Obama is not the cause of government overreach and the push for socialism. He is merely a symptom (and excuse) for implementing a long-term objective of the far-left faction of the Democratic Party.
Worst-case scenario: If the liberal Democrats were ever able to codify their “womb to tomb” control of Americans without precipitating an armed revolt, it would fail . . . and Obama (not Pelosi, Reid, or their uber-liberal co-conspirators) would become the historic scapegoat for the eventual collapse of the republic.
The way you eat an elephant is one bite at a time. That has been the goal, objective, and plan of the epically wrong progressives who really believe (as an article of faith) that government can fix all problems.
Sure they are wrong . . . but this is not an exercise in empirical fact analysis . . . it is an article of faith by the left who fully embrace the gospel according to “them.” Frankly, there is a frightening similarity between the tribal Taliban fundamentalism of Islam with the ’60s virus of the far left.
Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., said, "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily, given the political realities, very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again.
“Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time.”
Shields was talking about banning guns but he understood incrementalism and was begrudgingly willing to be patient.
Reasonable, honest, or objective analysis of the goals and objectives of the left do not factor in to the power mongers control. Their jones is classic "us against them"/partisan "we right you wrong" sophistry. Just look at the absurdity of the Al Gore attempted pogrom with global warming. They routinely eschew any real debate, avoid any and all facts that contradict their preconceived opinions and prejudices and declare victory in a vacuum.
The American Thinker had a cool piece on why Obama’s socialism matters: “Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.”
Obama wants to change America; however, it begs two questions: 1) Does America need to change? And if so, 2) Is Obama’s socialist model the change that is wanted or needed.
I submit America does need to change (back to its constitutional republic model); and the socialist model is neither needed nor wanted by the majority.
The tragic flaw in the left's jihad is its failure to prepare the battlefield adequately. Oh, it has tried.
Those on the left limit debate, prevent introduction of facts, and use their majority as a bludgeon to cow critics. But it isn't working, and the tea parties, bloggers, talk radio, cable news, and annoying constitutionalists continue to enlighten, inform, and enrage at least half the country.
The Obama/left flaw is impatience. They thought the battle for the hearts and minds of America would be over after installing Obama. But it was just beginning.
Additionally their challenge is exacerbated by a growing list of lies, obfuscation, and bullying.
The biggest asset to the half of America that still clings to the dream of the republic is the chronic abuse of power, arrogance, and patronization of any and all critics.
P.J. O’Rourke has observed that, "The term consumerism has been current since the middle 1960s . . . Literally interpreted, the word means 'an ideology based on the opposite of being productive.'
“This ideology has caused enormous changes in the American economy. At one time complaining was a cottage industry. The typical maker of complaints gave them to (or traded them with) friends and family members.
“Sometimes the complaints were sent to newspapers or included in prayers. Friends, family, the press and God then ignored the complaints. In the sixties, however, various consumer advocates began to help complainers find a market for their wares. There is only one organization that is required to take everyone — and their complaints — seriously. So the government became the foremost grumble customer. And it is, of course, the government's bureaucratic agencies who have to do the buying."
Since the government became “the foremost grumble customer,” they assumed and presumed it was their job to fix any and all “grumbles.” That is not the job or ability of government.
Frankly, government can’t “give” us anything without first taking it from someone else. Despite efforts to hide from the reality, that is redistribution of wealth.
Will Rogers was spot on when he noted, “Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.”
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.