… asking this this question would have guaranteed my inclusion among the ranks of right-wing nuts and/or conspiracy theorists. Today, it is a serious question being asked by Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh and many other leading conservatives. Here's why.
In the summer of 2008, as John McCain and Barack Obama were campaigning for president, a series of economic events (started by Sen. Schumer) resulted in shifting the focus of the presidential campaign off the Iraq war, and on to the economy. These events ultimately resulted in Barack Obama's election as President.
June 26, 2008: Democrat Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. "The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York."
This event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the ammunition for massive government intervention in the private market.
July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *
Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.
Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US within 24 hours.
This seminal event marked the ascendancy of Obama's candidacy, and eventually resulted in his election as president.
Its no secret that Obama is a member of the far left. And he has staffed his administration with fellow ideologues. Leftists, like former Green Czar Van Jones, who states he is an "advocate for a socialist utopia." Who believes that capitalism is "oppression and exploitation."
People like Ron Blume, who was appointed to reinvigorate the manufacturing base, who states, "We know the free market is nonsense."
Any economist can tell you that raising taxes, increasing debt, printing money and unbridled spending is not the way to handle a recession. So either Obama is ignorant of this, or he willfully chooses to ignore the lessons of history. Or he is adopting a strategy outlined by Cloward-Pivens: Overwhelm the system until it fails, and then replace it.
Based on Obama's actions to date, reasonable people must allow for the possibility that the change Obama promised may include destroying the free market economic system in order to replace it with an economy regulated by government entities.
Spending America into bankruptcy might just be our president's way of leveling the global playing field. By bringing Americas to its knees. Based on Obama's actions, and the actions of his appointees, its time to seriously consider if destroying our economy is Obama's goal.
*Portions of this article were taken from A Contrived Crisis? Feb. 23, 2009
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina – March 2, 2010