Image via WikipediaIn segment 3 he says: "Community organizers take discontent wherever it may be found and attempt to turn that in the direction of their true long term goals....move the country toward socialism."
Having been educated in socialistic undergraduate and graduate Social Work environments I can attest that this is indeed the case. I had to read Cloward and Piven AND Alinsky for goodness sakes! I guess, though, I should be happy about that. It helped open my eyes because much to the chagrin of my professors I left my common sense switch in the on position and regularly asked questions that they did not like. Was it the icy stare or the attempt to humiliate me that gave me the clue that my questions were not welcomed? I'd say they both played pivotal roles :-)
In segment 4 he says: "At every turn Obama has attempted to disguise his socialist past....you need political honesty which is required if democracy is going to work." (and) " Socialists worked within the Democratic Party, seizing on elements of the liberal program that were most likely to put the country on an irreversible and structural path toward socialism...corporate democracy...grabbing control of the economy from below."
In one of their "let's call it something else" moves socialists started calling themselves contemporary liberals (NOT to be confused with classic liberals) but still maintained their socialistic ideologies. They had previously been referring to themselves as progressives until the American people began to realize just what the heck they were trying to do to our Constitutional Republic. So, they did what they always do, they changed the term to liberal. As I've said before in many of my posts it doesn't matter what they call themselves the world view is still the same.
In segment 5 he responds to the question "Why does this (Obama's socialistic past, present, and future) matter?" (as an example) Reagan leveled with the American public; he was conservative and made no bones about it. He helped to bring the public along; to convince them and if he was opposed it was for honest reasons. Obama has not done that. He has not advocated ANY ideology openly....casting most of his actions as "pragmatic fixes" to the economy. If you do not understand the ideology behind his actions how can you evaluate his reforms?" (emphasis mine)
For example, regulation....is he (Obama) using regulation and executive order to make pragmatic system fixes or fulfilling the wishes of Congress...OR...is he using it to provoke a much more radical systemic change by abusing the regulatory process.....(which results in) the subverting of the democratic process by holding back on his true long term intentions....class-based battles. (emphasis mine.)
The political debate in our Constitutional Republic depends on the open and honest competition in the arena of ideas. As stated above: if you do not know and fully understand the ideology behind this administration's actions then you cannot adequately evaluate whether or not you support them. I would slightly disagree with Mr. Kurtz when he says that Barack Obama has not advocated any ideology openly. As I pointed out in my previous post, The Obama Narrative, he has, by his actions made a statement about his intentions through his actions. They are not as direct and "in your face" as some of the emails circulating but they ARE there if you take the time to look closely enough. I found a collection of some of the things Obama and other progressives/socialists have said that will give you a look inside their world view; hope you can believe in becomes "socialism you can believe in." Taking things away from you through coercion or force in order to "make everything equal in everybody's house" is the change Obama spoke of. How many people really realize that is what the progressives are saying? I am a Christian. I believe we need to take care of each other....but by choice and by following the gospel. The government is not part of that equation.
In my previous post I suggested a book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage. For a somewhat shorter resource you might consider How Obama Thinks by the same author at Forbes.com. In this article Mr. D'Souza says:
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution. (Emphasis mine)
You've heard the claims about the goal of the"redistribution of wealth." In January of this year President Obama signed an executive order that he said in an op-ed would "root out dumb and outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive." What many don't know about this executive order is that it now:
allows agencies, in weighing costs and benefits for example, to consider “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts,” and each agency must “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).” [Emphasis added]
Golly gee Wally that sounds great! However, I've asked it before and I'll ask it again now: WHO gets to define things like equity, human dignity, and distributive impacts? It's at times like this I am reminded of the frequent use of the word "inconceivable" in the movie The Princess Bride. At one point a statement of the obvious is made: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!" And that, my friends is just the point. I don't think the majority of people fully understand that the concept of "social justice" is diametrically opposed to our long cherished concept of equal justice.
In closing I'd like to share some wisdom and some humor from one of our greatest presidents:
"Beware the temptation to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." --Ronald Reagan
....and now for the humor watch this video :-)
Some other readings for your consideration and continuing education:
Spontaneous Order by John Stossel
Reagan Revisionism by Matt Kibbe
Reagan Revisionism 2 by Matt Kibbe
Barack Obama vs Ludwig von Mises at the Economic Policy Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment