Democratic Policies Weaken America Print
Sunday September 21, 2008 19:57

On issue after issue after issue Democrats take up the side that weakens America while consistently opposing the side that strengthens America.

f

Democratic Crises

After examining issue after issue this year I was struck by one thought. Democrats seem to always support policies that weaken America while opposing policies that would strengthen her.

While spending considerable time trying to figure out why this would be, I think I’ve come upon a theory that explains everything.

The thing that made this such a mystery was my ability to accurately predict what stand the Democratic party would take on any given issue simply by asking which position would hurt America and which would help. Democrats consistently choose the policy that would most hurt America. Using this standard it is easy to predict which position Democrats will take on a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues.

For instance, two unrelated issues: home mortgages and oil. On the surface these two issues have nothing in common, yet if you examine the results of policies Democrats favored and implemented, you will see that those policies have three things in common: they both failed, it was knowable in advance that they would fail and their failure was devastating to America.

 

 

 

Policies Democrats Oppose that would strengthen America:

  • Drilling for oil
  • Nuclear power
  • Lower Taxes
  • Making Life Difficult for terrorists
  • Anti-Missile Defense
  • Teacher-control of the classroom
  • School Choice
  • Photo ID when voting
  • Protect the borders
  • Environmental policies that put people first
  • Strong military
  • Strong CIA

 

In the 1990s Democrats supported policies that would strong arm banks into giving mortgages to less-than-creditworthy individuals so they could buy homes. These people had little ability to pay back the loans and traditionally would have been considered bad credit risks. But through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration assured the banks that was no problem.

When a bank makes a mortgage loan these quasi-governmental agencies purchase the loan, providing liquidity to the banking system by providing banks with a fresh infusion of capital that they then turn around and use to make more mortgage loans. As primary purchasers of mortgage loans Fannie and Freddie had the clout to set the credit standards banks would use in making loans.  If Fannie and Freddie demanded that banks lend only to customers with excellent credit, then that's what banks would do.  If they loosened their standards and agreed to purchase mortgages made to less creditworthy individuals, then the banks could loosen their standards and make even more loans.  Since the banks turn around and sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, they have no real stake in whether the borrower actually pays the loan back.  So they base their credit requirements on whatever Fannie and Freddie will allow.  As far as the banks are concerned, if Fannie and Freddie will purchase mortgages made to less than creditworthy individuals - it's good for them because it allows them to make loans to more people, thus helping their bottom line. 

At the heart of this problem is the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed by the Clinton administration to "liberalize" their credit standards so that people with credit scores less than what was traditionally acceptable could get mortgages. 

The stated intention was to make home ownership possible for more people. However, conservatives at the time often pointed out that this would eventually come back to haunt us as the less than credit-worthy borrowers defaulted and the taxpayer would have to bail everyone out.

 

 

 
That is exactly what happened and we are now seeing the devastation these policies have wreaked on the economy. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch are either bailed out, bankrupted or bought out. And the closure of those banks is reverberating throughout the economy and around the world. There is no doubt now that the policies followed by the Democratic Clinton administration are responsible for the economic devastation we are currently witnessing.

Now let’s look at oil. Following the theory that Democrats support policies that weaken America, you will correctly predict that Democrats will be against drilling domestically for oil. Why? Because drilling for oil would strengthen America's hand in the world and not drilling weakens it. Relying on political enemies for our most critical natural resource is a suicidal position especially in light of the fact that our reliance is caused solely for political reasons. Our reliance on our enemies is not caused because we lack the resources. In fact, we have enough unrecovered oil reserves to supply 100% of our current needs for another 251 years!

For whatever seductive words Democrats use to explain their radical position that America not be allowed to mine its own natural resources, the result is predictable. Americans are now paying record prices at the pump and it's putting a crimp in many a budget. Gas at $4.00+ per gallon is hurting those who can least afford it, and among them are millions of people with poor credit who have been given mortgages. 

Democratic energy policy has weakened America.

You can go right down the line on issue after issue after issue, and see that Democrats consistently oppose policies that would make America stronger and support policies that would make her weaker.

You should be asking by now, why would Democrats want to hurt America? Or you may think it’s terribly unpatriotic to suggest such a thing of either political party. (I would point out though that if no one can be accused of being unpatriotic, then patriotism is itself meaningless).

The reasons are deep and complex, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that the ruling members of the Democratic party do not have America's best interest at heart.

First, a quick look at Barack Obama and his friends, pastor, wife and associates. Much of this is detailed here on this site in other articles so I won't attempt to document every last detail here. But suffice it to say he associates with many people who have been quite outspoken about their disdain for America - including his wife. The closest people in Obama's life have said terrible things about America. His pastor said America deserved 9/11 and that we shouldn't ask God to bless America, but rather we should ask him to damn it. Obama first reacted to this by saying he didn't believe his pastor had said anything particularly controversial.

He associates with and has been befriended by Bill Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist.  Ayers said in an article published on Sept. 11, 2001 in the New York Times that he wished he had bombed more American government buildings and that his only regret was that he hadn't done "enough".  Ayers was also pictured for this article stomping on the American flag.  Bill Ayers clearly hates America.  But he supports Obama.  Obama also has the support of Louis Farrakhan (a Jew-hating anti-American).  He also has the publicly-declared support of the middle eastern terrorist group Hamas. It cannot be doubted that Hamas hates America. 

Obama says it's not fair to judge a candidate for president on those who support them.  Whether or not that is true, one must ask, why do so many people who objectively hate America - support Obama? What is it they see in him that engenders their support?

The Left in America, as the Left around the world has one thing in common with these people - they too despise the things America has done in its history. They too believe America has a shameful past. They all believe the world would be better off without America in it.  And what did his wife really mean when she said she has never before in her adult life been proud of America?  

If you believe as many Democrats do and as many Obama supporters do, that America is this hateful, bigoted place that goes around the world meddling in the affairs of other nations and forcing our corrupt values on them - how would  you go about stopping it?  The easiest way to stop America's influence in the world is to simply weaken America to the point that it can no longer spread its evil influence around the world.  You weaken her economically so she no longer has the financial resources to spread her influence around the world. (Democrats almost always support economic policies that weaken America).  You weaken her morally so she no longer has the spiritual resolve to influence the world for the good.  And you weaken her militarily so she can't use physical might to spread her influence. (Democrats, including Obama have called for a weaker American military and they have called for surrender in Iraq).

So is it any surprise that Democrats knowingly supported the liberalization of credit standard by Fannie and Freddie - knowing as they did that this would eventually cause the economy to crash?  (It is also instructive to note how they used "race" to get their way on this policy that would have otherwise been rejected out of hand as reckless and dangerous.  Often when they want to pass a ludicrous policy, they claim its purpose is to help minorities and therefore if you oppose it you are a racist).  Is it then any surprise that Democrats oppose drilling domestically for oil and that Obama promises to weaken the military?  All these things greatly weaken America and make it far less likely that America can influence the rest of the world for good. 

This should come as no surprise though, because the Democratic party has been taken over by the far Left wing. And once you understand what the far Left really believes, you will begin to understand the positions of the Democratic party. Once you begin to understand their complete disdain for the role America has played historically in the world, you will begin to understand that they do want a weakened America. Once you understand their true loathing of the influence America has around the world, you will begin to understand that they do wish to clip America's wings.

It may sound far-fetched, but it's the only theory that is always consistent with Democrats' actions. You can almost predict what stand they're going to take on any given issue simply by figuring out which stand would most weaken America.

  • Does it weaken America to prohibit the use of our own natural resources? Yes, and Democrats prohibit it.
  • Does it weaken America to demand that banks relax their lending standards so minorities can get mortgages? Yes, and Democrats demanded it - and we are now suffering greatly from their actions - to the tune of a $850 billion bailout - just passed last week in Congress.
  • Is it suicidal to oppose a defense system that would protect the American population against incoming cruise missiles?  Of course!  And Democrats oppose it! 
  • Would it hurt America if we had pulled completely out of Iraq last March as Barack Obama originally insisted on? Of course. Because we stayed, we are now on the verge of having a strong ally in the middle east. If Democrats had had their way that would have been impossible and America would have lost what now promises to be a new and brighter future in the middle east.

This web site is devoted to providing documentation and materials that support the proposition that the leadership of the Democratic party by and large supports policies that weaken America. If this article hasn't convinced you, please peruse the rest of the site where you will find documentation and support for the claims made here.