Chains You Can Believe In

There is no doubt among those of us with brains that Barack Obama is moving us toward Socialism. As part of that effort he is working toward government having a hand in business so that government can tell business what to do, how much to pay, and who needs to be fired. We have seen ALL of this already.

I have made it clear that government has no business getting involved in business but there is a little problem and that is the bailout money. Obama and the Congress are setting conditions that were not in place when bailout funds were distributed. They failed to have restrictions or conditions when the money went out so they added them later. This is a violation of the Constitution and needs to be stopped.

One other problem is that some financial institutions took bailout money because they were forced to by the government. There were plenty that wanted nothing to do with it but they were FORCED by the US government. Now they are stuck with the same rules that those who wanted the money must endure.

Well why don’t they just pay the money back?

That is the problem. Stuart Varney is reporting that the Obama administration is refusing to take back TARP money and Varney asks and answers this question; “So why no cheering as the cash comes back?”

Varney reports that financial institutions that want to pay back the TARP money are not being allowed to do so. That’s right folks, those who took the money (many who were forced) are not being allowed to pay it back. Why would the government not want the money to come back in? The answer is very simple and Varney nails it:

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command. Wall Street Journal

The government wants control. It is that simple and it is a necessary element in order to have Socialism. The government wants control. Say it over and over until you understand it. The government wants control.

The government is using the manufactured crisis in order to gain control over larger parts of our society and it is giving up our sovereignty to the rest of the world. Obama bows to Kings and Obama has allowed foreign countries to decide executive pay of US companies to oversee “Corporate Social Responsibility.” According to Dick Morris our Declaration of Independence was repealed on 2 April 2009 by Barack Obama at the G-20.

Corporations have no social responsibility. They have a responsibility to their stockholders. It is not up to companies to ensure people can afford products or that they are available to everyone. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY, not run welfare clinics. Companies who took TARP money (or had it forced upon them) have obligations so long as they hold the money. The US is refusing to take it back so that it can continue to exercise control over those companies.

It is time for the companies to contact the government and tell Obama that the money is ready to be repaid and if it is not accepted by the government the debt will be considered forgiven and the company no longer accountable for it. Then the companies should do what they want and tell the federal government to piss off.

The idea that there is some social responsibility is what drives Obama and his Socialist buddies. They believe that the producers are responsible for providing to the looters. There is no doubt that this mentality was ingrained long ago when he was a dope smoking teen in whatever nation his parents decided he belonged. Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action, of handouts, of his hatred of whites and the exploitation by them (read his book). It is only natural that he would think that he is the one to make the achievers give to the looters. Who is John Galt?

Obama wants everyone under the thumb of oppression. He wants everyone to be sunject to the whims of the federal government at all times. He wants people unable to do anything without the government mandating it and he wants those who achieve to pay for it.

What will happen if all the companies just stop? The ILLEGALS get together once a year and riot, uh, protest their conditions and they do it on May Day, which is a Communist holiday. They think they can shut down the country by not working for a day.

The true achievers could. If we all decided not to work or shop for one day the revenues would stop. If businesses decide to stop dealing in the US then it will get worse. At some point we will have more looters than providers. As Margaret Thatcher once said; “Socialism is great until the other guy’s money runs out.”

Then what happens?

In any event, Obama and the US government are not taking back the TARP funds because they want to keep their hooks in the financial institutions. They want to make more rules that are burdensome and require some sort of social responsibility, the same kind that started this mess (regardless what the lefties say).

Rahm Emanuel said not to let a crisis go to waste (even a manufactured one). It would appear that this is the case in their financial dealings as well. It is well known that Democrats got rich driving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. It is well known that Democrats benefit from Wall Street political donations and it is well known that some of those hedge funds were run by Democrats (Chelsea Clinton got a job at one as a favor). They all became rich driving companies into the ground.

Now there is word that some of the Obama minions have become wealthy as a result of dealings with TARP recipients. Never let a good crisis go to waste especially when you manufactured it or caused it, take you pick.

The Democrats, with King Hussein at the helm, are looking to take over and rule the country under Socialism. They are following Alinsky’s rules to take over and people are sitting back and letting them. Pretty soon we will all be completely under the thumb of oppression.

Chains you can believe in. (Thanks Angel for that title)

Certainly chains that will be hard to unshackle.

Axelrod makes millions

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

13 Responses to “Chains You Can Believe In”

  1. Victoria says:

    Quote by Charles Krauthammer:If Obama has his way, the change that is coming is a new America: “fair,” leveled and social democratic. Obama didn’t get elected to warranty your muffler. He’s here to warranty your life.

    I heard Obama on the TV the other day during one of his speeches while over at the G2O summit. He said something to the effect,”UH UH I am President of the United States, not president of Japan, not president of China, not president of Russia, UH UH but president of the United States and my constituents put me there to make their lives better.”

    I hate to tell him but his job is to “protect and defend the constitution from enemies both foriegn and domestic.” I always wanted to tell Bush (because he said we were spreading Democracy in Iraq) this is a Republic. We are not a Democracy. We have a Democratic party who is trying to inflict Democracy on us and so far they are making good progress and will be our downfall but Hey whatever.

    • Big Dog says:

      I do not need Obama or any other politician to make my life better. That is my job. They can stick to running government and protecting the country. I can handle anything that affects me.

  2. Barbara says:

    You have it right, Big Dog. Unfortunately the companies that should stand up to Obama are afraid to do so. The same is true for some Americans, so Obama gets what he wants. Although when he tries to take the guns, he may get more than what he bargains for. Some people are not going to give them up, and rightfully so. A lot of people who voted for Obama are going to be crying in the future when all rights are gone.

  3. Adam says:

    Remember when Clinton took all the guns? Good times.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I also saw what happened in New York and Oakland. These are people who are not normal. Blame the person, not the gun.

    I saw what happened when Clinton did that “assault” weapons ban. Did not help. Criminals still got and still get weapons that are not allowed. The law abiding are the ones NOT getting them.

    The AWB was stupid. Aesthetic items required a ban. None of them kept the weapons from doing what they were intended.

    The problem is criminals, not guns.

    • Liberty Card says:

      Exactly so. Australia has a total ban on assault weapons, yet, the worst mass murder in Australia’s history was committed by one nut with, you guessed it, an assault rifle.

      Liberals pass their dufus laws by making people with limited critical thinking skills believe that the mere law will stop bad behavior.

      Unfortunately, all the law does is give those liberals more control over our lives.

  5. Randy says:

    Apparently the dude in New York was law abiding when he got the guns. The guy in Pittsburgh legally had his guns.

    I certainly blame the people that used the guns to kill people the most, but please understand: there are people out there like the guy in Pittsburgh, with their legally owned assault rifles, that are listening when you and Barbara speak of government agencies “getting more than they bargained for” when they come to get your guns.

  6. Big Dog says:

    I accept no blame for the way a person uses his gun. I accept responsibility for how I use mine. All people are law abiding until they break the law. These people happened to use their guns but there are plenty of weapons to kill with if one is not available.

    No matter what you do you cannot stop a person who is determined to get you. They will find a way.

    Taking guns is not the answer. Punish criminals. It is illegal to drink and drive but people do it. It is not illegal to drink (provided you are 21) and it is not illegal to drive (if you have a license) but it is illegal to do them both at the same time or drive after drinking too much. Should we outlaw cars or alcohol in order to keep people from breaking the law. If you drink do you accept responsibility for people who drink and drive and have an accident that kills people?

    Cocaine, illegal. Has very limited medical use. You cannot buy it. People do and they use it.

    Heroin. Has no medical value. It is illegal and people still get it.

    Who is to blame for that? Is it I and Barbara?

    Obama is on record as saying he does not believe the Second is an individual right (before he said otherwise). He has filled out questionnaires indicating guns should be banned. He believes in gun bans and HR 40 is an attempt to do that.

    What are we supposed to think when the guy said he wants our guns?

  7. Adam says:

    You have to think back to a man named Clinton that others accused of wanting to take your guns and see how that turned out. It’s all just fear-mongering. Obama isn’t going to take your guns any more than he’s going to create a Hitler Youth style army. It’s all just a load of manure that you keep shoveling on us.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Maybe, maybe not. But I was a scout so I believe in always being prepared.

    Clinton did sign the assault ban. He wanted the guns but could not get away with it. Democrats are anti gun. It is that simple.

  9. Adam says:

    A vote to take away guns would never ever go through. The Dennis Kucinich’s of the Democratic party do not have that kind of say and to pretend otherwise is just a fantasy you entertain while you daydream about armed standoff against phantom people coming to take away your liberties. You try and say you don’t dream about that sort of thing yet it comes up so often lately…

  10. Blake says:

    You have Hillary saying that 70% of all guns used in Mexico by the drug lords came from the U.S. Wrong. She read off of a press release, but left out a crucial word- traceable- that was used in the press release.
    What that meant was, of course, that most of the TRACEABLE guns- mostly pistols and other semi- automatic rifles- came from here, but that amounted to 17% of the total weapons confiscated.
    The rest of the weapons probably came from China, Nicaragua, Cuba, and from their own military, which has been none too dependable lately.
    This is another attempt to subvert the second amendment by the left wing, and they do this like the press does- by being selective in their wordplay, leaving out (oops) key words that totally change the context of the story.
    Adam, this issue has always been a left/ right story.
    The left likes to say that Beck incited the man in Pittsburgh, and militias are springing up like clover, and the right has rumors about massive price increases in the ammo area, as well as stringent regulation and licensing of gun owners. Also the rumors of putting a de- stabilizer in the primers of ammo, so its no good after six months.
    Probably both sides exagerrate, so what do you suggest?
    Do keep in mind what Henry Kissinger once said- ” Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you.”
    It’s ALWAYS better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.