth from an actual discovery could go a long way to resolve the hatred between Israel and the Palestinians; a bitter rift that supposedly cannot be reconciled. But in the Middle East, oil money changes everything; and it would certainly go a long way in "healing" the historic divide between the two side-by-side populations. But alas, they reside on land that has no oil to be found.

Currently the conflict is raging into its second week, as Israel continues its war on the Hamas rocketeers and their radical Islamic leaders; who defiantly continue their aggression by firing a barrage of 40-50 rockets a day; and all are provocatively aimed at civilian targets within Israeli territory.

With all the media reports of the intense suffering of the civilian populations, people around the world can only wonder, "Why do these people continue to hate each other so much... especially when they reside so close together? Like Rodney King once posited, "Can't they all just get along"?  But is there more at play here than only hatred? For Israel in the Gaza strip, the source of their conflict lies 1200 miles to the east.

 

The images from the fighting in Gaza are harrowing but ultimately deceptive. They portray a mighty invading army, one equipped with F-16 jets bombing a civilian population, and defended by a few thousand fighters armed with primitive rockets. But expand the picture, and the true nature of this conflict emerges: Hamas, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a proxy for the real enemy Israel is confronting- Iran.

Many in the West have yet to grasp that the Middle East conflict is no longer just about creating a Palestinian state, but about preventing the region's takeover by radical Islam.Iran has co-opted Hamas into transforming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a jihad against the Jewish state.

So now lets proceed to connect all the dots; but first, we must partake of a brief history lesson:

 

For years, the shahs ruled Iran. By 1970, Iran was the world's second largest exporter of oil. Iran had great geo-political importance, because it was seen as a buffer between the Soviet Union and the world's largest oil reserves. These factors made the Shah's overthrow in 1978, and Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power, all the more important.

 

And with a more moderate Iran in 2003, would the Iraq war have gone more easily? And would Israel and Hamas even be fighting today? The entire geopolitical map in the Middle East may have turned in a different pro-western direction, as opposed to the present reality.

 

With the winding down of the long Iraq war, the moderate Islamic states now realize that it's not Israel, but a nuclear-armed Iran that should be the focus of their attention. Even the Russians have good reason to be nervous-- a nuclear-capable Iran would pose a huge threat to all their surrounding "stans"...Uzbekistan, Kurdistan, Kazakstan, etc.

 

And would Iran now be on the verge of nuclear proliferation, and threatening the entire Mid East with nuclear aggression? Future history can only answer that.

 

Students of history, take notice. We're all about about to make a sudden sharp left, and we're not talking about someone's back-seat driving instructions, either.

Hints of this upcoming "transition" (i.e. our "centrist" president-elect turns leftist) were evident in Obama's recent post-election "60 Minutes" interview on CBS, with Steve Kroft. One could literally see Obama's face brighten up like a sunrise during this exchange:

Kroft: Have you been reading anything about the Depression?
Obama: There’s a new book out about FDR’s first 100 days; and what you see in FDR is what I hope my team can "emulate"...

From this little snippet, it's overtly evident that Obama has studied Franklin Roosevelt assiduously. Obama could undoubtedly author a term paper titled, "Our 32nd President: How FDR saved America from prosperity for ten years, expanded the federal government and presidential power to unprecedented new levels; and became a cult hero and was re-elected 3 times, after creating millions of new government dependents."

This is basically the role Obama (the blank slate) was looking for all along ever since November 5. So he's now...ta-da, "the self adopted Son of FDR."

Presently, the democrats want Obama sworn in immediately. They're calling for him to "take charge"..."be more proactive". Translation: "Roll out the pork barrel now--our constituents are murmuring-- we cant wait any more!"

Since Obama has promised a massive rebuild of the nation's infrastructure, after January 21 it'll be governors galore coming out of the woodwork with..."Hey Mr. President, have I got a bridge for you!

Democratic freshmen Congressmen are lining up madly like at the entrance of Walmart on black Friday. They already smell the green to buy the votes they'll need for re-election in 24 short months , and are salivating in a virtual feeding frenzy. This pork-picnic anticipation has been building ever since that 60 Minutes interview, after Obama dropped this neutron fiscal bomb:

Kroft: Where is all the money going to come from to do all of these things...?
OBAMA: We have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again...and that we SHOULDN'T WORRY about the deficit next year or even the year after.

Attention everybody...now hear this! The Almighty Barack hath spoken; deficits do not matter now, so start the printing presses...break out the monopoly money, and give out the community chest cards to everyone 'cause Santa Barack is coming to town!

In the interim before his inauguration, Obama will spoon feed enough centrist rhetoric to keep his critics at bay, while he knows the economy is sliding downhill faster than the May 1940 fall of France. So under the guise of..."there's only 1 president at a time", O-bam-0 will act presidential, but non-committal. Then, just like FDR "taught him", he'll continue to let the crisis build, let the nation hope and worry, and then... poof! He'll magically appear as their savior on January 21. It's a pretty good game plan, and FDR hit a grand slam with it as far as being able to acquire power that was unprecedented in history up until that time in 1933.

Obama will act just "presidential enough" keep the nation in awe of his "coolness under crisis", and at the same time, he can continue to blame the falling economy on "the failed policies of the Bush administration". It's the old football strategy, running the same play as long as it keeps working.

And speaking of work, Obama recently has come out with a "2 year plan" (careful Barack, we're getting rather soviet here). Obama has directed his economic team to come up with a two year plan for job creation..."The key for us is making sure that we jumpstart the economy in a way that does not just deal with the short term, does not just create jobs immediately, but also puts us on a glide path for long term sustainable economic growth...a plan that not only creates jobs, but also puts the public agenda ahead of the agenda of the private interests."

But ironically, the private interests are those who would seize the opportunity to create ACTUAL work, which are the real job problems Obama claims he can solve, but will not.

Now lets get hypothetical: let's say Obama were to split the money 50-50 public vs private, and declare; "may the best sector win". The entrepreneurs and so called special interests would emerge. They would invest the government grants and put capitalism to the task of creating real wealth. America is a nation unrivaled for innovation, and new ideas would flood into the market, and people would be put to work fabricating new goods (electronics, communication devices, etc) which creates newly-needed support services, that beget more hiring, and then generates the wealth-multiplier effect that all viable markets create.

Markets create wealth because people are needed to carry out the demands of the users who seek those very same services and goods. But Obama knows nothing about free markets or real jobs, because he's never run anything, not even a paper route. And since Obama has never experienced real work, he thinks the government does everything best; just as did his patron saint of government failure, Franklin Roosevelt.

Back in 1933, FDR saw his opening to forge opportunity from crisis, and succeeded on a historic scale. We had the FERA, CWA, WPA,, the CCC. and the RFD, and every other thing he could dream up back then. Sure he created a lot of jobs, but not any real work! So the depression was prolonged because FDR for all his glory, couldn't create any wealth, which can only be done in the private sector. And previous history bears this out

The Egyptian pharaohs were probably the original socialists and originators of government programs to "create" jobs; and look at all the gigantic public works projects they produced; the pyramids, the Sphinx, and all the grand monuments of Egyptian innovation and engineering and construction. But since these were the original government make-work programs, other than the weather worn structures, when the Pharaohs died out, so did the economy, and the culture and the country fell into disrepair. And not much is different there today.

But what if the Pharaohs had used the private sector? If King Khufu had cut a deal with maybe some Assyrian contractors, they could have come in and HIRED the engineers and foreman, and laborers, stone cutters, block layers, and surveyors, and the waterboys. They would have been paid WAGES; and once the job was done, the contractors would have maybe moved on to Athens to construct the Parthenon, while all the workers would have been left with lots of money to spend.

Now this wealthier new Egyptian middle class could afford to buy things. They would have undoubtedly demanded some good provisions, and nice housing, and some cool garb, so than all new industries would have sprung up to provide them. There would have been an agriculture industry. There would have been a new apparel industry, there would have been new housing industries; all creating the need to HIRE more people, doing real work. Now the great new cities of Egypt would have sprung up. The population would have multiplied, and created a permanent supply/demand PRIVATE economy that may have flourished and possible elevated CAIRO as the Rome of its day, because all great nations were built and sustained by WEALTH!

All governments if they see fit, can create jobs but not wealth. If they could, poverty would be virtually non existent in the world.

A federal agency could hire people to dig holes, and hire a second group to fill them up. But then after the "project" was completed, (or the grant ran out), both groups would be dependent on unemployment compensation. This may be getting a little too flippant, but it illustrates the point-- government programs employ, but they do not HIRE. And these programs are paid by grants...they are not wages. But hiring and wages imply permanence, while employing and grants imply obsolescence...the government jobs never last because the demand for them was not there in the first place; it was created, not needed.

Once again, the missing part of the economic equation in government programs is THE demand side. If only the taxpayers money could have been better put to use, it would be different. The idea for any government is to create a political climate for the creation of wealth.

Example: if the government instead would provide low interest loans and tax breaks to small business (the real job engine of the United States), look at the huge difference. New small businesses from creative entrepreneurs now spring up everywhere; unemployment drops sharply; newly enriched workers begin buying new homes, TV's, cars, phones, computers, creating a new wave of demand for more workers who are paid more wages, and they now expand the unfettered free market ever further, and so on.

But Obama despise free markets, they diffuse power away from the government and back in the hands of the private sector; which is what Obama will be fighting against. The more power he can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; basically doing exactly what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms, by creating a culture of government dependency. But wouldn't people be much better of with a real semi-permanent job rather than a monthly government hand out from the savior?

But it all goes back to expanded government dependency (socialism). And socialism doesn't generate wealth, but instead creates dependency, anxiety, misery, and class envy.

Obama may be our most promising, most inspirational president-elect ever, but the jury is out as to how America will fare under the soviet model of central planning, two year and three year programs, with czars appointed to run major industries, health care, energy and all the other czars that will be deemed necessary to "fix this crisis".

Obama's grand utopian vision will not create any private jobs. It will not create any permanent wealth. But it WILL dangerously inflate the dollar, and WILL saddle us with a 10 -to-20 year "plan" of huge ballooning budget deficits, burdened by the unsustainable interest on an out-of-control national debt, and portending nothing good for the long term; only the possibility of insolvency, bankruptcy, future misery, and a 3rd world economy, just like they have in Egypt now.

In August of 1945, Stalin had massed his Red army at the border of Iran, believing that a war-weary America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, (who had blundered at Yalta), and would not at all want to risk extending the war into a new front in the Middle East.

But Stalin had yet to experience the fiery determination of a "show-me” Missourian, Harry Truman.
 
After consulting with James Byrnes, his Secretary of State, Truman sent a STRONGLY WORDED telegram to Mr. Stalin in Russia, encouraging him to retreat, and consider doing it immediately.

The flavor of their communication was along these lines:

Truman: Hello? Mr. Stalin?
Stalin: Yes Mr. Truman…

Truman: We heard that your Red army is about to march into Iran and establish a Tudeh (communist) regime in Teheran, and take advantage of the current weakness of the Iranian political structure there.

Stalin: Where in the world did you hear that? We have no designs on post war expansion into Iran, Turkey, eastern Europe, nor anywhere-
Truman: Uh, sorry to interrupt Mr Stalin, but you know those two big bombs we just dropped on Japan...did you hear about them yet?
Stalin: Umm, what do you mean?
Truman: I mean that if you don’t call your generals A_S_A_P and back your army away from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch another atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped red heads! Ca-pish?
Stalin: uh yeah…I capish. I’ll give em your message AT ONCE SIR! Just don’t be impatient…I’ll have them out of there pronto!


But the liberal press hated Harry Truman; he was lampooned for his bluntness, folksiness, and lacked the sophistication and eloquence of FDR, so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. had no third atomic bomb.

But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin out of Iran back then? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all communist, and to this very day, they might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.

Everyone recalls reading of the untimely death of FDR in April 1945 at Warm Springs, Georgia; but what if the trusting liberal Roosevelt had lived even 3 or 4 more months...what would he have done with the lying, greedy expansionist Josef Stalin at the borders of Iran?

The point is, liberals always seem to want to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt, figuring that even if they ARE liars, America, (in the parlance of Michelle Obama) is a downright mean and racist country, and deserves not of her status as a free prosperous nation, because it was built upon the backs of "oppressed people", and foreign, jingoistic imperialism.

Yes-- whenever liberals have their chance to deliver a black eye to their homeland, they're of the mindset: "There! That's what you deserve; you racist, bullying, militaristic, imperialist, expansionist United States of America!

Obviously, like our hallowed 32nd president, Frank Roosevelt, the left-leaning liberal roots of those who would (after the war) grievously betray our country, were founded in their youthful days during the hard times of the 30's...(similar comparisons could be made to the present time).

Thus, many of the most infamous and damaging pro-Soviet spies embraced the Left during the Depression.

One of the most egregious was Alger Hiss, who viewed spying against his home country as little more than ‘youthful idealism’. Youthful idealism? Oh God! But many of the pro-liberal historians who wrote our history textbooks, have chosen to describe Hiss' treachery in innocuous terms.

See kids? Spying against America, and giving up the most vital of its hydrogen bomb secrets, was merely “youthful idealism.” And back then, if you could find a liberal lawyer, who would seat a liberal jury, even a blatantly guilty communist spy  would be convicted of a only a minor charge (such as lying under oath) . . .and gee-whiz, it was only for the small infraction of surrendering American hydrogen bomb secrets to Russia, and prolonging and escalating the cold war to another 35 years! That's all.

And arguably, the damage from Hiss changed the course of world events (for the worse) more than any other individual in American history!

But the revisionist liberal history books mention not a word about this obvious conclusion. Dangerous liberal professors, such as David Goldfield et. al. continue to inform students that ..."any documents Hiss might have stolen were of limited importance.”

This of course becomes the same excuse provided for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenbergs--which are the duo who were complicit in passing our original atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets between 45-47-- arguably could be stated as the cause for an emboldened Stalin to close off 1948 Berlin, because he knew Truman could bully him no more.  Since Stalin was holding an equal hand in weaponry now, he made the brazen attempt to squeeze the Allies out of Berlin, thanks to the dastardly liberal ideas of Julie and Ethel Rosenberg

The pro-liberal media back in post-war America was instrumental in Hiss being convicted not of treason, but only perjury.  They often took the attitude that  American spies, by definition, can’t give anything of importance to the Soviets, because the Soviets were so brilliant that they already had all this technology, and were just “holding it in reserve,”

Back then liberals (including spies such as the Rosenbergs and Hiss) were of the mind that even if something was important, it was better that an enemy of America have it, because the U.S. was such an evil, racist country, that it deserved to be defeated anyway! Sound Familiar?


And to this very day, there are many diplomats working in our Department of State, who were appointed by Clinton, and even a  few remaining Carter administration picks, (also in the CIA), who carry the leftist flag of defeatism; and wish to project American weakness and appeasement.

They are apologists at large, and could be considered as complicit to treasonous actions.

But weakness is provocative: it invites attacks from our enemies.

All liberals are cut from the same cloth in their view of their country; so they seek positions of power for the sole purpose of weakening America both domestically, economically, and militarily, because to them: "America doesn't deserve to be free...America doesn't deserve to be prosperous...and America would be best served by big government to take care of the helpless masses, so major corporations can take advantage of them no more!"

Liberals raise taxes, expand government, and one-by-one, seek to deny freedoms, because the Constitution goes against everything they stand for!

We the People... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

The left hates our Constitution because the Preamble begins with the very opposite of their belief system: “We the people”...instead of “Us the Government”.

The Constitution limits what they can do. So therefore, they seek to reinterpret it to the only way it could suit them.


Liberals appoint leftist judges, who legislate from the bench; it is the instrument of how they evoke change, and force their mindset on those who would protest. Judges who exercise a fluid, amorphous view of the Constitution, treating it as a flexible paper upon which new interpretations can be imposed and in which new rights can be found; and assist a liberal administration in how much the government can expand.


So liberals view the Constitution as a living document, and view the original as some dried old parchment that was written by a bunch of wealth-seeking, greedy, racist, European white guys.


Liberals seek to control everyone's lives; government is for social change for the better! And liberals firmly hold that they know best. Ever since FDR and the New Deal, liberalism has been gathering political momentum.


Since all liberals seem to be of like mind, lets call them "the Universal Fraternity of Liberals", who, whether from any time, or any era, are always seeking positions of power, feeling they are superior over the common man. Because of their inherently greater gifts of intelligence, and their sympathy for the "disadvantaged", they see themselves as the flag-bearers for the advancement of humanity and civil rights.

Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and politics, because liberals seek positions of influence, and commonly tend to be highly-educated and relatively affluent. Liberals are predominantly white, and garner the support of the young. They are also the least religious political group.

Since they are educated and wealthy, liberals believe they're entitled to power. And ironically they seek their power to deny others liberty, holding up fairness as their excuse for legislative tyranny.


They seek to “generously" re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. They are especially fair when it comes to other people’s money; but they’re quite stingy when it comes to contributing their own. They feel morally superior, even though 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services

They freely pass judgment on others; yet they resent being judged themselves. Their universal mission at hand is to make the world "as it should be", rather than the way it actually is.

Therefore, liberals believe in their right to acquire power the marxist way-- by any means necessary! Lie, cheat, distort, or fabricate your way to dominance! Deceive the Conservatives because they are the common enemy of the greater good!

Steal their elections...calumnize their reputations, belittle their accomplishments...ridicule their lifestyles...disenchant their supporters...all is fair in love, war, elections, spying, and doing anything by any means necessary, to advance the cause of liberalism everywhere, and saving the world!