Over the past few months I have noticed an interesting trend in President Obama's political rhetoric. Whenever his administration tries to push through a contentious piece of legislation, or begins to run up against any opposition, Obama tries to sweep away all discourse by invoking the November elections as a mandate for his policies. It is almost as if he means to say that after his election, there is no further need for discussion or debate.
The way I see it, the debate is never over. The First Amendment to the Constitution exists to protect contentious speech. Not polite speech or politically correct speech, but the very speech that is irritating and offensive to those with a divergent point of view.
The election of Barack Obama as President allows him to bring his policies and viewpoint to the forefront for debate and discussion. So that as Americans, we can look at his agenda and decide, on each issue, whether or not we agree with the policy.
The November election results does not give the President carte blanche to proceed unchecked and unchallenged. He is the President of the United States. He should keep that in mind every time he says that "he is bringing the change that Americans voted for". Mr. President, keep in mind that what we voted for was for a fresh point of view, for a new point of departure for discussion on each and every issue that lies ahead. Last year we elected the 44th President of the United States, not it's first emperor.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Spark of Politics
Politics. Most of you know that I am a conservative thinker. No matter which side of the political spectrum that you hail from, I always insist that there must be an honest expression of ideas and arguments. I always appreciate a vigorous discussion. We may not always agree, but I will defend my position openly and fairly. The open exchange of countervailing points of view is the crux of a democratic republic.
I openly admit that I oppose HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. I do so for a host of reasons that I will reserve for a latter time. However, my primary motive for writing is to expose the deceitful tactics of the Obama Administration in trying to pass HR 3200.
This deceit can be best expressed by the administration's own attempts to refute that HR 3200 is a Trojan Horse for a Single Payer System. Click on the link below for the three minute rebuttal from the White House Health Reform Communications Office. In this video, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things , Linda Douglas explains her task of controlling the disinformation swirling around HR 3200.
However, her rebuttal is a response to a video shown on breitbart.tv, which was allegedly cobbled together, taken out of context to distort the President's views on Universal Health Care. Here is that video : http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/
Here is an uncut, unedited 45 second video of President Obama giving a speech at an AFL-CIO Union conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=related
Having seen these three videos, you can decide for yourself whether or not Obama supports a Single Payer System. You can also decide whether or not the administration is waging a campaign of disinformation.
A distorted argument predicated on bias and deceit is untenable. The truth does not need a majority to triumph. Demand an honest debate about HR 3200 from your representatives. Please call and let em know what you think.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Quiet Radical. Part 1
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama presented himself a moderate centrist to the American people. He courted the middle class sounding very much like a financial conservative, promising tax cuts for 95% of the electorate. Many took him prima facie. In fact, a few well-known conservative pundits applauded Obama’s intellect and ensured that he would govern as a centrist. That was 9 months ago.
Lately, there has been a rising tide of critics asserting that the Obama Administration’s policies are fundamentally rooted in Socialism. The President is endeavoring to remake America into something not yet fully disclosed or realized. The President’s actions have led to the most unprecedented expansion of federal power in the history of the United States. The U.S. government is now the primary stockholder in General Motors. It has a minority stock position in Chrysler as well. After infusing $6.6 Billion into Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, the government awarded 55% of the stock to the Retired Autoworkers Union. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both Government Sponsored Enterprises, own the majority of home mortgages in the United States. In a few short months, we have nationalized the banking, mortgage and automotive industries. The government’s control into the private financial sector is growing at an alarming rate.
There are many Americans who believe that there is something more sinister at play than just politics as usual. You can see the discontent manifesting itself at town hall meetings all across the land. Americans are demanding to be heard and their opposition to socialized universal health care is nothing less than the defense of individual liberty and freedom.
In the United States, the vast majority of the electorate unilaterally rejects the politics of Marxism and Socialism. The American people have been conditioned to react negatively to the notion that a centrally controlled economy can create social and economic justice for all its citizens through the redistribution of wealth. Marxism defines the struggles of class warfare and seeks to remedy the inequities of circumstance through governmental policies and institution. The Marxist notion of a socialist government can be surmised with the well-known phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Socialism has been proven on the world stage to be a dismal failure. As such, Marxism must be disguised.
By it’s very definition, Marxism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism. In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinky wrote:
A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism.
For most Americans, a Marxist is a radical with an extreme agenda whose aim is to dismantle and destroy the capitalist system and displace it with a centrally controlled economy. The American people reject this radicalism and rightfully so. Is Barack Obama really a Marxist?
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist.
Still the charges persist in the never-ending onslaught of accusations and criticisms from conservatives and independents alike. They berate Obama’s past as a community organizer in Chicago. What exactly is a community organizer and what is his purpose? To answer this question, we refer to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals where he writes, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.”
Alinsky goes on to describe the function of the organizer, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… agitate to the point of conflict”. By it’s very definition, a community organizer seeks to dismantle and destroy their communities to make room for the new organization of the society.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, many Americans dismiss the claim that Barack Obama is an avowed leftist bent on radical, sweeping change. Classified as cable chatter, the critics’ revelation of Obama’s far left ideology is often met with indignant surprise. A denial fueled by the belief that it is simply impossible for Obama to be as radical as it is claimed. Yet, his entire economic policy is predicated on the acceptance of the inherent inequity of the capitalist system. The wealthiest Americans should pay more because they have more. The poor should be given more, in the forms of tax credits and programs, because they have less. Even those that do not earn enough to actually pay taxes should be given a tax rebate in the name of fairness. That is compassion. That is social justice. What can be more American? It is clear that the basis of Obama’s economic theories have their roots in the prime axiom of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician. He seeks to elevate political discourse and society to new heights, promising to end divisiveness. Yet, when we listen to his own words on taxes, he tells us that 95% of the American people will receive tax cuts; thus, leaving the remaining 5% to shoulder their fair share of the burden. How can anyone possibly argue that this tax policy is radical? Consider this. Even if taken at face value, that only 5% of the wealthiest Americans would be required to pay more taxes under his plan, this is an obvious attempt to pit one economic class against another. Class envy and warfare are primary concerns of Marxist ideology.
Lately, there has been a rising tide of critics asserting that the Obama Administration’s policies are fundamentally rooted in Socialism. The President is endeavoring to remake America into something not yet fully disclosed or realized. The President’s actions have led to the most unprecedented expansion of federal power in the history of the United States. The U.S. government is now the primary stockholder in General Motors. It has a minority stock position in Chrysler as well. After infusing $6.6 Billion into Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, the government awarded 55% of the stock to the Retired Autoworkers Union. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both Government Sponsored Enterprises, own the majority of home mortgages in the United States. In a few short months, we have nationalized the banking, mortgage and automotive industries. The government’s control into the private financial sector is growing at an alarming rate.
There are many Americans who believe that there is something more sinister at play than just politics as usual. You can see the discontent manifesting itself at town hall meetings all across the land. Americans are demanding to be heard and their opposition to socialized universal health care is nothing less than the defense of individual liberty and freedom.
In the United States, the vast majority of the electorate unilaterally rejects the politics of Marxism and Socialism. The American people have been conditioned to react negatively to the notion that a centrally controlled economy can create social and economic justice for all its citizens through the redistribution of wealth. Marxism defines the struggles of class warfare and seeks to remedy the inequities of circumstance through governmental policies and institution. The Marxist notion of a socialist government can be surmised with the well-known phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Socialism has been proven on the world stage to be a dismal failure. As such, Marxism must be disguised.
By it’s very definition, Marxism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism. In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinky wrote:
A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism.
For most Americans, a Marxist is a radical with an extreme agenda whose aim is to dismantle and destroy the capitalist system and displace it with a centrally controlled economy. The American people reject this radicalism and rightfully so. Is Barack Obama really a Marxist?
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist.
Still the charges persist in the never-ending onslaught of accusations and criticisms from conservatives and independents alike. They berate Obama’s past as a community organizer in Chicago. What exactly is a community organizer and what is his purpose? To answer this question, we refer to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals where he writes, “From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.”
Alinsky goes on to describe the function of the organizer, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… agitate to the point of conflict”. By it’s very definition, a community organizer seeks to dismantle and destroy their communities to make room for the new organization of the society.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, many Americans dismiss the claim that Barack Obama is an avowed leftist bent on radical, sweeping change. Classified as cable chatter, the critics’ revelation of Obama’s far left ideology is often met with indignant surprise. A denial fueled by the belief that it is simply impossible for Obama to be as radical as it is claimed. Yet, his entire economic policy is predicated on the acceptance of the inherent inequity of the capitalist system. The wealthiest Americans should pay more because they have more. The poor should be given more, in the forms of tax credits and programs, because they have less. Even those that do not earn enough to actually pay taxes should be given a tax rebate in the name of fairness. That is compassion. That is social justice. What can be more American? It is clear that the basis of Obama’s economic theories have their roots in the prime axiom of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician. He seeks to elevate political discourse and society to new heights, promising to end divisiveness. Yet, when we listen to his own words on taxes, he tells us that 95% of the American people will receive tax cuts; thus, leaving the remaining 5% to shoulder their fair share of the burden. How can anyone possibly argue that this tax policy is radical? Consider this. Even if taken at face value, that only 5% of the wealthiest Americans would be required to pay more taxes under his plan, this is an obvious attempt to pit one economic class against another. Class envy and warfare are primary concerns of Marxist ideology.
The Quiet Radical. Part 2
While a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama gave an interview to a local radio station in which he defined the responsibilities of government. He said, “Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the state government or the federal government must do on your behalf.” In his view, the role of government is to provide fairness of opportunity for the American people through an institutionalized redress of grievances.
Furthermore, he lamented that “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.” Here Obama suggests that the Supreme Court should engage in making policy on behalf of the American people. Considering that Obama is a Constitutional scholar, it seems odd that he would ignore the Supreme Court’s specifically defined role as the judiciary branch of the government. In essence, this is a radical re-interpretation of the separation of powers favoring a legislative role for the high court.
Deceit has always been the spark of politics. Radical change, by its very nature, is far too unsavory and extreme to be embraced publicly. How then, does Marxism wrest power from the people and consolidate control over liberty? How do you move an electorate against its own best interest towards a system of government that has enslaved hundreds of millions of people? Deceit.
If you believe that Barack Obama is a moderate and by definition incapable of being a Marxist, consider that radicalism must always disguise its true nature. The father of modern American radicalism, Saul Alinsky, authored the definitive manifesto instructing radicals how to make their views more palpable to the electorate. He taught that “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”.
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society.
Barack Obama is a student of the Alinsky Method. In fact, Obama taught the Alinsky Method in workshops for community organizers and activists.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." When Obama mocks the assertion he is a socialist, he ridicules the possibility to marginalize his critics and relegate the very notion to absurdity.
When Obama rails against the failed economic policies of the last eight years as the tired ideology of the past, he really wants you to focus on economic recession of the present. When Obama says that he wants to find “people who have life experience and they understand, what it means to be on the outside…” to populate the Supreme Court, he is advocating a fundamental change in the structure of government. He wants to reshape the separation of powers by expanding the Supreme Court’s authority into policy making on issues of social and economic justice.
Examine the rules as set forth by Saul Alinsky for radical change. Then consider the meteoric rise to power of Barack Obama. Consider his worldview, his training and education. Consider his experience as a community organizer as defined by Obama himself. Consider the careful expression of class warfare in the well-crafted rhetoric of his speeches.
In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that he sought out the company of Marxist professors. Consider the people that have shaped his worldview. Consider Reverend Wright’s fiery Black Liberation theology with its origins in Marxism and obvious hatred for the current social construct. Consider William Ayers, a professed Communist and former terrorist, who recently celebrated Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez’ anti-capitalist education reforms. Ayers, who works tirelessly to undermine capitalism and promote communist theory in academia, served with Obama on the Annenberg Foundation board to reform elementary and secondary school systems. Consider Bernadine Dohrn, one of the founding members of the domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, who was the principal signatory of a declaration of war against the United States government in 1970. Dohrn clearly supported communist ideology when she wrote: “ We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism”. Dohrn is a known associate of Obama who along with her husband, William Ayers, helped launch his political career in Chicago.
“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”. –Saul Alinsky.
The story of Barack Obama is a bit older than you might think. You can find his tale in one of Aesop’s better known fables:
A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist. Precisely.
Furthermore, he lamented that “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth…and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.” Here Obama suggests that the Supreme Court should engage in making policy on behalf of the American people. Considering that Obama is a Constitutional scholar, it seems odd that he would ignore the Supreme Court’s specifically defined role as the judiciary branch of the government. In essence, this is a radical re-interpretation of the separation of powers favoring a legislative role for the high court.
Deceit has always been the spark of politics. Radical change, by its very nature, is far too unsavory and extreme to be embraced publicly. How then, does Marxism wrest power from the people and consolidate control over liberty? How do you move an electorate against its own best interest towards a system of government that has enslaved hundreds of millions of people? Deceit.
If you believe that Barack Obama is a moderate and by definition incapable of being a Marxist, consider that radicalism must always disguise its true nature. The father of modern American radicalism, Saul Alinsky, authored the definitive manifesto instructing radicals how to make their views more palpable to the electorate. He taught that “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”.
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society.
Barack Obama is a student of the Alinsky Method. In fact, Obama taught the Alinsky Method in workshops for community organizers and activists.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." When Obama mocks the assertion he is a socialist, he ridicules the possibility to marginalize his critics and relegate the very notion to absurdity.
When Obama rails against the failed economic policies of the last eight years as the tired ideology of the past, he really wants you to focus on economic recession of the present. When Obama says that he wants to find “people who have life experience and they understand, what it means to be on the outside…” to populate the Supreme Court, he is advocating a fundamental change in the structure of government. He wants to reshape the separation of powers by expanding the Supreme Court’s authority into policy making on issues of social and economic justice.
Examine the rules as set forth by Saul Alinsky for radical change. Then consider the meteoric rise to power of Barack Obama. Consider his worldview, his training and education. Consider his experience as a community organizer as defined by Obama himself. Consider the careful expression of class warfare in the well-crafted rhetoric of his speeches.
In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that he sought out the company of Marxist professors. Consider the people that have shaped his worldview. Consider Reverend Wright’s fiery Black Liberation theology with its origins in Marxism and obvious hatred for the current social construct. Consider William Ayers, a professed Communist and former terrorist, who recently celebrated Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez’ anti-capitalist education reforms. Ayers, who works tirelessly to undermine capitalism and promote communist theory in academia, served with Obama on the Annenberg Foundation board to reform elementary and secondary school systems. Consider Bernadine Dohrn, one of the founding members of the domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, who was the principal signatory of a declaration of war against the United States government in 1970. Dohrn clearly supported communist ideology when she wrote: “ We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism”. Dohrn is a known associate of Obama who along with her husband, William Ayers, helped launch his political career in Chicago.
“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within”. –Saul Alinsky.
The story of Barack Obama is a bit older than you might think. You can find his tale in one of Aesop’s better known fables:
A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.
Barack Obama is articulate, personable and very intelligent. He is engaging, thoughtful and compassionate. These are hardly the qualities of a radical Marxist whose aim is too destroy the fundamental underpinnings of American society. Obama, after all, loves the country and is simply too mainstream America to be a radical Marxist. Precisely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)