There is one
over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact that America
has a President who advances values and policies diametrically opposed to the
traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans. From bowing to foreign
leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to fundamentally transform
America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many the Manchurian
Candidate.
Elected the
first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a
blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of America into a welfare state. His
bureaucratically imposed policies such as Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are
blatant end runs around the authority of a Congress that overwhelmingly
rejected both. The alarming reality we all must face is that for the
first time in American history we may actually have a president who is
anti-American.
Barack Obama
is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric. Such as:
“In America,
we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the
John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But
individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in
collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” Emphasis added.
“And what
would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers:
the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to
such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of
the nation’s wealth ...” Emphasis added.
“But the
Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and
more basic issues such as political and economic justice in 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, at least as it’s
been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that
generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties — says what the
states can’t do to you — says what the Federal government can’t do to you — but it
doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your
behalf.
And that
hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights
movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think
there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing
and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual
coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still
suffer from that …” Emphasis added.
These
positive rights are what Progressives have been trying to establish since FDR
floated his idea of a second bill of right which included:
·
The right to a useful and remunerative
job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
·
The right to earn enough to provide
adequate food and clothing and recreation
·
The right of every farmer to raise and
sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
·
The right of every businessman, large
and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and
domination by monopolies at home or abroad
·
The right of every family to a decent home
·
The right to adequate medical care and
the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
·
The right to adequate protection from
the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
·
The right to a good education
Now all of
these sound great and in a perfect world might make up a laundry list of prizes
falling out of the cornucopia of utopia. In a real world they would
mandate a government large enough to provide everything and powerful enough to
take everything away.
The whole idea
of having a constitution is to limit the government which is in essence a
charter of negative liberties.
President
Obama goes on to state, “Now,
just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in
Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this
economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If
we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy
-- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners
and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity
will eventually
trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity
doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.
Now, it's a
simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged
individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's
in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.
But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked.”
And of
course there is his infamous “You didn’t build that” statement
which exposes his complete misunderstanding of what it takes to start and grow
a business.
With a
leader such as this whose basic understanding of America is at such odds with
those who once constituted the majority of the citizens and the continuity of
our History is it any wonder that so many feel as if they are living in a
conquered nation?
Conquered by
who? As Pogo once told
us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Or as Garet Garrett,
quipped as he chronicled the fall of the Republic and the rise of the American
bureaucratic Empire said, “There are those who still think they are holding the
pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing
in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night
of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science,
and Religion. He is the Historian of the
Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013
Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com
Follow Dr.
Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie
Owens
