Sign of "The Times".

Prechter didn't say this exactly, but the idea is mos def related to his socionomics themes: during times of increasing credit, liberalism is on the rise.  Why?  IMO it is because liberalism, whether it be political or economic (and at some level they are one in the same), is fed by credit.  Liberals, again mainly economically speaking, believe that people should get something just because they are alive.  A certain standard of living is one's God given right to these people and the government should use physical force in order to steal it from those who produce to give it to those who don't.  Of course, the government has nothing of its own.  One has to work at economically productive enterprise in order to build wealth, and the government has no productive output, at least none in a relative sense to its inputs.  So in essence, economic liberals believe that others should work a bit harder so that those who cannot or will not work for themselves can live a better lifestyle than they deserve.  Better to the degree that you only really deserve what you work for.  So if you got something you didn't earn then you in fact didn't deserve it.

Conservatism on the other hand is a lean toward production and savings.  We have not had real conservatives in power for many, many years.  Decades in fact.  Bush 2 was a total economic liberal.  He preached a fake "ownership society" which pushed the sheeple into purchasing houses using debt.  He made the national debt start the hockey stick portion of the exponential upswing.  These are not the moves of a true conservative!  Those who say Dubya was a conservative just because he wore a GOP pin are really serious patsies in this scam.  Whereas liberalism is fed by credit, conservatism is fed by the lack of it.  REAL conservatism is paygo, living within your means, etc.  With exponential national debt that really began after we left the gold standard it's pretty clear that there has been no conservatism running the show for a long, long time.  The very act of leaving the gold standard was the move of a flagrant economic liberal.  Just because Nixon (a GOP stooge) did it means nothing.  He was a puppet too, a puppet for the global bankers that run this economically liberal scam.

All that crazy economic liberalism is changing right now.  Credit is peaking and probably has already peaked.  I don't mean for the year or the decade.  I mean for the generation.  We are talking 80 year Kondratiev cycle action here.  If this is the case then we should see signs of it happening and I mean to point them out as I see them unfold.  Today's data point is the definitely liberal-leaning NY Times talking trash about Obama.  Obama was their man for both elections.  Oh, he was the second coming back then.  His being elected was a slap in the face of all of those racists out there blah blah blah.  Yes, back then we were all painted as either closet or recovering racists.  If you didn't like Barry then you too were probably a racist.

Now that credit has peaked, his support base is edging away from him.  They don't want to be associated with him anymore.  Now they are calling him out on stuff he used to get away with all the time.  If you or I had treated President Obama with any kind of disrespect, including calling him something other than Mr. President or President Obama, we were branded hateful, despicable racists.  In case you didn't know it, adding the word "hate" to a label these days makes those who are accused of it guilty of hate crimes.  But maybe we are not racists.  Maybe we didn't like him because he is a tool of the global elite or that we didn't think some Jr. Senator from a totally corrupt political $hithole like Illin-noise had the qualifications to lead the country let alone you personally.  Ohhhh noooo!  None of that!  Our negative comments HAD to be driven by dirty racism instead of honest political ideology.

Fast forward to today.  The headline of the NT Times article on President Obama is:
"Is Barry Whiffing?"

Really NT Times?  Not Mr. President, or President Obama?  Not "Sir".  Just "Barry"?  REALLY?  That's racist treatment of Dear Leader, isn't it?  If not, then why was it so when honest conservatives like me would say the same damned thing?  The hypocrisy is amazing.  That article is by someone named Maureen Dowd.  She has such little respect for Dear Leader these days that she now proposes to give him her casual advice in a definitely less than respectful tone:

"Don’t whinge off the record with columnists and definitely don’t do it at a press conference with another world leader. It is disorienting to everybody, here at home and around the world.

I empathize with you about being thin-skinned. When you hate being criticized, it’s hard to take a giant steaming plate of “you stink” every day, coming from all sides. But you convey the sense that any difference on substance is lèse-majesté.  You simply proclaim what you believe as though you know it to be absolutely true, hoping we recognize the truth of it, and, if we don’t, then we’ve disappointed you again."

Too bad for you that The Internet Never Forgets, Maureen.  The Internet clearly remembers you fawning all over the no-name Obama candidate back in 2007 when you wrote:


"Barack Obama has made an entrance in Hollywood unmatched since Scarlett O’Hara swept into the Twelve Oaks barbecue. Instead of the Tarleton twins, the Illinois senator is flirting with the DreamWorks trio: Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave him a party last night that raised $1.3 million and Hillary’s hackles"

It is also an old trick to include quotes from others that express your opinion without you having to say it.  Sorry Maureen, you might have been quoting someone else but your whole article was clear: Obama is good, Hillary is bad, everyone else is a POS:
“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

How's your inspiration these days, Maureen?  Or have you already forgotten how you lobbied in your liberal rag for the very same man who you now write about with utter disrespect?   THANKS A LOT, Maureen.  Thanks for helping get this man elected.  Thanks for helping to create so much useless noise about things that don't matter toward running the country such that honest people like Ron Paul got completely ignored despite his message of freedom, privacy, small government, constitutional values and of course honest money.  You know, the things that REALLY matter to quality of life....

Obama is a puppet.  I can hardly blame him for it.  The pay is good and all he has to do is act the role.  Maureen, you on the other hand are a fool and one with a big mouth and a tall pedestal to be heard from.  Obama should not be ashamed of his performance because the lap dog in chief is just doing his master's bidding.  He is selling socialism, corporatism and fascism to America.  You on the other hand should be completely embarrassed because he fooled you right from the start and it took you years and years to catch on.  So SHUT UP already, you have already proven that you don't have the common sense of a house fly.