Remember last night toward the end of the second presidential debate with Mitt Romney when President Obama said, “I support the free market“?
Well, actually, he doesn’t.
In fact, in 1998, during a talk at Loyola University in Chicago, Obama stated – and I quote – “I actually believe in redistribution“, a concept rooted in Marxism, a philosophy that is completely antithetical to the notion of free market capitalism. Conversely, in December 2011, during a speech he gave at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama said, “Limited government that preserves free markets doesn’t work. It has never worked.”
Barack Obama’s own words tell us what he truly believes (and I use the word “believes” loosely.) At best, Obama is a Statist and, at worst a Fabian Socialist, which, in either case, speaks of someone who does not espouse the ideals of capitalism or private property, which is a primary reason why Obama, overcome with a sudden case of what I can only describe as “pension envy”, felt emboldened to remark so spitefully last night about the “size” of his pension in comparison to Romney’s, a totally unwarranted comparison in the context of the actual question that the candidates were supposedly addressing.
Along with being a pathological narcissist, Barack Obama is also a pathological liar.
The last thing Obama wants is Americans succeeding independent of the State, which is why every single solution he offered last night was connected in some way to the umbilical cord of government. Every single one (e.g. education, job creation, etc.) The best thing a President – any President – can do, in my opinion, is to foster an environment where the individual has the freedom to make his or her own way in life – including the freedom to fail. As 19th century theologian William Ellery Channing stated, “The office of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men opportunity to work out happiness for themselves.“
So, don’t be fooled by Obama’s dressed-up lies from last night. Here is a man who was raised and influenced over the course of his life by individuals who were and are radically opposed to the ideals of free-market capitalism. In 2010, in a speech he gave in Quincy, IL, Obama himself said, “I do think that at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
Think about that for a moment, if you will.
That Obama believes there is a “certain point” at which a free individual has made enough money intrinsically implies that he, or some other government representative or entity, would be empowered to determine for you when that “certain point” has arrived and, as a natural consequence, would result in your being less free. Now, does that sound to you like someone who supports “free markets”? A free-market President would be resolute and unwavering in promoting the ideal of government getting out-of-the-way of the individual, as opposed to invoking fear at the thought that, as an individual, “you’re on your own” without the help of government.
The problem with a “Marxo-Statist” (to coin a phrase) like Obama is that he is motivated by the belief that America is evil because it dares to achieve. Someone who truly supports the free market, as the President falsely professes, would be working toward reducing the number of people on food stamps, not increasing it to where the numbers are 50 percent higher than when he took office. He or she would be encouraging and challenging America’s children to study hard(er) in school, not advocating race-based education goals and standards, which serve only to “dumb-down” minority children, particularly black children, and further handicap them in attaining success later in life when they go out into the “real” world.
If President Obama is such a “champion” of the free market, he would tout America as a land where immigrants can come legally to have their dreams of a better life fulfilled, and not rely on amnesty as a means to circumvent or supplant existing federal and state laws so as to make it easier, if not inviting, for countless numbers of people to immigrate illegally, which places an even weightier entitlement burden on the American taxpayer, of whom there are fewer and fewer under the Obama administration with the U-6 unemployment rate of just below 15 percent and black unemployment above 16 percent as I type this.
During last night’s debate, Barack Obama was on the defensive the entire time. Now, it’s one thing to have to defend your record, but it’s another thing altogether to be placed on the defensive about your record. There is a difference. And if, as the President would have us believe, his record has been one of encouraging and empowering the free market, there is very little, if any, empirical evidence to support such a claim.
Barack Obama is not a friend of the free market (and that’s putting it mildly.) In fact, he loathes the very concept of free enterprise and individual success. He is a collectivist and, in his mind, individual success is ultimately and only for the benefit of the “greater good” of society as a whole (translation: the State). His own policies are enough to bear this out as, for the most part, they are centered on the pillars of higher taxes, increased government dependency, and less individual freedom (as with Obamacare).
To the extent that Barack Obama “supports” the free market, he does so only inasmuch as it benefits himself and his own self-centered interests, not you and yours. But, hey, don’t just take my word for it.
Obama’s own words confirm as much.