The Onslaught of Fascism

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ” Gerald Ford
It’s not even coming slowly any more. No, Barack Obama and his ever willing congress is attacking liberty at every turn. And it’s easy to spot when you know where to look, as it’s not hidden, the fascism is merely camoflaged. It’s simply called government spending. Each dollar that government spends beyond the most basic of national defense and police, the court system, etc. is a dollar spent in the enslavement of the American people. When someone spends more time working to pay taxes than they do for themselves are they actually free? Every single action of this administration has been to one dangerous end: more power for government. This is why instead of cutting taxes to “stimulate the economy”–which is exactly what tax cuts would do– we are spending trillions of dollars that we don’t have. It is a gamble which might make the Barack Obama Presidency significantly more infamous in the future than it has been historic thus far. How any supporter of Barack Obama can justify such massive spending when he hasn’t even begun bankrupting the country with nationalized healthcare and cap amd trade–aka economic suicide– is beyond me.
The result of these radical changes, if they are all implemented, particularly if the economy doesn’t begin picking up soon–I don’t know what will happen, I can’t conceive it, but it will signify the victory of fascism. This is why I don’t think it will happen. The American people will rise up. Obama is a shrewd politician and I don’t think anyone is ready for this radical change. The 2010 election seems so far away, but the Democrats’ overreaching will backfire. Reality is starting to kick in regarding Obama’s naive pledge to close Gitmo.
There’s so much to say here, so many things to write about, it’s very frustrating. I think my recent case of writer’s block is not for a lack of things to say or issues to talk about. To the contrary, there’s too much for my addled mind to focus on just one issue at a time. But it can all be boiled down to a simple idea: Barack Obama and liberals in general believe that they know better than individuals and corporations at running their lives and companies. The only logical solution for this new aristocracy is to take over for us all. And how will they accomplish this? By simply growing government. Every new regulation, every new tax, every new program, every extra-constitutional “czar” added to the President’s staff, every bailout, every smoking ban, every little annoyance, every nonsensical resolution, every government take over, every new welfare program–these are the building blocks of fascism, the links of the chains that enslave each and everyone of us. Please don’t misunderstand me; government is entirely necessary and is even capable of doing good. But it does so by protecting personal freedom. Once the government seeks to do good for individuals, once it steps outside reactive law enforcement and tries to protect people from themselves or bestow wealth to the poor, it begins to take away those freedoms it was supposed to protect.

Obama’s Hypocricy

“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

One thing that’s become painfully obvious to me since he took the office of the President is the very hypocritical nature of Barack Obama. I emphasize the word nature here, because it seems that it is something that he is totally unaware of. The other part of his character that has been exposed is his ability to blame shift, two qualities which complement each other quite nicely. Concerning the massive and crippling budget deficit, for instance, he did both. First, he blamed and attacked Bush for how huge the deficit had grown, then, just let us know how displeased he was with Bush’s deficit, Obama quadrupled it. He proposed spending that would result in the largest budget deficit mankind has ever known, and increased spending to degrees that might even have caused FDR or LBJ to blush–then, with no apparent irony, no tongue-in-cheek, and presumably straight faced, proposed an economic responsibility conference. Then, he makes a bold pledge to take the defecit which he quadrupled and cut it in half. Only after the economy grows at rates well beyond a prudent forecast would project. But the examples come out every day. Just yesterday he said that we can’t be perpetually bailing out the auto industry. This is another trick Obama plays. While on the campaign trail, Obama pledged he wouldn’t sign a bill with earmarks. Then, he signs a spending bill with thousands of earmarks and immediately declares that this is the last time he was going to do this. Yeah, right. He almost sounds like an addict, declaring this is his last beer, or this will be his last hit. But any objective observer could tell you that if he’s sincere, the addict would forego that last drink. 
Despite what he may say, Barack Obama isn’t spending this money out of necessity. He isn’t taking over companies like Mussolini because he has to. He’s doing it because he wants to. His actions belie fascist tendecies  few who merely listen to what he says could even imagine.

Obama’s stimulus: only for party members

This is a quote of a quote, but I think it is right on point. James Pethokoukis, quotes Economist Joel Kotkin here:http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/3/8/obamas-chicago-style-economics.html saying,

“The question is what strategy? Right now it seems like Chicago style interest politics with a Moveon.org spin. Money will be there for key what passes for”left” groups – urban real estate interests, greens, smart growthers, wind/solar lobby and, the shocktroops, the public employee unions. This is not a growth strategy but a politic technique designed to knit together a coalition of poor urbanites, bureaucrats, professors, greens and the Gorite energy speculators. It may work politically but I wonder what it will do longer-term for the economy.

Few serious people outside the Administration and its “ditto heads” around think this will turn around the private economy, although it may boost many individuals’ economies. Private sector employment is collapsing even in the last strong economies – the Great Plains and Texas. The hangover in capital markets will make the government the defacto funder of first resort.”

My thoughts precisely. These are investments with no expected payoff, except politically. Which is what liberals mean when they call public spending “investment.” It is an investment in their political future, an investment to grow their political base.

Understanding the 2008 election

“He changes times and seasons; He sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.” Daniel 2:21 (NIV)

This is perhaps the most difficult blog for me to ever write. Not that these are exceptionally difficult times or anything melodramatic like that. But because I am both perplexed and conflicted in writing it. Perplexed because I don’t understand the why, and conflicted because I want to think better of my countrymen. But here I am, writing, trying to simplify the complicated while still trying to figure it out. This is what I seek to do in every one of my blogs: to connect the dots which so often seem to be scattered so haphazardly. I do this because it seems that truth is constantly obscured, and also because it allows me to understand things personally. That is, while I know what I believe and what I think instictively, writing enables me to put things in perspective.  There is something enlightening about writing. Writing about a given subject doesn’t expose my understanding of it, but rather enables my understanding. I hope I can do the same thing for those reading this.
First, let’s understand that the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is not by any means the sole concern of the 2008 election, though of the contests it might have been the most clear. More troubling, it seems to me is the number of “red states” which turned “blue” in the national election. Obviously, this had to happen in order for Obama to win, but the way it happened is quite disconcerting. North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia aren’t supposed to vote for a democrat, but they all did. Likewise, Elizabeth Dole wasn’t supposed to lose her senate seat in the (formerly?) conservative state of North Carolina. Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate minority leader isn’t supposed to struggle to maintain his seat in conservative Kentucky. In Pennsylvania, the detestable Jack Murtha–who openly called his own constituents racists, then when confronted didn’t retract his comment, but instead changed his insult to rednecks–managed to keep his seat in Congress. Of course, this was not Murtha’s only repulsive comment in recent memory. Murtha infamously disgraced himself and discredited his military service by proclaiming that marines had killed innocent civilians in cold blood in the Iraqi city of Haditha. This, despite the fact that the investigation of the Haditha incident was still under investigation and Murtha hadn’t even read the report. But Murtha was an incumbent. The situation in Minnesota is almost as bad. The immently disgraceful one, Al Franken nearly won a US senate seat over the experienced, competent, independent and thoroughly likeable Norm Coleman. Franken isn’t even a good comedian, is an unsuccessful talk show host and a remarkably angry and meanspirited political commentator, and as cuddly as a porcupine. Yet Coleman barely won the election and it was so close there is a mandatory recount that will get started any month now. Granted, Dean Barkley entered the race and probably stole a few of Coleman’s votes, but the fact remains that Al Franken was only a couple hundred votes away from being Minnesota’s second radical left wing senator, possibly to the left of even Amy Klobuchar.
The examples of how liberal this election was are numerous and can be seen at nearly every level. The question is, why? Rather than impune motives, denegrate the intelligence, or question the patriotism of the electorate, I submit that to some extent this election was an indictment of our character. Specifically, this election exposed our growing love of convenience. Leisure has become our new national past time, one which we will legislate, if necessary. Why should we pay for and choose our own healthcare if the government can do it for us? Why should we have to work to pay off our school loans if the department of education can pay for it? Why should we have to pay attention to what we eat, when the FDA and legislators can just outlaw what’s bad for us? Why should we take responsibility for our family, when human services can handle it? We have spurned individual responsibility in favor of newly found “rights.” We have mistaken subjective fairness for objective justice and rejected reason in deference to emotion.
Barack Obama was wrong. His campaign slogan might have been “change we can believe in”, but it was nihilism–a belief in nothing at all– that won the day. This is not a declaration of defeat, nor an indictment of the United States as a whole. This is still the greatest country in the world, and we still love freedom more than anyone else. To lose faith in the American people is unthinkable, for it would mean surrendering to the same nihilism.

If only John McCain were as on point as his ads…

Nothing creepy or cult-like here…

“I begin with the young. We older ones are used up but my magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? Look at all these men and boys! What material! With you and I, we can make a new world.” Adolph Hitler, encouraging children to join the Hitler youth.

A study in contrasts: McCain’s Leadership, Obama’s lack of focus.

John McCain has set out a course of action. Barack Obama shrugged and said he will answer his phone if anyone needs him. McCain has set aside his campaign to focus on the biggest potential financial bailout in US history. Obama has intimated that its simply a matter of multitasking, like answering the phone while you are baking cookies. Or maybe calling for takeout while working on a spreadsheet. Is this Barack Obama’s belief in his own political superpowers? Does he actually believe he isn’t subject to the laws of physics and can actually be in two places (Washington and the campaign trail) at once? Or is he underestimating the importance of this issue? I would venture this: he believes, very firmly that talk is more important than action, that his campaign is more important than the economic crisis we’re facing, and most likely that once he becomes President “we will provide care to the sick and good jobs to the jobless…the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal” and since we will have a 100% employment for the first time in the history of the US (and not just employment mind you but “good jobs”) we shouldn’t have to worry about any current economic crisis. So that’s our two Presidential candidates’ plans in this, the biggest economic crisis in decades: one is going to Washington to commit his time in a very close election to helping solve the current crisis, the other is making sure to check his blackberry in between campaign events. One is leading by being involved, determined to get the best deal for the taxpayer and to get it done by this weekend, the other is determined to not let this crisis get in the way of his campaign.
You can tell a lot about someone’s character by looking at their priorities. Obama’s priority since gaining office has been his personal ambition, most likely with the idea that the more resposibility he had the more people he could help. This is probably why he voted “present” on 130 (presumably) controversial bills in the Illinois state senate, and began running for President a short two years and two weeks after being sworn into office in the US senate. You can also tell a lot about someone’s leadership by examining their response to crises. McCain has taken leadership by proposing an aggressive series of meetings with the President and leaders in Congress, affirming his resolve to come to a solution within the week. Obama has shirked responsibility, letting the leaders of Congress and the President figure it out themselves and letting them know they can call him if they need him. How anyone can see a leadership in Barack Obama’s reluctance to be involved in solving one of the biggest financial crises in recent history can only be explained by pure partisanship. Die hard leftists will support Obama no matter what, but those who value leadership, those who seek decisiveness and clear thinking in crises need to look elsewhere.

Obama: Thomas Not Smart Enough for Supreme Court.

Barack Obama almost said Clarence Thomas wasn’t experienced enough for the Supreme Court. Almost. Of course, Barack Obama is aiming for the highest office in the land with significantly less experience than Thomas had before being nominated for the supreme court. To be clear, what Obama actually said was, “I don’t think that he was exs…a…strong enough jurist or legal thinker…uh…at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution…uh…I would not nominate justice Scalia although I don’t think there’s any doubt of his intellectual brilliance.” Call me a race baiter but isn’t there a hint of racism here? Notice how he goes out of his way  to prove that he doesn’t think that Scalia or other justices he doesn’t like aren’t intelligent. Just the dumb ol’ black guy. There I go race baiting again. I can’t decide if it’s racism or a ridiculous double standard or just antipathy towards a “brother lite” such as Clarence Thomas. It’s probably all of the above. But consider this: Obama could have chosen any member of the Supreme Court, and he picks on the one black guy. If that’s not enough, he then goes on to insult Thomas’s intelligence. If this was anyone except The Chosen One –regardless of their race–that made these comments about anyone else, they would be called racist or at least be pilloried by the media. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be calling for his head on a platter. And most of it would be deserved.