The darkest view of Obama yet

(Note: be sure to see the comments by Adela G. and A. Zarkov, which further expand on West’s theory of Obama.)

The other day, Tony Blankley wrote:

[Obama] doesn’t like America the way it has been since its founding—and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different.

At her blog today, Diana West offers an alarmingly believable expansion on that view of Obama. She speaks of

my new pet theory about how Obama is indeed a war president—only his war is against the USA. I came to this admittedly diabolical notion after reading countless financial stories in which assorted analysts wondered how the new president could do this—“this” being spend trillions we don’t have to fix a problem caused by spending trillions we don’t have, whack the top brackets, raise capital gains taxes, punish charitable giving, etc., etc.—because doing “this” is sure to deepen the crisis. It suddenly occurred to me that the president wants to deepen the crisis. He doesn’t want the markets to recover. He wants to break the private sector. Why? He needs the crisis—panic is a better word—to fuel his government takeover of the economy. If the markets recover, the emotional convulsions driving his economy takeover subside, and the private sector revives. And that’s no way to bring about change you can believe in.

Prior to the 2008 election my oft-stated condition for voting for McCain, a condition that was not met, was my being persuaded that Obama would do existential damage to the U.S. If West is right, Obama intends to do existential damage to the U.S.

- end of initial entry -

Adela G. writes:

You write: “If West is right, Obama intends to do existential damage to the U.S.”

I never doubted it.

For Obama, who is even more thin-skinned than he is dark-skinned, everything is personal and the personal is political. He is the product of a union between an abusive, non-supporting alcoholic black father and an extreme left-wing, non-supporting white mother, both of whom essentially abandoned him to the care of his white grandmother, who then raised him in comparative comfort and privilege. With this background, it’s hardly surprising that he distanced himself from his white ancestry and embraced and enhanced his blackness. Nor is it surprising that his success as a politician is due to a politicized blackness grafted onto his absorption of white norms of achievement.

A person from such a background is unlikely to want to head a nation of people more like his maternal grandmother than his father for any constructive reason. Such a person needs to tear down (at least metaphorically) a nation still largely composed of the kind of people who built him up and made his success possible.

A. Zarkov writes:

A few weeks ago I came to the conclusion that Obama is indeed trying to wreck the U.S. economy as a pretext for a massive power grab. An emergency, be it a war or an economic panic, often serves the interest of would-be dictators. How else can we interpret the absolutely insane level of spending and bailouts coming from the Obama administration? If one examines the so-called “stimulus package,” one can see that virtually all of it consists of non-self-liquidating debt. A self-liquidating debt is one that pays for itself by generating future income. The discounted future cash flows from the investment must exceed the cost of the original expenditure or else the project is a net loss for the economy. This massive spending will employ people, but as soon as the spending stops, unemployment will rise again. Of course the spending has to stop eventually because it’s all funded by debt or money creation. Either case will lead to the ultimate destruction of the U.S. economy, and its replacement by a command economy. The U.S. then will resemble Argentina under Person. Socialism with a fascist face.

The solution is to elect an entirely new House of Representatives and cut off Obama’s money—starve the beast. In my opinion, he is the biggest threat the U.S. has faced since colonial times. Where is our Paul Revere?

Emily B. writes:

I don’t have much to add of philosophical value to the discussion, but only to write to say that this woman shares yours and Diana’s fears.

Last night, my husband and I came to the monumental decision to cash out his 401K. First, we lack faith because of demographics: a baby bust among the most intelligent is starting to make itself felt as the baby boomers head into retirement. We’ve been discussing it for a couple months, but as I began to suspect Obama was purposely causing harm, I started having sleepless nights. When I read he was going to seek for further easing of lending restrictions (buried in the middle of a NY Times article), we knew we’d empty it out.

Given all that, it was not until I read about Obama’s treatment of Gordon Brown that I truly became disturbed and upset, especially the giving back of the Winston Churchill bust (keep in mind that I had read Sailer’s book, but I suspect even he is alarmed). I emailed my husband at work with what I found and he agreed we had to do it that day. I’m risking looking like a fool to my husband, and thereby hurting our marriage, and together we risk a retirement nest egg, so this was not done lightly.

P.S. Somewhat related. In our discussions over the past weeks leading up to this, I told my husband that investing in a number of children is very old-fashioned and Traditionalist. I know an old man by marriage, 92, who is a poor, Florida cracker. He has seven kids and each one has their own day of the week where they go and take care of him! This poor man receives not just great care, but care that is impossible to buy. I’ve known him most of my life and having known other elderly people who had large families, I believe they have some of the best lives in their advanced years.

We still do plan on saving, though, or investing in our own businesses.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 06, 2009 01:31 PM | Send