Again, what actually ended the Great Depression in 1940-1941 was war production supplied to Britain. The rest is liberal smoke and mirrors, and tea leaf reading.
M E M, how can you deny that unemployment continued virtually unchanged at almost 20% right on to the early years of World War II? The numbers (posted above)don't lie.
Your argument is Obama's: "well it could have been worse without [FDR/Obama]..." With no evidence to disprove that it was statistically the worst WITH both FDR and Obama.
Unemployment was at 6% when Obama took office, and has been at a steady 9.5% since he took office (and currently 9.6%, worsening).
Yesterday's "Crash Course" episode of Glenn Beck is titled "Controlling the Message".
Detailing the propaganda and suppression of freedom under Woodrow Wilson, and how these tactics and abuse of power are repeated in the Obama administration, in their attempt to shut down Fox News, Glenn Beck, and other dissenters and critics of Obama. It was actually --remarkably-- the liberal media who stood up for Fox News and broke Obama's attempt to bully Fox. Because the liberal media knew that if Obama was successful against Fox, the vice would be tightened next on the other networks as well.
Others highlighted in this show are Cass Sunstein, one of the main architects in Obama's staff of the strategy to shut down Fox News and Glenn Beck. (in comparison to George W. Bush, as bitter as the attacks got on him, Bush never went after MSNBC, Keith Olbermann or other critics at all). Sunstein also masterminded intimidating, slandering and infiltrating the Tea Party (if it can still be called masterminded, since the plan has not worked.)
Also spotlighted is Obama's FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, who famously said of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chaves' state takeover of the media in his country: "An effective model, and a good one to follow." Very scary, that a man in charge of regulating our nation's media favors authoritarian takeover of our nation's media, and sees Chaves as the model.
And in conclusion is a comparison of Obama to Richard Nixon's treatment of the media, recorded from his own words, as compared to the words of Obama and his staffers. No insinuation, the exact words. And they are virtually identical.
Again, what actually ended the Great Depression in 1940-1941 was war production supplied to Britain. The rest is liberal smoke and mirrors, and tea leaf reading.
M E M, how can you deny that unemployment continued virtually unchanged at almost 20% right on to the early years of World War II? The numbers (posted above)don't lie.
If you take a look at them, you'll notice that unemployment dropped each year up till the time when FDR under fire from conservatives tried to balance the budget. Then it got worse. Plus do those numbers you cite include people employed under government works programs or not?
Quote:
Your argument is Obama's: "well it could have been worse without [FDR/Obama]..." With no evidence to disprove that it was statistically the worst WITH both FDR and Obama.
Unemployment was at 6% when Obama took office, and has been at a steady 9.5% since he took office (and currently 9.6%, worsening).
Your argument lacks facts to support it.
Actually I think the nonpartisan CBO backs up the positive effect of the stimulus has had.
As for the great depression, even you have to reallize it wasn't tax breaks and reduced spending that pulled us out of it but massive spending.
If you take a look at them, you'll notice that unemployment dropped each year up till the time when FDR under fire from conservatives tried to balance the budget. Then it got worse. Plus do those numbers you cite include people employed under government works programs or not?
They are total unemployment figures for each year, yes. And unemployment, as I showed, never got much below 20% under Roosevelt until W W II. There was no progress under Roosevelt. It was unquestionably World War II that stopped the Great Depression, not FDR. To say otherwise is just spin and propaganda, that unfortunately liberals are teaching in our schools.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Actually I think the nonpartisan CBO backs up the positive effect of the stimulus has had.
Yeah, that's why two of Obama's economic team just resigned, including Orszag, the most prominent face in the CBO.
What the CBO has been saying all along is that this debt level is unsustainable, and will bankrupt the nation. As I have discussed and linked quotes to often, from CBO officials.
Originally Posted By: M E M
As for the great depression, even you have to realize it wasn't tax breaks and reduced spending that pulled us out of it but massive spending.
No. It was manufacturing and war production that brought us out of depression in 1940.
To the extent that debt was incurred in the early 1940's, as long as we won the war it was guaranteed to be repaid. And an investment in industrial capacity is virtually a guarantee of return on investment, and not a "hail Mary" like Obama's stimulus has been. The problem is, now we're a service economy, and we can't produce our way out like we did in the 1940's. Back then, it really was shovel-ready jobs. But what Obama's doing is virtually no industrial investment, and just moving paper around, and paying off unions, ACORN, and other political muscle groups of the liberal-socialist power structure (i.e., corruption and waste).
In addition to the stimulus money Obama has borrowed from China and Japan, he has also printed another 2 trillion dollars to cover what couldn't be borrowed (i.e., "quantitative easing", printing money to buy our own treasury notes, that China and Japan previously did and now won't). What Obama is doing more closely resembles 1923 Weimar Germany than any rebuilding of economic infrastructure. And in FDR's time, we were a debt-free nation and the world's largest creditor-nation. We have since become the world's largest debtor-nation.
Add to that --as I've said repeatedly-- that Obama is heavily indoctrinated in Cloward and Piven Strategy and Saul Alinsky (i.e., economically collapsing the system, to enact social justice and a redistribution of wealth amid the crisis. ) Obama has never followed or believed in capitalism. And nothing he is doing makes me believe he is trying to save capitalism now. Quite the contrary, all Obama's actions manifest he is following Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategy, to destroy us.
The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May.[1] They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.[2]
Driven by this spending, America will run its first ever trillion-dollar budget deficit this year. Even worse, the President's budget would borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade, more than doubling the national debt. By 2019, America will be spending nearly $800 billion on net interest to service this large debt.[3]
Bigger Government and Higher Taxes
Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of GDP. During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18 to 21 percent of GDP. This year, President Obama will spend a peacetime-record 26 percent of GDP. Even by 2019, spending would still be 23 percent of GDP--not even counting the President's proposed health plan.
The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout.[4]
President Obama claims that "we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." This is not true. The President first creates a fantasy baseline that assumes the Iraq surge continues forever (which was never U.S. policy) and then "saves" $1.5 trillion against that baseline by ending the surge as scheduled. It is like a family "saving" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Another $1 trillion in "savings" is actually tax increases (in other words, savings for government, not taxpayers). The President's budget figures exclude his health care plan, which could add another trillion dollars in taxes and spending.
Tax revenues have historically remained between 17 and 19 percent of GDP. This year, the recession has reduced them to 14.7 percent of GDP. The CBO has estimated that once the recession ends, maintaining current tax policies would keep revenues at around 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). President Obama's proposed tax increases would push revenues up to 19.2 percent of GDP by 2019 (not counting his proposed tax increases to finance health care reform).
Federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) remained constant at $21,000 throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household--the highest level in American history--and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
As the budget deficit increases over the next decade, so will net interest spending, from $173 billion (1.2 percent of GDP) in 2009 to a record-level of $774 billion (3.4 percent of GDP) by 2019. In fact, net interest costs will account for 84 percent of the 2019 budget deficit.
President Obama's budget includes $1.4 trillion in tax increases, all of which would go toward new spending rather than deficit reduction. The 2009 Budget Deficit [5]
Since World War II, the largest budget deficit recorded was 6.0 percent of GDP in 1983. The Bush Administration oversaw budget deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP. The projected 2009 budget deficit of 11.2 percent of GDP would nearly double the post-war record. The White House budget proposal would keep the budget deficit above 3.7 percent of GDP indefinitely. It has not reached that level since 1993.
The mid-session review projects a $1,580 billion budget deficit in fiscal year 2009. While this is $261 billion less than the White House projected in May, the entire reduction stems from Congress not following the President's call for another round of TARP (which would have cost $250 billion in outlays), and $101 billion in savings from lower-than-expected deposit insurance costs. Excluding those two variables, the projected budget deficit actually increased.
The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. This suggests that even if the President had not inherited a big deficit, he would have created one as a matter of anti-recessionary policy.
Future Budget Deficits
One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $774 billion.
The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits between 2009 and 2019--nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing. Since World War II, the public debt has ranged from 23 percent of GDP to 49 percent. Large deficits are estimated to drive the debt ratio to 41 percent in 2008 and 77 percent by 2019--a peacetime record.
The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush. Furthermore, three upcoming developments--the end of the recession, the troop pullout in Iraq, and the phase-out of the supposedly temporary "stimulus" spending--would, by themselves, cut the budget deficit in half.
The coming tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are projected to push the federal public debt to 320 percent of GDP by 2050 and over 750 percent by 2083.[6]
The White House underestimates future budget deficits by trillions of dollars by (1) assuming that discretionary spending will be frozen to inflation for the next decade, (2) assuming that cap-and-trade revenues will be available to finance a Make Work Pay credit (the House-passed bill allocates those revenues elsewhere), (3) assuming health care reform will be deficit-neutral, and (4) assuming certain tax increases that are unlikely to be enacted.
The White House also likely overestimates long-term economic growth. Its forecast for real GDP growth in 2010 and 2011 is reasonable but exceedingly optimistic after the economic recovery. The Administration forecast exceeds that of the CBO every year by as much as 0.9 percentage points as late as 2015 and by a cumulative 3.9 percentage points over the 2012-2019 period. In effect, the Administration is assuming a full year's additional growth over those eight years. The effect is to boost revenues significantly in each year and by as much as $160 billion in the 10th year and a cumulative amount of almost $680 billion.
Time to Stop Digging
The new budget spending estimates are alarming and absolutely unsustainable--and are the true cause of these appalling levels of deficit and debt. President Obama has proposed massive tax increases that still cannot keep up with the historic spending increases he has proposed. The result will be highest level of spending--and debt--in American history. Within a decade, Washington would have to spend nearly $800 billion annually just to pay the interest on the national debt.
In this budget context, the President's and Congress's brazen proposals to create a $1 trillion health care entitlement are reckless and unaffordable. Lawmakers should focus on capping federal spending, restraining entitlements, and eliminating wasteful and lower-priority programs.
_______________________________________________
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
And again, one of Glenn Beck's most important broadcasts, giving the macro-picture of Obama's past, the leftist plotters of America's destruction that have surrounded him for decades, and these leftists are enabled and an active part of carrying out Obama's enactment of Cloward and Piven Strategy today.
If you take a look at them, you'll notice that unemployment dropped each year up till the time when FDR under fire from conservatives tried to balance the budget. Then it got worse. Plus do those numbers you cite include people employed under government works programs or not?
They are total unemployment figures for each year, yes. And unemployment, as I showed, never got much below 20% under Roosevelt until W W II. There was no progress under Roosevelt. It was unquestionably World War II that stopped the Great Depression, not FDR. To say otherwise is just spin and propaganda, that unfortunately liberals are teaching in our schools.
I checked WB and those numbers don't count those people in those works programs. Counting those people the unemployment goes like this...
It does jump up in 1938 but then again FDR had tried balancing the budget in 1937. So you have steady improvement under FDR's New Deal for the most part. What would all of those people have done without it?
That would be like counting the temporary U.S. Census jobs that Obama "created"?
Temporary jobs, that disappear as soon as the stimulus money runs out, and are not self-sustaining.
If you "save" a teacher job or some other civil service job with temporary stimulus money, and then have to fire them in a year anyway when the stimulus funds that artificially sustain that job run out, what are you really saving or "creating". Nothing. You're just postponing the inevitable, and preventing market forces from eliminating inefficiency, and from creating real jobs in the aftermath with real growth. And creating more debt for an even harder fall in a few years when the stimulus ends. It's a temporary bandaid oon a gushing wound.
Likewise with all the government subsidies for real estate. These people are temporarily saved from foreclosure, but because they can't afford the home they're in that they never should have been qualified for, they will foreclose anyway in another year or two! So what has all this government intervention really saved. And many who can afford their homes are walking away from them anyway, because they're worth 40% or half now of what they borrowed at the time of purchase. I know a real estate agent in her 30s who purchased a two bedroom condo on a first-time homebuyer loan at %120,000, and just walked away from her condo because it's worth half the mortgage purchase price she owes. She told me if I want it, I can get it at $50,000 at short sale from her bank.
And it's the same with all these subsidized "created" jobs from the Stimulus spending. They were each created at 4 times the cost of what the jobs pay, and will be gone within 2 years.
That would be like counting the temporary U.S. Census jobs that Obama "created"?
OK first of all those Census jobs would have been "created" no matter who was president. Secondly those jobs are now counted and have been since the 40's I believe. I'm watching FOX Sunday right now and those temporary Census jobs that have ended this summer are being mixed into the private sector job growth now and the talk about them being temporary jobs that we heard this Spring is gone.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Temporary jobs, that disappear as soon as the stimulus money runs out, and are not self-sustaining.
If you "save" a teacher job or some other civil service job with temporary stimulus money, and then have to fire them in a year anyway when the stimulus funds that artificially sustain that job run out, what are you really saving or "creating". Nothing. You're just postponing the inevitable, and preventing market forces from eliminating inefficiency, and from creating real jobs in the aftermath with real growth. And creating more debt for an even harder fall in a few years when the stimulus ends. It's a temporary bandaid oon a gushing wound.
....
You still have to keep people fed WB. If the government hadn't held up the economy back in the 30's and now what would have happened to all those people?
Beck discusses the late-election attempt by Obama and the Democrat leadership to label the Tea Party as radicals, and compares what is by definition "radical" to the actions and stated ideology of Obama and his staff.
Continuing on a Tea Party focus this week, Beck compares the ideology of the Tea Party to the ideology of the Washington elite (in particular Obama's White House, but also including the agenda pushed by George W. Bush and progressives in both parties.)
I think this is a very important episode, because Beck points out the actions of Obama, and how it makes no sense, except through a socialist/anti-american/wealth-redistribution ideological mindset. It deals with the attempt to eliminate economic independence of the U.S., and make us dependent and at the mercy of foreign suppliers, and force us to send trillions overseas in wealth redistribution. Accelerating that has already been occurring since NAFTA and GATT were negotiated in 1993.
I was aware of the loans to PetroBras. I was not aware of 2 billion in loans to Mexican oil producers as well. So Mexico can drill exactly where U.S. oil companies are prohibited to drill. It makes no sense unless viewed through a wealth-redistribution mindset.
There have been a number of good Beck episodes in the last 2 weeks.
But one of the creepiest (Thursday, Sept 30th) was a show that focused on a book written over 40 years ago called The Road to Serfdom that focuses on how free societies are torn down and converted into authoritarian, brutal, and murderous dictatorships.
One of the guests was an Austrian lady in her 90s, who was 22 at the time of the "anschluss" (or "union") of Austria with Germany in 1937, where 98% of the Austrian people eagerly voted for pan-German union. She described how first the banks were nationalized, then the healthcare system was nationalized. Does that sound at all familiar?
In addition Obama has taken over student loans, and is attempting to further control private industry and individual citizen use of energy with "Cap and Trade".
E.U. member of parliament Daniel Hannan was also on the program, who has written a book titled The New Road To Serfdom, focusing specifically on the current social and economic refrms in the U.S.
In his words, Europe is now trying to move away from the socialist reforms we are drifitng toward, and said: "We've experienced the reform you are about to implement, and believe me, you won't like it."
Last night's Glenn Beck program was a good one, covering a lot of important material.
He begins describing "normalcy bias", a complacency that makes one unable to see the evidence in front of them in a crisis situation, and therefore renders one unable to act quickly enough to save themselves from disaster. Such as the socialist revolution and financial crisis that we're now in.
Beck talks about the global explosion of union strikes and union-led revolutions, in the Arab world, in Europe, and across the U.S., and the hand of communist radicals like the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), SEIU, AFL-CIO, Frances Fox Piven, William Ayers, etc., who have a direct hand in organizing these chaotic events. He also discusses how the (liberal/leftist) news media is reporting these as isolated events, and refuses to put together how all these isolated strikes and revolutions are connected.
(CNSNews.com) - China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury.
Treasury bills are securities that mature in one year or less that are sold by the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the nation’s debt.
Mainland Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury bills are reported in column 9 of the Treasury report linked here.
Until October, the Chinese were generally making up for their decreasing holdings in Treasury bills by increasing their holdings of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities. Thus, until October, China’s overall holdings of U.S. debt continued to increase.
Since October, however, China has also started to divest from longer-term U.S. Treasury securities. Thus, as reported by the Treasury Department, China’s ownership of the U.S. national debt has decreased in each of the last five months on record, including November, December, January, February and March.
Prior to the fall of 2008, acccording to Treasury Department data, Chinese ownership of short-term Treasury bills was modest, standing at only $19.8 billion in August of that year. But when President George W. Bush signed legislation to authorize a $700-billion bailout of the U.S. financial industry in October 2008 and President Barack Obama signed a $787-billion economic stimulus law in February 2009, Chinese ownership of short-term U.S. Treasury bills skyrocketed.
By December 2008, China owned $165.2 billion in U.S. Treasury bills, according to the Treasury Department. By March 2009, Chinese Treasury bill holdings were at $191.1 billion. By May 2009, Chinese holdings of Treasury bills were peaking at $210.4 billion.
However, China’s overall appetite for U.S. debt increased over a longer span than did its appetite for short-term U.S. Treasury bills.
In August 2008, before the bank bailout and the stimulus law, overall Chinese holdings of U.S. debt stood at $573.7 billion. That number continued to escalate past May 2009-- when China started to reduce its holdings in short-term Treasury bills--and ultimately peaked at $1.1753 trillion last October.
As of March 2011, overall Chinese holdings of U.S. debt had decreased to 1.1449 trillion.
Most of the U.S. national debt is made up of publicly marketable securities sold by the Treasury Department and I.O.U.s called “intragovernmental” bonds that the Treasury has given to so-called government trust funds—such as the Social Security trust funds—when it has spent the trust funds’ money on other government expenses.
The publicly marketable segment of the national debt includes Treasury bills, which (as defined by the Treasury) mature in terms of one-year or less; Treasury notes, which mature in terms of 2 to 10 years; Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which mature in terms of 5, 10 and 30 years; and Treasury bonds, which mature in terms of 30 years.
At the end of August 2008, before the financial bailout and the stimulus, the publicly marketable segment of the U.S. national debt was 4.88 trillion. Of that, $2.56 trillion was in the intermediate-term Treasury notes, $1.22 trillion was in short-term Treasury bills, $582.8 billion was in long-term Treasury bonds, and $521.3 billion was in TIPS.
At the end of March 2011, by which time the Chinese had dropped their Treasury bill holdings 97 percent from their peak, the publicly marketable segment of the U.S. national debt had almost doubled from August 2008, hitting $9.11 trillion. Of that $9.11 trillion, $5.8 trillion was in intermediate-term Treasury notes, $1.7 trillion was in short-term Treasury bills; $931.5 billion was in long-term Treasury bonds, and $640.7 billion was in TIPS.
Before the end of March 2012, the Treasury must redeem all of the $1.7 trillion in Treasury bills that were extant as of March 2011 and find new or old buyers who will continue to invest in U.S. debt. But, for now, the Chinese at least do not appear to be bullish customers of short-term U.S. debt.
Treasury bills carry lower interest rates than longer-term Treasury notes and bonds, but the longer term notes and bonds are exposed to a greater risk of losing their value to inflation. To the degree that the $1.7 trillion in short-term U.S. Treasury bills extant as of March must be converted into longer-term U.S. Treasury securities, the U.S. government will be forced to pay a higher annual interest rate on the national debt.
As of the close of business on Thursday, the total U.S. debt was $14.34 trillion, according to the Daily Treasury Statement. Of that, approximately $9.74 trillion was debt held by the public and approximately $4.61 trillion was “intragovernmental” debt.
"Intragovernmental debt" is a nice euphemistic phrase for the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars out of thin air to finance our national debt that other nations are no longer willing to finance. China is pulling out of U.S. debt financing. Japan, crippled by a massive earthquake, a tsunami and roughly 300 aftershock quakes, is no longer able to finance our debt.
And those are our two largest financers.
Quantitative Easing 3 (i.e. Weimar Germany hyperinflation), here we come.
Another prediction Beck made over 2 years ago, that has come to pass, and is being quietly reported outside the Obama Ministry of Truth liberal mainstream.
Detailing Soros' hand in virtually everything the Left does to undermine and overthrow the United States, funding a wide spectrum of leftist think tanks and activist groups.
I missed my buddy Glenn Beck, nice to hear him again. He thinks the U.S. is getting pretty close to the end of its options, as far as quantitative easing, DHS/FEMA authoritarianism, Republicans overplaying their hand in the current government shutdown, and "proxy war" in the mid east, ready to turn into overt war with Russia.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I'm just amazed how William Ayers' vision for America is Barack Obama's vision, and it is happening: FEMA camps, DHS accumulating 1.6 billion rounds (enough for a century of hot war), controlling people through welfare and government-dominated healthcare, deliberately spiking energy costs, Cloward and Piven strategy to collapse the system under new overwhelming debt, using panic of a crisis to hide radical restructuring of government.
He mentions Comrade Andropov as the current president of the USSR. So this was slightly before Gorbachev was appointed, circa 1984-1985.
Along the 4 steps of transformation, what he says his Soviet leaders term "ideological subversion":
1. Demoralization - we're pretty well through phase 1, where the American Left has undermined confidence in the existing government and political structure, through indoctrinating a generation of students over 15 to 20 years, and through other grassroots leftist spread of organized propaganda and discontent.
2. Destabilization - setting the stage for an economic crisis, to cloak the real seizure of power (same concept as Cloward and Piven Strategy). We've been set up for this since the financial crisis began in 2006-2007, and now DHS has detention centers and 1.6 billion rounds to contain any dissent.
3. Crisis - ready now to unleash the pre-staged crisis, and amidst widespread panic and chaos, the public will mostly welcome any move that appears to restore order. Which is, precisely, an authoritarian seizure of power by the Left.
4. "Normalization". A declared end to the crisis, followed by quiet and systematic liquidation of all political opposition.
Building on the above clips, this commentary by Beck on the complacency toward Obama's radicals currently in the White House, and the historic lessons of similar "radical transformation" under the socialist banner, that have consistently gone genocidal in the nations transformed.
Certainly, the Obama regime is armed for such a similar purge.
About the abuse of federal authority of the DHS and NSA, making a list of everyone who dissents or informs in an organized or influential way about the Obama government.
Not unlike the way the Chinese hacked into the New York Times e-mail accounts to find informants. In its eagerness to harass, intimidate, or even prepare for mass detention of any and all political opposition. Even federal officials in DHS and other Federal agencies are subject to surveillance and intimidation!
An oldie but goodie from Beck, summarizing the Marxist radicalism of Obama himself, and the Marxist radicals in his White House, in their own self-incriminating words:
The facts of Obama's radicalism were so available, and yet the complicit Obama-fellating media absolutely refused to report them. Only by that blazing omission was Obama barely re-elected. The entire nation is paying for that now.
And going back even further, to Obama's father (Barack Obama Sr.), mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), his far-left grandparents who raised him from age 10-18, Frank Marshall Davis, and his radical professors Edward Said, and Roberto Unger. Then post-college, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and the core ideology he inherited from them, a mix of Anti-Colonialism, Liberation Theology, and Social Marxism.
...I actually thought Glenn Beck did at least as good a job of explaining it, while also giving some background on some of the key people who created and promoted it. Including, scarily enough, Hillary Clinton.
Here's Beck from March 2012, just quoting what Obama himself, and his family, mentors and closest associates in politics have said, making the point how alien Obama's Marxist radical beliefs are from those of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
I'm continually amazed that this America-hating Marxist radical could ever have been elected once, but remained unexposed despite the overwhelming facts against him, and deceived his way through a second election.
This narrator's overview of Cultural Marxism is a bit more textbookish than Beck's, but is still a good overview of the transition from the global communist revolution attempted from 1917 to the 1930's, and after its failure, the founding of the Frankfurt School, and its evolution from the 1930's-1960's of what came to be termed Cultural Marxism.
It also shows photos of most of the influential members of the Frankfurt school, such as Lukacs, Adorno and Marcuse.
These were the heavy hitters of the movement, of whom Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Wade Rathke, and the like built on in the 1960's (David Horowitz, interviewed here, was one of them until he turned on Leftism and became one of the most prominent conservative critics of the radical Left).
And that Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the next generation of.
I find reading the description of Cultural Marxism more digestible than above video, since a lot of the terminology is new for most. But the video gives faces to the key figures described in text articles.
The best description of Social Marxism is in Pat Buchanan's book DEATH OF THE WEST (2002), in the chapter "Four Who Made a Revolution".
SiriusXM has suspended Glenn Beck's syndicated show after a guest suggested citizens would have to take means that may not be legal in order to get Donald Trump out of office.
Last week, fiction author Brad Thor asked, "What patriot will step up and do that?" when explaining that Congress would not be able to remove Trump from office by "legal means" through impeachment.
The satellite radio network feels this could be viewed as "advocating harm against an individual currently running for office."
"SiriusXM encourages a diversity of discourse and opinion on our talk programs. However, comments recently made by a guest on the independently produced Glenn Beck Program, in the company's judgment, may be reasonably construed by some to have been advocating harm against an individual currently running for office, which SiriusXM cannot and will not condone. For that reason, The Glenn Beck Program is suspended from our Patriot channel for the coming week. SiriusXM is committed to a spirited, robust, yet responsible political conversation and believes this action reflects those values," SiriusXM said in a statement.
Thor knew his comments were going to be controversial, starting with, "This is serious and this could ring down incredible heat on me because I'm about to suggest something very bad. It is a hypothetical I am going to ask as a thriller writer."
He continued: "If Congress won't remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that if, if, he oversteps his mandate as president, his constitutional-granted authority, I should say, as president. If he oversteps that, how do we get him out of office? And I don't think there is a legal means available. I think it will be a terrible, terrible position the American people will be in to get Trump out of office because you won't be able to do it through Congress."
Beck didn't immediatly shoot down Thor's comments. When critics accused the rant of sounding like encouraging an assassination, Beck responded by discussing the topic at length on his show. He claimed the image in his head when Thor made the comments was not an assassination attempt.
"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" — Jimmy Stewart standing there all alone on the Senate floor, saying, 'I'll just keep talkin'. Somebody's gotta hear me!' That's what I heard," Beck explained.
About the abuse of federal authority of the DHS and NSA, making a list of everyone who dissents or informs in an organized or influential way about the Obama government.
Not unlike the way the Chinese hacked into the New York Times e-mail accounts to find informants. In its eagerness to harass, intimidate, or even prepare for mass detention of any and all political opposition. Even officials in DHS and other Federal agencies are subject to surveillance and intimidation!
Wow. 6 years later, we now know about the weaponization of the IRS, FBI, ATF, OSHA and other federal agencies against Tea Party and religious groups to help Obama win in 2012.
And even more bold, the Democrat abuse of FBI, DOJ, NSA and the FISA court in an attempt to rig the 2016 election. And when unsuccessful in that, are still using these agencies to undermine and cripple the Trump administration.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
