Party Time? Obama says take the day off.

[KBevangelist]

I found this on Gretawire.com

It is great.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/28 ... iant-gift/

KB

[MacUser]

A day off? Take the week, month, year... Obama will supply all our needs.

[dolfan]

I told my wife the same thing. If Obama's elected, we've got it made. I don't know why I haven't seen this all along. Maybe I just didn't have the, ummmmmm, ears of faith, hope and change -- the greatest of these being change, of course. Change we can believe in. Change we can stay at home from work on, now, it seems. I like this guy.

But, then, there's that whole labor camp thing. See, I just can't get past all those other great minds of history who have actually ruled on these principles like, say, Stalin (stalags) or Castro (UMAP) or Tito (gulags in Yugoslavia) or Mussolini (labor camps in Ethiopia and Italy), or Mao (some estimate 27 million people died in his) or pick-your-North-Korean-dictator-of-choice.

Think we're immune? One author published a book last year declaring that Roosevelt's new deal was really from the same page as Hitler and Mussolini labor camps, and provides some pretty compelling argument from history that these men shared common economic goals in regard to forced labor. This quote from a review of that book, titled Three New Deals:

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

The reviewer also says,

Intellectuals worried about inequality, the poverty of the working class, and the commercial culture created by mass production. (They didn’t seem to notice the tension between the last complaint and the first two.) Liberalism seemed inadequate to deal with such problems. When economic crisis hit—in Italy and Germany after World War I, in the United States with the Great Depression—the anti-liberals seized the opportunity, arguing that the market had failed and that the time for bold experimentation had arrived.

In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Sound familiar? Redistributive change, I think is the current phrasing.

This is no conspiracy theory book. This is a book written by a respected scholar and reviewed on a well-traveled libertarian-leaning website (www.reason.com) whose magazine is called "a good, good magazine" by Rush Limbaugh and which has won accolades from conservative and liberal news sources.

Point: Obama's plan is going to kill us all or make us wish we were dead. It's that simple. Escape is the only way to thrive. How do we do that?