If you watched the New Hampshire debates, then you saw the Obama-hugging Chris Christie tear into Marco Rubio for pointing out that Obama is purposely destroying the United States. Christie says Obama is not purposeful, just incompetent. Really?
Christie is a very gifted orator and statist, like Obama, but unlike Obama Christie plays for the Republican team. Christie’s main difference with Obama is that instead of Obama being king, Christie wants to be the sovereign.
What Senator Rubio did not say, but certainly implied, is that Obama’s status as a first-term senator has not prevented him from achieving what he set out to achieve (the first steps in the destruction of the free-market system in the U.S. and abdication of the U.S. as a dominant player in the world). It is not hard to realize what Obama has done he has done on purpose.
Obama said in October of 2008, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What do you think Obama meant?
Obama’s actions have been deliberate and have caused considerable damage to our nation. Domestically, Obama has used regulation, taxation and executive order to botch health care, energy, education, economics and employment. Internationally, he has wrought destabilization, death and destruction to the world, and his victims have included Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Europe (the list goes on).
In the debate, Rubio , also a first-term senator, argued that he could be equally effective, but in the opposite way. Rubio was absolutely correct. There is no doubt that he could be the savior our republic needs, and honestly pointing out what the Obamanation has done is sin qua non.
In contrast to Christie’s criticisms, Donald Trump dismisses Obama as a rank incompetent because he hasn’t enriched himself sufficiently. Trump doesn’t really have a problem with the Progressive plan “to fundamentally change the United States,” foreign policy notwithstanding. Trump believes that Obama’s real problem has been that he could have amassed much more money if he had more experience at using the government to enrich himself (a projection of the Donald’s avarice and modus vivendi).
I have no doubt that Trump is highly proficient at gaming the system, and if he were the Prez, then he would have made out like a king, but is that what we really want in a president?
Only Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, are willing to point out that what Obama meant by “change” was to “fundamentally transform” the United States from a constitutional republic into a socialist democracy.
All the other remaining candidates refuse to point out that Obama was deliberate in his efforts to destroy our free-market system.
These other candidates, if they were to acknowledge Obama’s real purpose, would be admitting that they are unprincipled and just go along to get along (or worse).
However, with the exception of Cruz and maybe Ben Carson, all the candidates (including Fiorina) have curried favor or have outright worked with Obama or other statists, unwittingly or not, to help with our nation’s nefarious transformation. So that leaves only two candidates from which to choose.
In Senator Rubio’s and Fiorina’s defense, it needs to be stated that they both recognize, understand, and are willing to say EXACTLY what is going on with the Obamanation, and for this they should be applauded!
However, Marco’s association with the Gang-of-Eight’s attempt to codify amnesty, or more precisely the plan to import millions of new Democratic voters, indicates he goes along with what would be the death knell for our constitutionally limited government. That is a deal breaker for me!
Still, if you are asking if he should be the Prez? The logical answer is; we could do much worse than Marco (but why take the chance? ).
It is well known that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; so, if we want to return our nation to a constitutional republic, then that leaves Ted Cruz.
If you believe in our Constitution , then he is by far THE best choice!
Ben is second, Carly if third, and that leaves Marco as a close forth. The rest are somewhere on the spectrum between Bush and Obama (in other words 8 trillion to 20 trillion)…