Question: Does history repeat? Let's analyze.

According to Barack Obama's assessment of the economy, we have nothing BUT fear itself ; it's catastrophe straight ahead...calamity raining down, and debacle on the way.

Save for his dreaded econo-stimulus package. 

But 77 years ago, we heard essentially the same thing from Franklin Delano Roosevelt; only he put a positive slant on the same situation, saying..."we have nothing TO fear"...

And like Obama now, Roosevelt was then offering the same solutions: Government expansion during an economic crisis-- and the fallacy of spending America's way out of fiscal distress.

But despite their rhetoric, both the great minds-- Obama and Roosevelt-- were thinking alike; each upholding the same uncannily shrewd, two-fold political objectives:

1) Anointing yourself as a great savior to the people
2) Getting re-elected by assembling voting groups of government dependents

By 1941 FDR had already failed-- unemployment was nearly 20%, and the nation was still mired in the great Depression. Historians maintain that tax increases, and FDR's spend-aholic ways unnecessarily extended the Depression 10 more years.

But Roosevelt succeeded wildly at getting re-elected, serving until he died in 1945

Roosevelt's New Deal "pump priming" blazed a liberal trail of creating a government -dependent society, initiating a system of welfare that exists to this very day; and robbing  wealth from generations of Americans ever since.

These social engineering ideas have been failures for decades. FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter-- all took down cycles and used them to expand government, rather than let the markets run their course.

And Barack Obama, who never once held a real job in the private sector, is getting in line-- setting a spending course for his "Raw Deal" that will make Franklin Roosevelt seem like someone from the Suzi Orman school of penny-pinching.

Obama's idea of dealing with unemployment is like treating lung cancer by smoking an extra pack a day. Our current economic crisis was debt-induced; and Obama wants the country to run trillion dollar deficits and spend our way out...saying, "it might not even be enough!"

We'll soon be learning the hard way.

Whenever you print money like it's for some monopoly board, you are indeed, playing a dangerous game of surefire future inflation.

Whenever we decide to borrow a trillion, the Fed must go to the worldwide credit markets-- creating competition for money---which drives up interest rates. The result? Increasing inflation with high interest rates, plus high unemployment... does that ring a bell?

It's called stagflation.

Yes, let's celebrate! It's the return of the Jimmie Carter era of the late 70's-- stagflation, and where crises abound: Sky high interest rates, high unemployment, rising energy  prices; and of course-- keeping our thermostats restricted.

So what's next-- the Obama energy conservation sweater (ala' Carter)? Stay tuned. The two presidents could come to blows over licensing rights to such an exclusive brand of apparel.

But seriously, Mr Obama (like Carter) seems to have a selective memory when it comes to what is the best economic medicine of all --tax cuts!

HELP WANTED: American History tutor: Must be familiar with 20th century domestic economic policy. Please- no liberal apologists. Apply 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Wash. D.C.

Ever since the first economic unemployment crisis of the 20th century, U.S. presidents have used tax cuts and spending reductions to restart America's mighty growth engines.

But why is Obama, (like al liberals) so stubbornly opposed to tax cuts?

The first great unemployment 'recession' was from 1919-1921 after World War I. It was caused by the end of wartime production, along with an influx of returning troops, who had little to do after returning home other than checkers and horseshoes.

Hundreds of thousands of our doughboys had returned home victorious , but to their dismay, it only served to swell U.S. unemployment to a post-war spike of 12%.

But the very serious (and conservative) Warren Harding immediately took up an austerity program, and cut taxes and government spending to the bone in 1921. And by 1925, unemployment had shrunk to 3%. Prosperity descended on America in spades, inaugurating the boom-time "Roaring Twenties" era.

The prosperity continued under Calvin Coolidge, who also was a fanatical tax and spending cutter. Coolidge also held religiously to a balanced government budget (yes- a BALANCED budget).

So the roaring twenties didn't just happen-- it unfolded in stages due to the one, sure-fire way that never fails-- fiscal conservatism, lassaiz faire economics--letting private sector profit motives provide the stimulus.

In 196O, president Kennedy, after inheriting a recession resulting from the 110-day 1959 steel strike, cut taxes across the board.  The sizzling 60 's decade of prosperity took off as a result.

In 1981 President Reagan, after stepping into the stagflation quagmire of Carter's disastrous presidency,  drained the swamp with his across the board U.S. tax cuts,  touching off a 20 year economic boom, ending only when the internet bubble burst in 2001.

But Obama has other ideas.

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected, but not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done himself in the 1930s.

In 1933, Mr Roosevelt had offered payments to farmers in return for taking some of their land out of production, and got all the farm states to vote for him in 1936 .

Although precious metal prices had declined by 1932, Roosevelt raised the wages of silver mine workers to a rather generous 30 dollars a month, and all 7 western mining states voted for hin in 1936.

In 1935) Labor legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner, protected workers' rights to form unions and to bargain collectively. In 1936 and 1940, all the urban unions voted for Roosevelt. And Obama seeks to echo the idea of a Roosevelt coalition.

So, for his coalition, Mr Obama need only to cobble the major unions, unemployed, the college students, immigrants, and go by any means he can to tie as many voting groups to him ala' Roosevelt --ergo,  Obama's "raw deal coalition."

Obama could form a similar coalition to vote him a 3rd, or even a 4th term, by influencing a change in the constitution. And with all the creeping incrementalism with the government taking over our lives, it just may happen.

Obama's 4-term plan is already off to a flying start. His stimulus will bolster up to 4 million voters who've recently lost jobs.  Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents, who in one way or another, receive a check from the government. This group could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, Mr. Obama need not even count on a recovery. If he can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election with a 51% majority (or better).

So how would the message in America's fortune cookie read if Obama wins in 2012? How would the history books read at the half century mark in 2050? Maybe something along these lines...

..."In his secomnd term, Barack Obama undertook the expansion of the government with forest fire rapidity.

Obama's para-military "well funded" youth militia was established nationwide, and then the Freedom Docrtrine was passed, which eliminated talk radio opposition-- and the democrats swept both houses in the 2014 midterm election"...

So who would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and hatching a Constitutional scheme for a third term?

Our history books could go on to read:

..."After Barack Obama was elected to a second term, he was able to garner sufficient Congressional support to amend the Constitution, and granted all immigrants amnesty, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights"...

..."and by that time, the Obama youth corps had grown into a well paid, para-military, left wing of enthusiastic supporters. The unions had expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population had become dependent on government entitlements"...

..."by the end of his second term, Obama had convinced his growing majority that a leader "'so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and the Constitution was near-unanimously amended by Congress to say that...'any sitting president, who was serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..." 

Could this ever come to pass? Easily.

The more power Obama 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 right now, if our newly-elected savior isn't careful, his declaration of  possible catastrophe could backfire into a self-fulfilling prophesy, and result in a truly unnecessary second depression if he doesn't change his doom 'n gloom tune.

 
And if that happens, all bets, even for a second term, would be off.

Well lookee-lookee! Did the cat slip out of the bag? Carol Browner, Obama's proud choice for climate Czar, was recently "unearthed" as a member of the radical socialist (Stalinist) organization known as "Socialist International" (S.I.). And these people aren't exactly your basic local rotary club, but rather a leftist hardball group determined to put forth their radical environmental agenda upon the ENTIRE world.

S. I. calls for the, "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That's bureaucrat lingo for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries. So Ms. Browner--can we get any more socialist than compelling all U.S. inventors to "share" with less developed countries? What in the name of Thomas Edison are you planning?

 

Despite the controversy, president elect Obama, who chose the ex-60's radical Browner for this all-important cabinet position, staunchly supports the nomination, declaring that, "Climate change will be a priority of my administration". Supposedly, in the name of stimulating the economy, Obama plans to spend at least 500 billion dollars (which the government does not have) to convert the economy from carbon-based fuels, to greener alternatives. 

 

The main focus of Socialist International centers on America, as the world's largest energy user, must shrink its economic output (energy usage) in conjunction with the smaller countries of the world increasing theirs. And the mechanism for this philosophy is based not upon climatological factors, but on economic ones-- a third world wealth transfer done incognito through the U.N.

 

An in-depth look at Socialist International would reveal that the organization is pushing hard for "global governance", and that America must shrink its economy, whose energy usage emits far too much Co2, in deference to smaller nations, which emit miniscule amounts of Co2. 

 

But looking inward, this climate change guilt trip is really nothing more than an excuse to tax energy users and providers, and send the money to the U.N. to be distributed to third world dictators abroad. The goal? Increasing the political power of the Obama administration to all continents....i.e. Barack Obama-- president of the world!

 

Socialist International purports all the shop-worn liberal mantras: peak oil; co2 is a pollutant; we've reached the verge of irreversible climate devastation; and the U.S. is poisoning the atmosphere. And all this can only be "counteracted" by cap-n-trade. But why would S.I. wish to shrink the U.S. economy in favor of third world countries, such as Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela?

 

First, let's shed all the arguments about human-generated global warming.This brand new theory postulates a more plausible (and diabolical) presentation of the real underlying agenda of Socialist International, Carol Browner, Obama, and all the other enviro-marxists, They're all actually hiding within a "smokescreen", under the guise of saving the environment.

 

So why do they purport this Machiavellian masquerade? Lets officially brand it as, "The smoke screen theory". 

 

The foundation of this theory rests upon the conservative right always thinking, "You liberals  ARE really stupid, believing that man can change the climate".  But herein lies the brilliance--who are the ones ACTUALLY being stupid? 

 

One thing you cannot deny is that many liberals are decidedly brilliant, and politically astute about obtaining positions of power-- which begs the question..."What if these liberals actually realize that global warming via mankind is sheer scientific folly, but they're cleverly using it as a 'cover story' for obfuscating their real agenda, wealth transfer, and the worlwide consolidation of their political power.

 

Therefore, the smoke screen theory can be explained like this: These enviro-marxists use global warming as a way to hoodwink all the world from their true intent---cementing  cap and trade laws into permanent existence, which will produce giant sucking sounds of seemingly boundless money flowing to the government, via the environmental taxation of all the energy producers and energy users in the United States.

 

Its almost like a plot from the old "Batman" TV series of the mid 60's... "We environmentalists feign stupidity, and outsmart all those on the right who think we're the fools"...ha-ha!

 

The smokescreen theory is designed to turn the tables, and outfox the right..."Go ahead and argue with us, you foolish conservatives; we, the liberals, have the media on OUR side...we have the school children on OUR side; we have assumed the moral majority of an ignorant American electorate over to OUR side. And because of all this, we intend to keep it this way!"

 

"And beginning this January 21, we will get our climate change legislation railroaded  through congress, and tax the heavy industries, coal companies, and utilities out of existence; and then, put forth our green agenda. And you cannot stop us, because socialism is now mainstream".

 

So is the smoke screen theory sounding pretty clear now, or do we need some further explanation?

Socialist International, the people who feed us all this alarmist B.S., is treating Americans as if they are too foolish to know what the REAL political spectrum is about-- subversion of the capitalist system, and advancing the cause of socialism by whatever means necessary (i.e. artificial environmentalism to obtain political power over the entire world).

 

NEXT: let's introduce the future icing on the enviro-marxist cake--senate bill s1389; a bill to authorize a National Science Foundation Climate Change "Education Program". Look for it to be introduced first thing into the senate on Jan 22.

 

Of course any proposal with the phrase "education program"  sound innocuous enough, but what is even more interesting, Senate bill 1389A was authored by no less than His Highness, Barack Obam-0h.

 

And the nuts and bolts of bill 1389 requires the establishment of an education program to:

(1) broaden the understanding of the possible consequences of climate change,

2) apply the latest scientific discoveries to provide "learning opportunities"
for people (brainwashing);

(3) emphasize "actionable information" (more leftist brainwashing) to help people promote implementation of energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction.

(4) postulate potential solutions to the "problem." 

 

So who's going to pay for all these directives to fight climate change? WE will. How? The Obama administration will tax the coal companies, power plants, steel companies, and all of heavy industry according to their usage of fossil fuels; they will be required to buy carbon credits, and trade with nations that produce no energy or emissions .

 
"No business will be allowed to emit any greenhouse gases for free,” Obama declared. “Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution.”

Perfect! Why has a politician not thought of this before? Only someone as diabolical as Obama could have thought of charging for pollution, and be clever enough to sell it to America.

 

Obama's plan would require all credits to be purchased at auction, rather than allocated by industry -- a move ensuring that all "polluters" pay for every ton of emissions released. It's also a move that would massively increase the political power of his administration and go along way toward international wealth redistribution to the third world--a cause Obama and Browner fanatically (but esoterically) have supported for many years.

 

And by appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.

The incoming chief executive stands at the very foundation of the smoke screen theory--environmental policies aren't really about protecting or preserving the earth, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.

This enviro-radicalism of the Chosen One could push the nation so far to the left, we will never again recover the right path to sound energy policy, and get back to the economic expansion America has always enjoyed, because of the freedom we once had from government restriction.

 

And with the huge, predictable price increases of energy as a result of this enviro-radicalism, everytime we fill up our tanks, or mail in our electric bills, it'll be us--not business-- who'll really be paying the so-called price for pollution.

 
The smokescreen theory will go along way explaining how a scientifically challenged American electorate supports Obama's green-leaning rhetoric- which is nothing but a half veiled attempt to implement a clearly ideological, leftist agenda.

 

This is all part of an even more hidden agenda-- an undeclared war on capitalism; and its implementation will significantly alter the fabric of American society, as we have known it for decades.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com