Obama’s moves to the right in the budget negotiations are creating dissension within the Democratic Party, according to The New York Times. Republicans have changed the terms of the debate over the size and role of the federal government, and the president has adopted many of those terms in a quest to appeal to independent voters, the Times reports. “That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened,” according to the Times. “Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.” [Source: Newsmax.com]

Are they serious?

Let's review what liberals have gained from the Obama administration, to date: 

Numerous world apology tours, where Obama makes it clear that the U.S. has been the bad guy in most conflicts, as well as the source of nearly all world problems;

Complete and unwavering pacification of Iran, despite their unwillingness to even speak to the U.S.; an unchecked green light for Iran to keep building its nuclear bombs, which they will use to either destroy Israel or blackmail them;

Cutbacks and limitations in military spending as far as the eye can see;

Gradual nuclear disarmament that would warm the heart of Jimmy Carter;

Growth in non-military spending as far as the eye can see, with attempts by the Tea Party minority to merely cut the rate of that growth;

Nominal government control of the entire financial and banking industry, set in place by George W. Bush and largely completed by Obama and the Pelosi Congress;

Cap and trade legislation, designed to seize government control over all energy use and production, implemented through the EPA, against the wishes of even many Democrats in Congress;

Nominal government ownership of the Internet, to be implemented in terms of both content and technology, as the government (i.e. the Obama administration) sees fit -- the equivalent of a Fairness Doctrine, with much more to come, for the entire Internet;

A guaranteed end to American intervention in Iraq, regardless of what Iran does there;

A removal of any possibility of future tax cuts, regardless of what happens to the Bush tax rates.

Need I go on? What more do liberals want? Obama is the real thing. He's a socialist, a liberal Big Government control freak of the first order. He makes Bill Clinton -- even Hillary Clinton at times -- look like Ronald Reagan.

There will be no significant opposition to Obama in the Democratic party nomination process. The New York Times knows this; like all liberals, they're just whining. They all know that Obama is The Man. Liberal Democrat socialists got exactly what they asked for; whiners that they are, they don’t like the results that their own stupid ideology has thrust upon us.

If reelected, this will be the ultimate validation of unhinged liberalism, socialism on a rampage. Obama, and his supporters, will claim even a close reelection as a mandate for everything he did get done in office -- all of it destructive, all of it wrong -- and an implicit mandate to go much further, Republicans or not. A second term for a validated Obama could mean the beginning of the first dictatorship in American history. This is particularly possible as conditions in the country worsen, as they inevitably will under his rule.

It's true that, at the moment, Obama seems a little less favored for reelection. But who's his opposition? The clear front-runner for the Republican nomination is Mitt Romney. Romney, even now, appears to be the only Republican nominee who can beat Obama in a close election. It's true, Democrats will be quite deflated if Mitt becomes President. But Mitt agrees with them on most things. Mitt agrees with Obama more than the Tea Party. He agrees with Obama on cap and trade, and will presumably continue to implement that through the EPA; he will not likely ever cut taxes, and he might even let the Bush tax rates expire; he claims to be against ObamaCare, but even now he's in favor of all the principles upon which ObamaCare rests, the precise same principles he himself implemented in Massachusetts as Governor (and still defends).

If liberals really care about and believe in the policies of socialism, President Romney will be a good guardian of those principles until they can get a real socialist back in 2016. Plus, it's far from certain that Obama will be defeated. So what's the big deal?

From the point-of-view of a liberal, things are just fine, and will remain so for some time to come. From the point-of-view of objective reality, it's another story. Obama has just about wrecked the hampered and damaged economy he inherited. The damage of his first two years in office will be forever with us, as repeal of those policies is neither imminent nor (in some cases) possible. We've yet to see the full and lasting impact of that damage, particularly with ObamaCare and his EPA dictatorship.

Worst of all, a second term for Obama will unleash the true dictatorial impulses of contemporary liberalism in a way that the U.S. has not before seen. Yes, it's a good time to be a liberal socialist in America. It's not an especially great time to be sane.

The only way for America to survive the current and growing crisis is for most Americans to wake up. They must show that they value freedom, along with personal responsibility, more than these petty dictators in Washington value control and power. These little dictators in Washington would be impotent against the fury unleashed by a people who want to be left alone. But so long as most Americans remain humble, passive and submissive, the control from government will only grow.

Don't miss out on Dr. Hurd's latest book -- Bad Therapy Good Therapy -- Autographed Copies through this website only! Click Here.