I suppose if there is a bright light on the horizon it is the fact that important discussions on the direction of our nation are finally taking place. The actions of government since the election of Barack Obama have sent a clear message across the country that this is the year we must act to restore our Constitution or there very well may be no Constitution to restore. As November approaches, we may end up thanking President Obama; not for his agenda, but for his arrogance. The Progressive movement saw in Obama, a President that would end their wait and take bold action to finish the work begun by American Socialists during the early years of the twentieth century. The end result is today’s Progressives are so emboldened by President Obama that they are standing out in the open for a change and attempting to force transformative change upon an unwilling society.
Saul Alinsky made it clear in his book “Rules for Radicals” that an open attempt to force major change would be met with harsh opposition. His tactics called for subterfuge and infiltration to gain the advantage over an unwilling public. He strategized that by looking and sounding like Middle America, one could guide political conversations and eventually gain support for a whole host of Socialist programs by cloaking them in a false sense of urgency or compassionate need. Well, since the election of Obama the cloak has been lifted and the light of day is shining on the most massive and immediate shift towards Socialism ever attempted by the left. The resistance Alinsky predicted certainly came as expected but with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Progressives didn’t concern themselves with the outcry of concerned Americans as they pushed forward.
Some have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said the so-called “comprehensive” healthcare bill was now going to be followed by much more legislation. She added that it is really more about diet than diabetes indicating that Americans have surrendered more than their freedom where the purchase of healthcare insurance is concerned and may soon be subject to government interference in what they eat and how they live.
John Dingell (D-MI) said in a recent interview with Paul W. Smith “The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Mr. Dingell doesn’t say what kind of control he is talking about but it is clear that this bill is about far more than the access to affordable healthcare that they sold it as.
Max Baucus (D-MT) was interviewed by CSPAN as the Senate voted on the reconciliation package. Appearing disheveled and sounding tired, Baucus may have spilled more than he planned because his comments finally admitted what many of us had feared; that the healthcare bill had less to do with health than it did with some warped Progressive idea of Social Justice. Baucus rambled before the cameras “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
So a healthcare bill that was sold to the American people as being designed to address the problem of thirty million Americans that could not afford healthcare insurance and would have the additional benefit of reducing the cost of insurance for employers, the Federal government and average citizens, suddenly has a myriad of new purposes that were never discussed or disclosed until it was already signed by the President. Now that it is actually law, they are willing to tell us that in addition to forcing everyone to buy health insurance, it will control diet, it will control us and it will fulfill the Socialist dream of stealing the earnings of those that create wealth to fund entitlements given to those that merely consume wealth.
To the many of us that actually took the time to look past the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama and research the man himself; this comes as no surprise. Most of this was already out there well before his bid for the Presidency. He had always supported a universal, national healthcare system; he said that he did not believe in reparations for slavery because in his own words “reparations do not go far enough” and he said that “the Constitution was a document of negative values because it only said what the government could not do to you”.
Obama admitted in his own book and in his own words “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Even the photograph that has been widely circulated of his days as a college professor contained more proof than we needed. It shows professor Obama at the blackboard adding detail to a chart taken directly from Alinsky’s book. Now why would someone that claimed to be a centrist late in his campaign for President be teaching Marxist economic principals taken directly from a book written by an icon of Progressive radicalism?
I think Reverend Al Sharpton said it all when he admitted in an interview with Fox news "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people…the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised." I’m sure that revelation comes as a shock to all the people that voted for hope and change and had not considered that Socialism was one of Obama’s campaign promises.
Despite two years of candidate Obama’s rhetoric, hope and change are awfully hard to find right now. Nearly 80% of Americans fear the economy is on the verge of collapse and even though the President promised new focus on economic stability and jobs during the State of the Union Address, Barack “Nero” Obama is still fiddling around with healthcare, immigration reform and cap and trade as the Federal government under his leadership racks up a second straight year of record budget deficits; adding three trillion dollars to our unsustainable debt. In fact, Obama’s deficits are nearly four times higher than the deficits that he roasted Bush for during the campaign. Don’t get me wrong…I am not defending the spending policies of the Bush administration. Part of the reason Obama was elected was that Bush personified a Republican Party that had turned its back on conservative values and not only lost the trust of independent voters but lost the attention of the Republican base as well.
As far as change is concerned, there is little that Obama can claim there either. He said he would unite Washington with a new sense of bipartisanship and then pursued an agenda so radical that he was barely able to get it past moderate Democrats in his own Party. Every closed door meeting and corrupt deal he brokered to gain passage of healthcare led people to question “where is the change?” Every story of waste, abuse and cronyism associated with his massive stimulus bill caused people to ask “where is the change?” Of course, Democrats in Congress and in the Liberal press didn’t help his case when all they would offer is how many times these strategies were used by Republicans in the past. Well, if Obama is going to continue the same tactics used by the Bush administration; again, “where is the change?”
The change is there all right; it’s just not what he promised or people expected. As the statements made by Obama and his Progressive friends add to the tally of Socialist rants, those of us that warned about their intentions from the start suddenly don’t look as crazy as we did in January of 2009.
Paul
Saul Alinsky made it clear in his book “Rules for Radicals” that an open attempt to force major change would be met with harsh opposition. His tactics called for subterfuge and infiltration to gain the advantage over an unwilling public. He strategized that by looking and sounding like Middle America, one could guide political conversations and eventually gain support for a whole host of Socialist programs by cloaking them in a false sense of urgency or compassionate need. Well, since the election of Obama the cloak has been lifted and the light of day is shining on the most massive and immediate shift towards Socialism ever attempted by the left. The resistance Alinsky predicted certainly came as expected but with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Progressives didn’t concern themselves with the outcry of concerned Americans as they pushed forward.
Some have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said the so-called “comprehensive” healthcare bill was now going to be followed by much more legislation. She added that it is really more about diet than diabetes indicating that Americans have surrendered more than their freedom where the purchase of healthcare insurance is concerned and may soon be subject to government interference in what they eat and how they live.
John Dingell (D-MI) said in a recent interview with Paul W. Smith “The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Mr. Dingell doesn’t say what kind of control he is talking about but it is clear that this bill is about far more than the access to affordable healthcare that they sold it as.
Max Baucus (D-MT) was interviewed by CSPAN as the Senate voted on the reconciliation package. Appearing disheveled and sounding tired, Baucus may have spilled more than he planned because his comments finally admitted what many of us had feared; that the healthcare bill had less to do with health than it did with some warped Progressive idea of Social Justice. Baucus rambled before the cameras “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
So a healthcare bill that was sold to the American people as being designed to address the problem of thirty million Americans that could not afford healthcare insurance and would have the additional benefit of reducing the cost of insurance for employers, the Federal government and average citizens, suddenly has a myriad of new purposes that were never discussed or disclosed until it was already signed by the President. Now that it is actually law, they are willing to tell us that in addition to forcing everyone to buy health insurance, it will control diet, it will control us and it will fulfill the Socialist dream of stealing the earnings of those that create wealth to fund entitlements given to those that merely consume wealth.
To the many of us that actually took the time to look past the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama and research the man himself; this comes as no surprise. Most of this was already out there well before his bid for the Presidency. He had always supported a universal, national healthcare system; he said that he did not believe in reparations for slavery because in his own words “reparations do not go far enough” and he said that “the Constitution was a document of negative values because it only said what the government could not do to you”.
Obama admitted in his own book and in his own words “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Even the photograph that has been widely circulated of his days as a college professor contained more proof than we needed. It shows professor Obama at the blackboard adding detail to a chart taken directly from Alinsky’s book. Now why would someone that claimed to be a centrist late in his campaign for President be teaching Marxist economic principals taken directly from a book written by an icon of Progressive radicalism?
I think Reverend Al Sharpton said it all when he admitted in an interview with Fox news "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people…the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised." I’m sure that revelation comes as a shock to all the people that voted for hope and change and had not considered that Socialism was one of Obama’s campaign promises.
Despite two years of candidate Obama’s rhetoric, hope and change are awfully hard to find right now. Nearly 80% of Americans fear the economy is on the verge of collapse and even though the President promised new focus on economic stability and jobs during the State of the Union Address, Barack “Nero” Obama is still fiddling around with healthcare, immigration reform and cap and trade as the Federal government under his leadership racks up a second straight year of record budget deficits; adding three trillion dollars to our unsustainable debt. In fact, Obama’s deficits are nearly four times higher than the deficits that he roasted Bush for during the campaign. Don’t get me wrong…I am not defending the spending policies of the Bush administration. Part of the reason Obama was elected was that Bush personified a Republican Party that had turned its back on conservative values and not only lost the trust of independent voters but lost the attention of the Republican base as well.
As far as change is concerned, there is little that Obama can claim there either. He said he would unite Washington with a new sense of bipartisanship and then pursued an agenda so radical that he was barely able to get it past moderate Democrats in his own Party. Every closed door meeting and corrupt deal he brokered to gain passage of healthcare led people to question “where is the change?” Every story of waste, abuse and cronyism associated with his massive stimulus bill caused people to ask “where is the change?” Of course, Democrats in Congress and in the Liberal press didn’t help his case when all they would offer is how many times these strategies were used by Republicans in the past. Well, if Obama is going to continue the same tactics used by the Bush administration; again, “where is the change?”
The change is there all right; it’s just not what he promised or people expected. As the statements made by Obama and his Progressive friends add to the tally of Socialist rants, those of us that warned about their intentions from the start suddenly don’t look as crazy as we did in January of 2009.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment