Obama’s Ich Bin Ein Muslim Speech

By
June 4, 2009

The whole speech via C-SPAN. In short, you so beautiful. Can't we all get along? I can't believe America actually elected this naive dupe.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. templar knight says:

    “I can’t believe America elected this naive dope.”
    He’s not a naive dope, Dan. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is hell bent on destoying what is the United States, and doing something entirely different, which is an international state along the lines of the EU.

  2. seekeronos says:

    @Islamo:
    It’s all about the word games. Neither “side” can be trusted. They may appear to be wearing different team jerseys, but both teams are owned by the same internationalist cabal.
    @TK: 120% correct. Obie and his co-conspirators / collaborationists may claim to love our nation, but they love the notion of a single one-world government – a “new world order”, in the words of Bush 41… far more.
    They all dance to the same tune that their master, Lucifer, plays.

  3. Ran says:

    Dan,
    As a newbie around here, I don’t dig Islamo’s comments… are there sarc tags on the whole mess? Have we a conservative with a snide sense of humor or a liberal with an unintended sense of humor?

  4. cindi says:

    No humor.

  5. Bob says:

    “He’s not a naive dope, Dan. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is hell bent on destoying what is the United States . . .”
    Of all the stupid, dishonest rhetoric coming from sore loser conservatives, this meme about Obama wanting to “destroy” the U.S. has to be the MOST idiotic. I know it’s asking too much for extremist conservatives to try to control their terrible fears and their festering hatred of anything to the left of Newt Gingrich. But a democracy needs the major opposition movement to at least act and speak in good faith, and not constantly be throwing rhetorical molotov cocktails just because they’re mad about losing the election.
    What a stupid notion that Obama wants to destroy the country where he was born and raised [cue the birth certificate kooks], where he, his wife and children will live for the rest of their lives. What a stupid and dishonest thing to say.
    What makes it even more unintentionally ironic is the damage that was done by the previous administration because they were too busy with crap-shoot nation-building experiments in faraway countries to care that things were going down the tubes here at home. People who supported the Bush administration lost all moral authority to now be complaining about anyone wrecking this country.

  6. seekeronos says:

    “— The “internationalist cabal” is the same group of business leaders and political interests that have been pushing for cheap oil and friendly trade for decades. —”
    They couldn’t care less if oil was $20/bbl or $120/bbl, since they can make money on either side of the deal; although arguably, more money can be had with more expensive oil. But the price of oil is more a concern for the hedge fund traders, who manipulate not only that, but a great many other commodities for their own short term gain. This is hardly an evil thing in its own right, though the Saviour did tell us that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.
    In the end, what they want is absolute power – which clearly involves reducing the middle and lower-tier upper classes of American society to financial poverty.
    “But…” as the late night television barkers say… “there’s more”:
    Fiscal imperilment – especially through debt slavery – really isn’t even as relevant as the long-going push to bring about the spiritual, moral, and mental impoverishment of Americans through the socialist plans of extirpating the name of God from every place in American society, much less the compromise of our “mainline” churches as they seek the broad and wide path to destruction… the dumbing down of our kids through mollycoddling failure and un-achievement, and pushing strange, wicked doctrines and the perversion of Hollywierd through the marketing of easy sensuality everyday on the “Devil-vision” (TV) and “Sin-ema”.
    The Devil’s attack on our nation has been in place for at least that past three generations, and is intensifying as the Day of the Lord draws ever closer. It is multi-pronged and multi-faceted, it takes no prisoners, it shows no mercy.
    As for taming the middle east, it simply is not our affair, and we should have nothing to do with it. We must get our own house – which is on the very precipice of doom, very near to destruction by God’s righteous and wrathful indignation at our abuse of His Holy Name (In God we trust – but which God? )
    We, as a nation, have erred: we have once enjoyed the fruit of a large population that feared God and obeyed His word, but have come to a point where we “knowing not the Scriptures, nor the power of God”. (Mark 12:24)
    God is not mocked, however, and the hour of Judgment swiftly and surely approaches.
    Where will you stand, when you face that Almighty Judge, whom we all also shall stand before, and give an account of your deeds?
    Will you be covered by the blood of the Lamb, that washes away all sin, or will you feebly offer up your works of altruistic, humanistic hogwash, which shall be turned away and rejected as worthless vegetables as Cain’s were, when He speaks to you those dreadful words:
    “—– And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. —–” (Matthew 7:23, KJV)

  7. lala says:

    Every once in a while Dan gives her a screwdriver to tighten up the loose screws.

  8. PA says:

    I just went long an prayer rug manufacturer stock.

  9. Bob says:

    “I just went long an prayer rug manufacturer stock.”
    Yes, because going to the Middle East to give a couple of speeches PROVES that Obama wants to institute Sharia law here in the U.S. even though he’s a church-going Christian, and even though none of you complained when Bush went for a friendly visit with the Saudis himself. But will he do this BEFORE, or AFTER he destroys the country? I bet the wing nuts could debate that one all day. And then they’ll complain like hell if everyone doesn’t take them seriously.

  10. Ran says:

    Ah, could this be the self-same Bob banned from TAS’ Quin Hillyer’s comments sections for blatant lies?
    http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/31/unsurprising-bigotry
    “I hereby ask you to stop commenting on my columns. Every time I write a column, you make a comment not based on anything I have written but instead on what you accuse me of meaning or believing even though there is no actual language in my column that says what you accuse me of saying. In short, you lie.”
    As in this: “What makes it even more unintentionally ironic is the damage that was done by the previous administration because they were too busy with crap-shoot nation-building experiments in faraway countries to care that things were going down the tubes here at home. People who supported the Bush administration lost all moral authority to now be complaining about anyone wrecking this country.”
    If we are not dealing with the self-same faux-conservative, we are clearly dealing with his ideological and intellectual peer. Heh… the “Bob” brand is, um, “bobbed”, if you catch the meaning…

  11. SacTownMan says:

    Hey has anyone seen this picture of the god king meeting with Ak-Ma-Dinner-Jacket?
    http://www.life.com/image/50537919/in-gallery/27022/adolf-hitler-up-close
    History has a way of repeating itself.
    Just like the elections of 1994. 2010 Pelosi is toast!

  12. mark l. says:

    “Gay groups grow impatient with Barack Obama”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23328.html
    heck, Iran is a civilized country, they deserve a nuke. don’t interpret their death penalty for homosexuals as sign of their intolerance. You just misunderstand them.
    given the amount of pandering that obama has offerred foreign muslim countries, in comparison to his ‘strong’ advocacy for homosexuals in the US and abroad, is it safe to say that obama thinks more of foreigners than his own countrymen?

  13. lala says:

    “I Won” doesn’t go to church anymore.

  14. Bob says:

    “. . . don’t interpret their death penalty for homosexuals as sign of their intolerance. You just misunderstand them.”
    So, mark, your post implies that you, too, must be impatient for Obama to step up the pace of legalizing gay marriage. I mean, since you’re such a big champion of gay rights and all.
    And once again, I have to point out the unseriousness — the downright silliness — of a line like,
    “is it safe to say that obama thinks more of foreigners than his own countrymen?”
    Come on, mark. You’re obviously an intelligent person. Do you honestly and sincerely believe that? It’s fine to say that you totally disagree with every single thing that Obama wants to accomplish as president. But it just strikes me as ridiculous and incredibly unfair to ascribe motives to him that you couldn’t possibly know, or, I suspect, even believe yourself. Yeah, right, he thinks more of foreigners . . . What a silly thing to say. You guys should give up on the melodramatic posturing and just try to be honest for a change.

  15. lala says:

    “Speech fell flatter than a piece of pita bread”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23338.html

  16. anon says:

    Obama doesn’t consciously “want” to destroy the U.S., I’m sure he thinks his policies will drastically improve it.
    But, he’s wrong. And his domestic policies–based on a utopian dream where you can tax the rich and successful ad infinitum with no negative consequences..they’ll just keep on making money to give to Uncle Sam to give to the poor–is unsustainable. At some point there won’t be enough profits to be confiscated and the ‘dynamic’ and entrepreneurial economy that we’ve been so proud of these past couple of centuries will be gone.
    So, when conservatives say Obama ‘wants to destroy America’ that is what they mean…his misguided policies will destroy America. And they will.
    That doesn’t mean that Bush’s policies weren’t destructive, but they were destructive in a different way, and fundamentally, Bush’s backwards policies are much, MUCH easier to undo than those of Obama…because once an entitlement is put out there, once something has been given to the states, people, interest group, whomever, it is almost impossible to take it back, that is why the Republican governors didn’t want the stimulus money that was tied to unemployment compensation because they know that once the stimulus money runs out the state will be on the hook for those expanded benefits FOREVER..no matter what the Democrats say about it, that is reality.
    It’s the same way that once everyone has finally quit smoking the government will have to find another sinful/hurtful item to tax in order to recoup the BILLIONS they are making now off of cigarettes…the government will never be able to give up the money stream, they’ll just find another source.

  17. lala says:

    Microsoft says that if corporate taxes are raised they will move their operations to a foreign country.

  18. mark l. says:

    “So, mark, your post implies that you, too, must be impatient for Obama to step up the pace of legalizing gay marriage.”
    was there something i said that revealed my opinion on gay marriage? i was pointing out the inconsitency between the obama and his own party.
    to be honest there is nothing obama has said or done that would lead me to believe he supports any gay rights.
    I think it is wonderful for a president to encourage the muslim world.
    they are governed by such modest principles. democratic, pro women, pro gay rights, anti torture…just a few of the the things that they are not.
    It would be wonderful if Iran could share their nukes with Syria. The saudis would want their own for ‘retaliation’. obama is making a deal with the devils…godspeed.

  19. mark l. says:

    “Ah, could this be the self-same Bob banned…you make a comment not based on anything I have written but instead on what you accuse me of meaning or believing even though there is no actual language in my column that says what you accuse me of saying.”
    i’ll repeat-
    was there something i said that revealed my opinion on gay marriage?
    i wouldn’t go as harsh to call you a ‘liar’, as much as someone who might suffer from delusions beyond your control.
    you probably aren’t even the same guy.

  20. Jim Treacher says:

    If Obama doesn’t think his actions will hurt the country, why does he keep lying about what he’s doing?

  21. Bob says:

    Mark, I was calling your bluff, as it were. It’s like you were criticizing Obama for not being MORE pro-gay-rights, just so you could accuse him of being a hypocrite. But presumably, not being more pro-gay-rights ought to be one of the few things you might find favorable about him. So in the end, it’s like you’re finding a way to criticizing him for holding a position that you yourself would approve of. I think that’s a bit hypocritical on YOUR side, if you get my drift.
    No, I’m not the person you think got banned somewhere. Have you ever met other people named Bob? It’s not that rare of a name, in case you hadn’t noticed.
    And anon, I appreciate you putting your opposition in more sane terms than a lot of the hystrionics that goes on around here. But you say,
    “So, when conservatives say Obama ‘wants to destroy America’ that is what they mean…his misguided policies will destroy America. And they will.”
    All I can say is, if we survived the Bush administration, we can survive almost ANYTHING. But seriously, I was opposed to alot of the wasteful and even catastrophic actions of the Bushies, but I never once believed that the country would be destroyed. Come on, the country survived the Civil War, the Great Depression and WWII. And yet you claim that getting universal health care or putting tigher regulations on the financial industry is somehow going to do what Hitler could not? You may not be as insane as some around here, but I still don’t find that to be a credible concern.

  22. mark l. says:

    “not being more pro-gay-rights ought to be one of the few things you might find favorable about him”
    i’m a big states rights guy…
    if states want it, let them have it. I’ll even take gay adoptions if the ‘couple’ demonstrates a healthy work history and survives a VERY INTRUSIVELY thorough examination.
    otoh-i’m not a fan of court fiats, but the doma has his nuts in a vice.
    i do see a big push to get out of the inability by federal to recognize same sex marriages.
    curious how it play out, as the sc has shied away from taking it. some appeals court has to get it all wrong before they’ll be forced into action. given that 6(?)-1 ruling in CA, i don’t see an appeals court ever wanting to dip their feet in the water.

  23. Bob says:

    Mark, I have to admit, you sound totally sane too. It’s starting to restore my faith in humanity. But wait, if people around here start sounding sane . . . does that mean . . . that I’m becoming a wing nut too? Oh my God, NO!!!
    Don’t mind me . . . I’m just busting your chops a little. But seriously, I appreciate your relatively calm and rational comments . . . most of the time, anyway.

  24. WAHOO WILLIE says:

    @ Bob: “But a democracy needs the major opposition movement to at least act and speak in good faith, and not constantly be throwing rhetorical molotov cocktails just because they’re mad about losing the election.”
    Wow Bob, that’s eloquent and insightful. Where were you the last eight years?????????

  25. SacTownMan says:

    “But seriously, I appreciate your relatively calm and rational comments”
    Bob you’re still a butthead!
    Why didn’t you just say?
    “I feel as if we have bonded in a special and spirital way”!
    Here poodle, poodle!!!

  26. Bob says:

    “Wow Bob, that’s eloquent and insightful. Where were you the last eight years?????????”
    I was watching Republicans flush their moral authority down the toilet along with the fortunes of the country. Now when they complain about how Obama’s approach to foreign policy can’t possibly work, we’ll know how seriously to take them considering what they accomplished when they controlled everything themselves.
    SacTownMan, I’m just trying to lighten things up a little and not be the kind of overbearing a55h0le that people like you and North Dallas are. If you want to be a cynical and ungracious as you are stupid, then go right ahead. I couldn’t care less.

  27. SacTownMan says:

    Hey Bob can I get you some cheese to go with that whine?
    Was that cynical enough?
    I’m sorry if I hurt you feelings!
    But you are still a butthead!
    And Dallas is not overbearing!
    (The preceding statements use something called humor, you might try to add that to your “lightening” up effort!)

  28. mark l. says:

    “I was watching Republicans flush their moral authority down the toilet along with the fortunes of the country.”
    i take it that the ‘fortunes’ is referring to anything but money.
    obama and the dems are flushing it faster. I keep hearing ‘new deal’, but in the context of the ‘new deal’, gdp rose from 56.4 billion in 33, to 91 billion in 37.
    this is the big difference between the two of them:
    fdr spent money that contributed to the economic growth of our country and was rewarded with 60% growth in five years.
    obama isn’t even concerned with growth…his goal is to ‘save money, by spending more’, on things that do not contribute to growth. He’s on track to produce a presidency with a 10 trillion dollar hole, relative to the bush 5 trillion gap.

  29. Bob says:

    Once again, SacTown, you’re true to type. Thanks for reaffirming my sense of how to judge a person’s character. Don’t you and North Dallas have some tea bagging to do, or something?
    Mark, I think I’ve touched on the spending issue before, but the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush had no economic crisis and no sound economic theory on which to base his debt-exploding spend-and-tax-cut policies. Whether you agree with it or not, Obama is doing what he and a respected school of Keynesian economists believe is necessary to avert a crisis of historic proportions. So far you can’t say it’s not working, because things have started to pick up here and there in an otherwise obviously troubled economic situation.

  30. anon says:

    I can say : it won’t work”. It is impossible for the U.S. government and the fed to print money as fast as they can, pump it into a series of black hole stimulus projects with little hope of ever seeing any tangible benefit while still ignoring the billions/trillions of worthless assets on the books of the major financial instutitions.
    It may appear to work for a couple of years, but in the long term it will not work and the world has now been awakened to the fact that the much heralded U.S. financial system isn’t what it was cracked up to be, so a long term shift AWAY from dollars as the reserve currency is going to begin, how fast or show that shift goes, I have no idea.
    Keynesian economists are full of s**t and down deep they know it, because their projections never work, never come true, have never worked and will never work…they always find an excuse for why this occurs and an always willing group of stakeholders to believe anew that spending money you don’t have is a solution to anything.

  31. Bob says:

    “Keynesian economists are full of s**t and down deep they know it, because their projections never work, never come true, have never worked and will never work”
    Really? What theory are you basing this on? Or is it just you sayin’ stuff? The point is, Republicans are always claiming that they know things, and then it turns out in the long run that they actually didn’t know anything. It’s like John McCain saying “the fundamentals of the economy are strong,” and then a couple of months later the stock market had lost half its value and the financial system had virtually collapsed. Or Bush saying that tax cuts for the wealthy was the prescription to reinvigorate the economy, and instead the economy collapsed.
    Republicans simply flushed their credibility down the toilet by always chosing cheap politics over honesty, responsibility and common sense. If Republicans knew what they were talking about, the Bush years should have been a golden era that at least equaled the economic success of the Clinton presidency. Instead it turned out to be a disaster from every possible perspective. So much for Republican economic “theory.”

  32. anon says:

    Republicans are too fond of the ‘free market’ which is just as stupid and illusory as what the Democrats believe.
    The Clinton boom years were also illusory, they were paper profits based on nothing tangible, part of the 30 year downward cycle of the U.S. economy that started in the 1970s when we decided it was okay to let our manufacturing sector die. Did you forget Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagal and refused to regulate derivatives or hedge funds himself?
    Bush’s tax cuts had nothing to do with the economic collapse. That isnt’ to say if someone had gone to Bush and said ‘hey, this derivatives market/hedge fund stuff is out of control and needs regulation and BTW we’ve got to put a stop to this crazy leveraging’ that he would have listened, he wouldn’t have listened.
    The only Keynesian ‘success’ I’ve ever heard of is the fallacious idea that FDR’s domestic spending program is what lifted us out of the Great Depression. What lifted us out of the Great Depression was WWII and the fact that after the war we were the only industrialized country whose factories had not been bombed to s**t.

  33. Bob says:

    “Republicans are too fond of the ‘free market’ which is just as stupid and illusory as what the Democrats believe.”
    But I think that Democrats are basically free-market capitalists too. That’s what gets really silly about calling any mainstream Democrat like Obama a socialist. Democrats just tend to think that sensible and fair regulations are generally a good idea, whereas Republicans seem to be (in my opinion) too laissez-faire. And when Democrats have erred, it’s tended to be in the direction of reducing regulations, like you point out with Clinton repealing some Depression-era regulations.
    And I’m not as pessimistic or cynical as you are about the economic stimulus. There are plenty of economists who know alot more about it than I ever will who still regard the Keynesian approach as the only possible thing you could do under such dire circumstances. What’s the alternative: the Hooverist approach, or the approach of the Japanese that gave them their infamous “lost decade?” And besides, it’s not just pumping it down a black hole. If done right, it’s a win-win because we should get a lot of needed upgrades to infrastructure in the process.

  34. anon says:

    “If done right” LOL. Sure, but it isn’t being done right and only a small percentage of the stimulus money is actually going for infrastructure, more of it is going for welfare increases, unemployment benefit increases and down the 200% confirmed black hole of public education, which has been sucking up money for 30 years with zero results.
    The Dems problems is that their zeal for regulations is almost always misplaced…seatbelt laws, no smoking laws, affirmative action laws, but the things that NEED regulation, like oh say the financial industry, nothing gets done, they’re as bad as the GOP because ALL the Dems want to do is redistribute money to their own constituencies. Though I grant you they are better on the enviroment than the Republicans but that is their only saving grace and that is why I did vote Democrat for many years.
    IMO we’ve just lived through the sack of Rome, the world has changed fundamentally, we just can’t admit it.

  35. Bob says:

    I believe that almost 100 billion of the stimulus program is going to infrastructure improvements of various kinds, which may not be the largest share of the program, but it’s a significant chunk of change. Aside from that, what’s wrong with provisions like extending health benefits for laid off workers, or deducting the sales tax of newly purchased cars? It’s a very diverse program that’s pumping money into many sectors of the economy while helping the people who are most hurt by the economic downturn. This is the highest unemployment rate in decades right now, and putting money into the hands of those laid off workers is going to be immediately put back into the economy.
    I can accept that conservatives may not approve of the priorities, or the fact that wealthy taxpayers aren’t being catered to the way they’ve come to expect from Republican administrations, but this hoping-to-see-it-fail attitude seems like willful cynicism to me. You may believe, or even hope, to see it fail, but to be fair, isn’t it kind of premature to be making final verdicts only 6 months into Obama’s presidency? And haven’t we at least, for now, avoided the gloomiest forecasts from just a few months ago? Maybe it’s actually working. Can you prove otherwise? The “sack of Rome” metaphor seems like just a bit of hyperbole, IMHO.

  36. anon says:

    The ‘stimulus’ was sold as something that would help the economy over the long term, not just help people who are out of work. The problem w/America today is we’re not willing for ANYONE [except the rich] to feel any pain for any reason, big brother steps in and ‘fixes everything’
    What do you think happened to the people who worked in the carriage business when the automobile came along? They lost their jobs. Gas lamp companies when electricity came along? Same thing. That is how the cycle of growth goes, if you use taxpayer dollars to blunt this pain by keeping bankrupt or moribund industries alive then eventually, society itself will fail.
    The U.S. financial system–the engine of the global economy–has been found to be completely unsound, unregulated and unhinged from any type of reality based valuation. I guarantee you that this is the beginning of a move away from the dollar and the U.S. as the safe haven for investments. Will it take decades to accomplish? Most likely, but the progression is inevitable now that we’ve show the world everything we said about our financial savvy, ability to more or less self regulate the capital markets has been proven to be bunk.
    It is impossible to sustain this level of deficit spending over time, especially now that our financial system has been exposed as a big ponzi scheme run by gamblers and hustlers masquerading as bankers. Who do you think is going to keep buying inflated dollars over the next 20 years? The arabs? Chinese? Doubtful. That is reality, a reality even Obama admits, but he glosses it over with the same type of overly optimistic projections that Bush did, only instead of taking 8 years to run up a trillion in debt, Obama has run up SEVERAL TRILLION in debt in a few months and shows no intention to stop deficit spending to get the programs he wants put in place.
    The truly wealthy have nothing to worry about, never have, never will. It is the upper middle class, the people who have money, who have small to medium sized businesses that are going to be hurt. Warren Buffet will never pay more than the 16% in taxes he pays now and neither will any other billionaire.
    My opinion is that until something is done about the toxic mortgage backed securities [virtually worthless] that are all still on the books of American banks that it is silly to consider that the economy is recovering…the primary reason for the collapse has not been addressed in any way. No new regulations, no sell off of the assets, the gov. is trying to prop UP the price of these securities by keeping the housing market artificially high in order to save the banks from having to admit that they are, in effect, bankrupt. In fact, it is a game of financial smoke and mirrors that is worthy of the Bush Administration.

  37. Bob says:

    “What do you think happened to the people who worked in the carriage business when the automobile came along? They lost their jobs.”
    You make some good points, I won’t deny. Your analysis seems reasonable to a non-economist like me, although I might put a little more faith in Americans’ ability to adapt to new economic situations. Take your example above about carriage manufacturers. I think the reality of the situation was actually more nuanced, and less dire, than that. For example:
    http://www.american-automobiles.com/Pratt-Elkhart.html
    “Over the years the Elkhart Carriage and Harness Manufacturing Company became one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of carriages, buggies and harnesses. They were experienced manufacturers, plus experienced in material procurement, engineering, accounting, selling and advertising. But most important of all they had a large factory and the skilled people to build not only carriages but automobiles.
    From 1906 to 1908 they first motorized some of the Elkhart buggies into self propelled vehicles and then wagons called The Pratt. Sales of motorized buggies and wagons were very successful in 1908. By 1909 and 1910 the Pratt Bros. transitioned from the motor buggy to a line of shaft driven cars that were something half way between a buggy and an automobile. In 1910 they began production of their first American Automobile called the Pratt-Elkhart.”
    ————————-
    Considering how central automobile manufacturing has been in this country, how many jobs still depend on it, and the fact that automobiles are here to stay for the forseeable future, it still seems like a reasonable idea to give the U.S. auto industry another chance, provided that both management and labor can agree on finally doing what needs to be done to stay competitive.

  38. anon says:

    Sure they should be given another chance, they should be given tax incentives, free freaking consulting and arbitration help from the millions of people who work for the government..what they DO NOT NEED is money from the taxpayer.
    While it is true that letting ‘the market’ work things out results in booms and busts and unnecessary social disruption, refusing to let the marke work at all is just as bad or worse.
    I said in November that GM and probably Chrysler would go bankrupt no matter how much taxpayer money we gave them and here we are, with GM going bankrupt yet still getting more BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and Chrysler sold off to the suckers at Fiat who for some reason think they will succeed where the Germans failed. All of this could and should have been accomplished without a single dollar going directly into the company coffers.
    I completely believe that it is and was insane for this country to let its manifacturing base move to China. Information economy, yeah, its a good slogan, but people will always, always need: food, clothes, transportation, homes, and things to put in their homes. I am all for protecting critical industries, but protecting a critical industry is not the same as protecting a lame ass, failed business model that also happens to be a critical industry. Fix the model, save the industry. It doesn’t Albert Einstein to understand the difference.
    Just as I believe it was and is insane and short sighted to let a handful of mega corporations consume the rest of the busines world. I don’t care what anyone says, Wal Mart is not the same as the locally owned, run by a family corner store and Staples is not the same as the locally owned office supply store.
    See, not all conservatives are ‘pro business’ no matter what, I am pro business and anti tax, but I am also not a believer that “globalism/free trade/the market” can solve everything and I am certainly not a believer that mega corporations are the way to go. It is the same reason I am for smaller government. No matter what you are talking about, non profit, company, government when something gets beyond a certain size it is unwieldly, inefficient, bureaucratic and more interested in saving itself than in any kind of mission whatever that may be..selling cars or health care or building bridges. Smaller, local and owned and managed by actual people not ‘shareholders’ is much better.
    America is losing its ability to adapt to new situations because we have moved away from being a meritocracy where brains and ability could take you anywhere to a place where quotas and political correctness dicate who gets jobs and promotions, hence, the extrepreneurism and ‘can do’ attitude that characterized previous generations is disappearing. Coupled with a handful of super corporations that are ‘too big to fail’ and you get a country that no longer has the capability to innovative the way it once did.