Conspiracy – Page 6

One of my sources refers to the Conspiracy as an example of Hegel’s theory of world history in which thesis is followed by its opposite, antithesis, eventually producing synthesis. Here the synthesis is the New World Order toward which the ostensibly opposite forces are actually moving. One plays off the other (indeed requires the other). Of course, if this concept is correct, there is no right choice (only a lesser of 2 evils). My choice would be either the Republican or Independent political party.

President Barack Obama’s appeasement regarding our enemies is strong. His social programs take precedence over national defense and will doubtlessly drain taxpayers of funds they have earned to care for themselves and their families, leaving them little choice but government handouts. Also the American work ethic and initiative become an exercise in futility in such a scenario.

Obama has eliminated torture even though it appears that vital information has been gained by its use. Our own Secretary of Homeland Security now references returning veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as potential terrorists (rather than lauding them as patriots). Those who attended the recent Tea Parties are considered by this administration as a threat, as well, even though they did so as a plea against TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, and did so PEACEFULLY. – It appears that no descent is acceptable.

I would like to see quality health care for all Americans. But it has been shown in countries having socialized medicine that the quality part is often missing. Socialized medicine could have the effect of a gigantic HMO. I am the victim of an HMO myself. HMOs require patients to go to their doctors only. A high quality specialist with expensive tests and expensive treatments may be out of the question. In my own case, the HMO (for considerable time) was willing to pay for the amputation of my leg, but not for the more expensive saving of the leg. I still have my leg, but the long wait for correct treatment allowed my muscles to atrophy. Now I must use a walker or wheelchair (I never did before that time). I use this example to point up the fallacy of liberal thinking. It is emotion without rational examination of the facts.

The same fundamental issue is seen in our current relationship with the G20 SUMMIT and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. America is in tough economic times, but is not in the condition of the Great Depression and is also not in the deplorable condition of certain third world nations. Certainly we should assist other nations when possible (and have). But I do not think we should destroy ourselves in doing so. The G-20 SUMMIT pledged $1.1 TRILLION to countries in Eastern Europe and Latin America to withstand the current turbulence. It contends that the US and other nations will not be forced to provide this by increasing their deficits. Instead it will be done largely by loans. – However, how can we be certain such loans will be repaid (and when)? Will our APPEASING PRESIDENT attempt to BUY GOODWILL this way?

Obama did stand firm against a determined push by Sarkozy of France and Merkel of Germany for the creation of a global regulator (at least for now) of what Europeans see as a US unfettered capitalism (which they believe caused the current global economic crisis). This is good, but may not be good enough. The SUMMIT called for better coordination between individual country regulators and increased transparency. Sounds innocuous, but I ask, TRANSPARENCY TO WHOM, AND TO WHAT PRECISE PURPOSE? Sorry, but I sense an international overseer on the horizon in light of the G-20’s renamed, expanded and empowered FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD. This was formerly called the Financial Stability Forum (in the 1997-98 financial crisis) and was merely for discussion of regulatory issues. The BOARD (which will now include all members of the G20) will PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND EXPERTISE IN THE REGULATORY OVERALL EFFECT. It is a ostensibly a subtle difference, but has a greater ring of authority than before.

Obama did pledge to the G-20 that he would fight political pressures in US to raise protectionist barriers to protect American industries. – This at a time when US industries are going under and taking jobs with them. – Why is this? – Indeed other nations there did likewise. But must the US  always follow them? – The same pledge was made last November at the G 20 SUMMIT in Washington, but 17 of the pledging nations (including the US) have moved to protect their industries in the current crisis. (Note that Bush was still president in November of 2008).

Obama has repeatedly harped on the catastrophic nature of this current financial crisis, comparing it to the Great Depression. This is significant in that Obama and the G-20 SUMMIT  have felt that during the Great Depression countries did not work together and paid a terrible price for it. Now they say that they have learned their lesson and must cooperate more and more. Now Obama’s harping on that theme plays into the bigger picture of GLOBALISM.

Facebook Comments