Sorry it has taken me so long to follow up on my previous post last week about my opportunity to hear Mark Levin speak at the Churchill Dinner in Washington, DC. It was so encouraging to spend an evening with like-minded people who care about our Constitution and want to see our country prosper as a free society instead of a socialist republic. There were probably around 350 people in attendance, and after a delicious dinner the Hillsdale College President Larry Arne spoke for about 30 minutes, followed by a 30 minute speech by Mark Levin. Pat Sajak, the host of Wheel of Fortune and the Vice-President of the Hillsdale College Board of Trustees, gave a hilarious toast to Winston Churchill to close the evening.
Both Arne and Levin gave great speeches, and the basic message of both was similar. There is a serious attack currently being launched against our Constitution and against the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution. This attack is being perpetrated by our president and by our Congress, as well as unelected judges. The essential fight is between liberty and tyranny, between constitutionalism and statism. It is a brazen attempt to transform our country from a constitutional republic into a socialist state. The real power in a constitutional republic rests with the civil society, which is made up of free individuals pursuing their God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Its constitutionally-limited government is the servant to the people, whose rights are guaranteed by their Creator. The real power in a socialist state rests with an all-powerful federal government, which takes most of people's money through taxation and then distributes it back to its citizen-slaves as it deems best. The people's rights are "guaranteed" by a government that provides cradle-to-grave entitlements and regulates their every activity, reducing them to virtual slavery and trampling on the Constitution. Our country, though founded as a constitutional republic, has been steadily moving toward socialism for many years, starting with Abraham Lincoln and accelerating in this direction under FDR. Obama and our current Congress are more brazen about their socialist/Marxist intentions and more determined to utterly subjugate the American people under the federal government's control than any of their predecessors. Their two biggest power grabs at the moment are health care "reform" and "climate change" regulation, both of which strike at the heart of individual liberty.
What our country needs -- desperately needs -- right now is for individual citizens to step forward and "take back" our country by electing representatives who treasure our constitutional freedoms. Levin and Arne seemed optimistic that this will happen in future elections. I wish I could say I am as optimistic as they are. When I look at our country I see generations of people who, thanks to our government-run schools, are ignorant about American history and traditions, ignorant of the Constitution and the Founders, and ignorant of the Bible and our Judeo-Christian heritage which provides a basis for the dignity and worth of the individual. I see a country populated with people who have already become dependent on the government and who demand equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I see lazy citizens who think that they owe their country nothing and that their country owes them everything, including a good education, a good job, good health care, and a comfortable life. I see a population that largely seems to reject moral absolutes and deny even the possibility of truth, that views its own existence and the existence of the universe as a meaningless accident of nature, and that seems incapable even of logically deducing the consequences of ideas. Maybe I'm too harsh in my assessment, but how can such a citizenry take back our country? It is likely that in the short-term, people's economic misery will drive them to elect new representatives in 2010 or 2012, but for any lasting change to take place there must be a change in people's hearts, beliefs, and attitudes. I pray this will happen, but it will take a miracle.
Levin closed his speech (and his book) with a quote from a president who truly understood liberty, Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Obama and our current Congress are more brazen about their socialist/Marxist intentions and more determined to utterly subjugate the American people under the federal government's control than any of their predecessors."
_________________________________________________
Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.
I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, Anonymous. I respect your point of view but I don't think that it is at all ignorant to use the word "socialist" to describe Obama and his administration. Of course, there are different degrees of socialism, and Obama is not currently calling for a full-blown takeover of every private company in the U.S. He could never get away with such a thing. You don't have to be Vladimir Lenin to be a socialist. There is a continuum between 100% free market and 100% socialist. When I say Obama is a socialist, I mean that he is deeply distrustful of our country's free market system and supportive of many socialist ideas, and he has already taken numerous steps in the direction of socialism despite being in office less than one year.
Here are some of the many reasons why I think it is accurate to call Obama a socialist:
1. Obama and Congress have taken control of hundreds of private companies since taking office, primarily in the auto, banking, and finance industries, and they are actively dictating the decisions of these organizations. In the case of the automakers, Obama forced a reorganization outside of normal bankruptcy laws in order to give favorable treatment to unions. He also forced the General Motors CEO to step down. This government interference in the free market system and government control over private companies is clearly socialist in nature.
2. He has established an executive compensation czar who is in charge of dictating the compensation of the executives of private companies. This is not just for companies taken over by the government -- this czar has called for placing regulations on executive pay for all companies. This, again, is unprecedented and is a huge step toward socialism, which is government ownership and control over industry.
3. ObamaCare is a 2,000 page bill that essentially is a government takeover of our country's health care system, which is 17% of our economy. That's a huge chunk of our economy which will now be centrally planned and administered by the federal government. Again, not a complete takeover of our whole economy, but a very large step toward full-blown socialism.
4. He has hired many people in his administration with socialist ties and sympathies. His green czar, Van Jones, was a self-described Communist who was finally forced to resign because of the controversy surrounding him. His energy czar, Carol Browner, has close ties to a self-described socialist organization called Commission for a Sustainable World Society. His Communications Director, Anita Dunn, has praised the Communist dictator Mao Zedong as one of her favorite philosophers.
Here's the point: Obama, in only 10 or so months in office, has already taken numerous unprecedented steps to extend government control over private companies and to centrally plan portions of our economy. He has appointed open socialists and socialist sympathizers to top positions in his administration. If he gets away with these things, what's to stop him from continuing down this road for the next 7+ years? Perhaps you're right that these ideas are now boilerplate Democratic party liberalism, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still socialism.
I have always questioned your motivation for this blog but we live in a country that is entitled to free speech and you are most definitely taking advantage of that. As my mom would sometimes say, "if you have nothing good to say then keep your mouth shut".
In trying to understand your message and hatred for Obama policies, I googled the word "conservative". Surprisingly, the first meaning that was shown is "reluctant to accept change; in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs." Personally, I don't feel like any of my liberties are being taken away. America is a country that prides itself on "change". For example, one of the biggest historical "changes" was the Civil Rights Movement. This movement not only helped blacks but women and other minorities also. If the government did not step in to stop the racism and segregation, where would this country be today? Where would I be today? Certainly not sitting in the same office with you since I would be denied college education. It certainly explains why the conservative base is 99.99% white. Are you saying that healthcare system does not need to be fixed or that global warming does not exist? I have seen you laugh from time to time on the global warming issue when there is truly a problem going on with the Earth. The polar bear population is slowing decreasing to the point that they may be extinct in the next decade while the polar ice caps are also smaller leading the rising sea levels.
If the "socialism train" started with Abaraham Lincoln and accelerated under FDR when will it reach its destination? That must be a long train ride. Correct me if I am wrong but Abraham Lincoln served as president until 1865. It is now 2009 and yet America is still not a socialist state as yet. Why is it taking so long? Hmmm maybe because America is a country with two major political parties thus maintaining a political balance and democracy.
Hey Island Boy...thanks for reading and sharing your opinion, even if the point of your first paragraph seems to be that I should shut up. :)
No one on this blog, so far as I know, is disputing the necessity and importance of the Civil Rights movement. I'm very thankful for how far our country has come on the issue of equal rights for all regardless of skin color. And I don't think the modern conservative movement should be held responsible for segregation or slavery. There's only one former Klansman in Congress that I know of, and that is liberal Democratic senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
You're right. Conservatives are people that are generally skeptical of change. The reason I'm a conservative is that I think the Founders of our country got it right when they wrote our Constitution and established a democratic government founded on the premise that each individual has the God-given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I think that America is a great country that has been a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world for centuries. We have unprecedented power and prosperity, and yet we have consistently used it to help other countries and promote democracy around the world. Of course we're not perfect, but I'm deeply proud of our country's history and traditions and I think it's by far the best place in the world to live. I don't want us to change and become like other countries, because that means becoming less free and less prosperous.
What you fail to understand is that not all change is progress. Disasters are changes too. Of course, putting the government in charge of health care is a change, but that doesn't mean it's a positive change. Of course our health care system has problems, but does it ever occur to you that changing it could make it worse instead of better? No one disputes that change is needed -- the argument is over which kind of change is better. Is it better for me to be able to make my own decisions with my hard-earned money, or is it better for the government to take my money and use it to fund whatever programs politicians want?
I plan to address the global warming issue in a future post. For now, suffice it to say that the temperature on the earth's surface has not warmed at all since 1998. There is little evidence that the earth is currently warming at all, and certainly no evidence that such non-existent warming is caused primarily by human activities. The "climategate" emails are an embarrassment because they show how far scientists are going to try to squelch evidence that contradicts their theories and to silence any dissent within the scientific community. But unless you watch Fox News, you probably don't even know what the "climategate emails" are because the mainstream media has gone for two weeks without reporting on this major news story.
To Island Boy,
If what your mother had told you were true, then the left side of the aisle would never speak.
Post a Comment