Many
things are holding the headlines hostage, the terrorist attacks, the crippling
effects of Obamacare, the prospect of expanding war in Syria, and as always
Iran.
There
is one over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact
that America has a President who advances values and policies diametrically
opposed to the traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans. From bowing
to foreign leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to
fundamentally transform America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many
the Manchurian Candidate.
Elected
the first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a
blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of
America into a welfare state. His bureaucratically imposed policies such as
Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are blatant end runs around the authority of a
Congress that overwhelmingly rejected both. The alarming reality we all must
face is that for the first time in American history we may actually have a
president who is anti-American.
Barack
Obama is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric. Such as:
“In
America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we
idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns
blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We
must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and
organizations.” Emphasis added.
“And
what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white
workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that
lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the
distribution of the nation’s wealth ...” Emphasis added.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues
of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues such as political and
economic justice in society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people
try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break
free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in
the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And the Warren Court
interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
negative liberties — says what the states can’t do to you — says what the
Federal government can’t do to you — but it doesn’t say what the Federal
government or State government must do on your behalf.
And
that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights
movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think
there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and
activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of
powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways
we still suffer from that …” Emphasis added.
These
positive rights are what Progressives have been trying to establish since FDR
floated his idea of a second bill of right which included:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
- The right of every family to a decent home
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
- The right to a good education
Now
all of these sound great and in a perfect world might make up a laundry list of
prizes falling out of the cornucopia of utopia. In a real world they would
mandate a government large enough to provide everything and powerful enough to
take everything away.
The
whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the government which is in
essence a charter of negative liberties.
President
Obama goes on to state, “Now,
just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in
Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this
economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of
everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes
-- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they
say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then
jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they
argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of
liberty.
Now,
it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged
individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in
America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the
problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked.”
And
of course there is his infamous “You didn’t build that” statement which exposes
his complete misunderstanding of what it takes to start and grow a business.
With
a leader such as this whose basic understanding of America is at such odds with
those who once constituted the majority of the citizens and the continuity of
our History is it any wonder that so many feel as if they are living in a
conquered nation?
Conquered
by who? As Pogo once told us, “We have met the
enemy and he is us.”
Or
as Garet Garrett,
quipped as he chronicled the fall of the Republic and the rise of the American
bureaucratic Empire said, “There are those who still think they are holding the
pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in
the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of
Depression, singing songs to freedom.”
No comments:
Post a Comment