Perhaps the most important distinction that is not being developed is that Barack Obama is an ideologue, a true believer in his cause where what is all important is his ability to use the power of the office of President of the United States to transform American society from the capitalistic, free enterprise system governed by a limited constitutional republic into a government of centralized authority where the Federal Government directs the priorities and scope of operation of the private sector and where the government determines what individual needs are justified. Once established, all Americans will be provided those needs and those who are deemed to have too much will face massive confiscation of their assets to be used to finance the greater role of government and to be redistributed to the public he deems deserving.
These perceptions are not that of a conservative writer. These come from Barack Obama’s own words, many of which were more revealing before he attempted to adapt his rhetoric to something easier to sell to get elected.
Barack Obama asserted he would rather be a one term President if that meant being able to accomplish his objectives. This viewpoint was reasserted by his spokesman, Robert Gibbs again this week. What is implicit in this position?
First, forget about the campaign rhetoric about being post-partisan willing to unite divided factions. His conduct so far has shown unwillingness to compromise and to write out Republican influence using House Speaker Pelosi as his enforcer. Where Obama has appeared to compromise has truly been more a matter of backing off realizing his position lacks support. He’ll back off and settle for something that gets his foot in the door on the issue. This technique is called incrementalism.
For the time being, pursuing “card check” the measure that would eliminate private union elections was not going to get enough support to be enacted. Obama backed off for now supporting rapid fire elections with little time to schedule and debate the union vote. The Administration also indicated it would not pursue the “fairness” doctrine where the FCC would determine the nature of political speech and force broadcasters to provide equal time for the opposite point of view. Imagine what that would do to a station that carries the big three: Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Instead, they are currently looking at changing station ownership rules that would impose friendlier station ownership that would accomplish the same goal. Nothing has changed the Obama agenda to silence their opponents over the public airwaves. Fortunately, there is no legal authority, at least not yet, to control satellite and cable broadcasts or Internet content.
Socialism traditionally has meant the government takes control of production, but that’s in the context of a strictly industrial based society. In post World War Two reality, the west has moved beyond industrialism to a more service and information based culture. With economies devastated by World War Two and vital resources in short supply, European nations flocked to socialism as an attempt to provide for the needs of society and allocate vital resources. What might have seen somewhat justified in the rubble of war, has turned out to be a huge burden for the European nations, most of whom are part of the European Union, whose governments are described as Democratic Socialists. Most industry is still in private hands, but the government regulates their operation broadly and more importantly, vital personal needs like medical care have been seized by the state who determines who gets what based on funding and what political considerations determine true need.
Essential to any socialist system is redistribution of wealth. Limits are placed through policy or taxation how much income can be achieved and how much property can be retained. Nothing tipped off Obama’s philosophy better than his exchange with Joe Wurzelbacher, “Joe the Plumber,” as he became known as a media figure. “Joe’s” questions took aim on Obama’s economic philosophy as well as his tax and economic policies. Candidate Obama’s responses were quite revealing none more so than when he specifically stated:
“And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”
Do we need any more illustration of how high a priority this is than the appointment of a Pay Tsar, an administrative post not subject to congressional confirmation, to monitor executive compensation and to make recommendations about salaries and compensation provisions deemed out of line. While the government can be justified in limiting compensation for publicly traded companies that have accepted TARP or bailout funds to stay afloat, the administration announced that they would be examining all publicly traded companies. Why? On what legal basis do they have such authority? This is socialism on its face.
On the specifics of Barack Obama’s desire to seize control of private sector health care, how can he reconcile his attempts to market the current proposals to rush through passage before too much scrutiny can reveal not only what’s in the bill but what the true intention of its supporters ultimately want to accomplish?
In 2003, just six years ago, then State Senator Barack Obama addressed the Illinois AFL-CIO and envisioned the following:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Shall we call this our smoking gun? Clearly an incremental approach, take as much as they can steal right way then go back for the rest later is insinuated in this speech.
As citizens examine what Barack Obama says in carefully prepared teleprompter speeches, it is important to understand what went into creating those speeches. Much polling and marketing research goes into naming various concepts and deciding what pitches to use which should have the maximum selling value to lure in public sympathy. Given how events played out in 2008, how could anyone not welcome “change you can believe in.” What no one asked was what specific changes did Barack Obama have in mind. Knowing that the population essentially wants government to leave them alone and not pay more taxes, he stated in various different ways he favored middle class tax cuts insisting he would not raise working peoples’ taxes. However, the other side of it was classic socialism, stirring up class resentment demonizing successful people who had earned much wealth as if their wealth was somehow ill-begotten and owed back to society.
Learn Obama’s biography. Study what he said to smaller audiences that are most sympathetic to his radical roots – the labor unions, grievance issue groups, and community organizing groups.
Look at what is going on with the organization most commonly known as ACORN and Barack Obama’s association with their efforts in the past and today as they and SEIU, perhaps the nation’s most radical union that originated in Chicago and broke away from the AFL-CIO to pursue a more radical agenda.
Examine the long list of Tsars and other White House appointees and see what background they hail from. Aside from some more moderate and established Washington window dressing Obama found in appointing former Clinton administration figures and DC insiders, most come from highly radical activist backgrounds or are connected with the corrupt Chicago political machine.
The more carefully one understands what drives Barack Obama, it is clear his stated desire to “transform” America, this pledge was far more than part of articulating “change” but a clear indication he has a complete agenda to reshape the function of government in our day-to-day lives.
Realizing where the President recognizes immediate victory is not possible and he is willing to use his incremental strategy to get his policies slipping through the door with the threat of the ever-possible “Trojan Horse” what is publicized to accomplish a reasonably popular objective but in fact aims toward far more radical objectives, it is dangerous to support ANY Obama administration initiative for what looks harmless in isolation could be a building block to something far more dangerous and sinister.
On the health care issue, nothing better stated Barack Obama’s true philosophy than his remarks quoted above from 2003. Since his inauguration last January, we’ve seen him feed various different positions attempting to find the right marketing ploy the public will embrace. From starting with containing health care costs which early research putting a price tag on the health care proposal by the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) over a trillion dollars, then going through other stated objectives to now it’s supposedly “insurance reform” while his henchmen like Henry Waxman attempts to demonize the health insurance industry, the pattern of deception cannot be more obvious.
While the Democrats and mainstream media paint Rush Limbaugh as a vicious demagogue, an extreme right wing hate merchant, and the shadow leader of the Republican Party, perhaps his statement that caused such a stir in the media last winter should become every American’s rallying cry. When Rush Limbaugh didn’t shy away from boldly asserting he wants Obama to fail, explaining specifically he wants his policies to fail, how can we not see just how dead on target his message is. We absolutely cannot afford to have any major Obama policy initiatives to succeed.
The task of undoing the harm could be a challenge the likes of which the United States has never come close to having been forced to undertake before.
We must be prepared. We must speak out against Barack Obama at every turn, clearly, succinctly, with a clear understanding of the facts and issues that drive our criticism. We cannot be intimidated by the attempts to discredit our vision as being motivated by factors we know they are not. We are not racists. We do care about the misfortunate in our society. We do want to fix problems in medicine, education, and the environment. We do not accept a sweeping conversion to socialism to accomplish it.
That’s the crux of the debate. It’s time to act.
No comments:
Post a Comment