Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Freedom in America, Part II

Have you discerned the problem?  Look at the last quote by Tocqueville in yesterdays post.  Without the moral grounding that he observed and commented on, all free governments will eventually evolve into some form of Oligarchy.  Why do we have problems defining the political parties?  Because those who benefit most, the "politicrats", all look alike.  The career politicians whose coffers are full to overflowing do not want to upset their powerful gravy train.

Marxism: Total control of the population by the government.  What one earns is to be shared by all.  The government decides the distribution, and only those in power get rich.

Facism: A system of government marked by a centralized government under a dictator.  There are stringent socio-economic controls, forced suppression of opposition by force, and censorship.  There is usually a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

With these two simplified definitions, you can see the problem with arriving at a definition that fits exactly.

Let's return to David's comments.

Before Obama's first election, I stated that he was not a liberal, in the classic American sense, but he was fooling a lot of liberals into thinking he was one of them.  I opined that he was a Progressive, a dangerous, radical offshoot of traditional liberalism which has taken over the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Many Progressives are outright Marxists operating under the guise of a benign form of Socialism.  I think that saying they despise every single fundamental principle which made us the greatest, freest country in the history of the world is not too general a statement. 

I remember Obama's campaign statement where he stated that he was "going to fundamentally change the United States of America."

I also remember that his political career was kicked off in the home of two totally unrepentant domestic terrorists whose life goals are to overthrow the government of the United States and replace it with Marxism.

Furthermore, in a 2001 radio interview Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the 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."

To Obama, and his handlers and minions, the Constitution is nothing more than a restraining influence which needs to be overcome or made inconsequential.

In 1805 Thomas Paine warned of such an attitude when he said, "A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal."

Well, the Progressives are doing it...and in record time.  After watching Obama, or to be more accurate his handlers, operate for a couple of years I decided that the political philosophy being forced upon us was a mix of fascism, without the nationalistic element, and socialism, without the takeover of all private enterprise.  Actually, when closely examined, it is more fascist than socialist.

One of the first things that a fascist government must do is centralize all power in the hands of, what in this country is referred to as, the executive branch of government.

Secondly, any former separation of power among the branches of government must be abolished or made irrelevant.

Thirdly, the Rule of Law must be replaced by a Rule of Men, and lying to the public must be  made an art form which is practiced by all parts of the government on a consistent basis.

Obama was somewhat cautious in his first term.  As he told the Russian president, failing to realize his microphone was off, “This is my last election.  After my election I will have more flexibility."

Although Obama didn't break too many laws in that term,  he did seize control of Chrysler and GM. When Harry Truman tried to do the same thing in 1952, the Supreme Court, FDR's handpicked court, ruled that he had no authority to seize private businesses.  Obama did cost the stockholders of those companies a fortune by ordering a reorganization which placed most of the stock in the hands of the unions and the government. Obama had no authority to take this action.  I think he did it to test the courts.  He wanted to see if he could get away with it, and he did. 

Simple bankruptcy by both of these companies would have left them solvent and operating so the government machinations were not required.  Of course, he also shoveled out billions of taxpayer dollars to these companies which has yet to be repaid, and probably never will be though he assured us it would be.

As a side note, Chrysler promptly opened a plant in China using those taxpayer dollars.


  1. Yes, it was pretty telling back there in 2009 when Putin was warning us that socialism doesn't work and our leader responded that he was going to do it right or some such thing. How quickly this has all come upon us... Many on the left are like the proverbial lab rats who are going to continue to push that lever for the freebies. "Wake up!" should be the hue and cry from one corner of the country to the other. Thanks, always, for being willing to be one of the country criers!

  2. Tomorrow I will attempt to round this up with some selected comments from David and some of my own commentary. The uninformed won't read this, and the liberals who profit from the tax payers funding will not care as long as the spigot is open. Thanks for commenting. Pappy


I encourage your comments. Keep the language civil and you will be published.