An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda

minute-man-2-lithoThe first thing one has to face if they are to understand the agenda of President Obama is that he does not love America; at least, not as it has existed for the past two centuries.  That does not mean he does not love his country.  I am sure he does, but he does not love its history; its culture; its constitution; its economic system; its political system; its military; its love of liberty; or any of the institutions that has defined America since its founding.  These are the things Obama has dedicated his life to changing.

It’s just that Obama’s mental picture of America is not the same as the one that existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers or in the minds of most Americans today.  His is the one formed under the tutelage of his childhood mentors reinforced by his chosen associates as an adult.

Obama’s picture of America is the one painted by twenty years of indoctrination in the church of Jeremiah Wright.  His vision for its future is one he adopted from his icons, William Ayers, Frank Davis, and other like-minded figures that have affected his life, especially Saul Alinsky.  From these and other left wing thinkers Obama has formed a mental image of what an ideal America would be like.  He has dedicated his adult life to bringing into existence this idealized image, which is in almost every instance the polar opposite of the America established by the Founding Fathers.

He believes the Founders established a deeply flawed system of government that has led to all sorts of social and economic evils over the past two-hundred plus years. The ideal form of government for Obama is one ruled by an elite political class directed by a benevolent, but all-powerful leader of exceptional wisdom and compassion.  In Obama’s mind, the “state” is the ultimate objective of all society.

The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people.  Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.

The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people.  Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.

The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans.  Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.

The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest.  Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.

The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations.  Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.

The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts.  Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land.  He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation.  It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.

Obama’s image of himself as that wise and compassionate leader destined to bring about the utopian America he envisions, motivates his every action as President.  As borderline psychotic as this may sound, his words and actions over the past four months will allow for no other conclusion.

The facts will only permit two interpretations of the Obama Presidency.  Either he is a bumbling incompetent who “smooth-talked” his way into the White House, or he is a dedicated ideologue determined to tear down all the historical institutions of government in order to rebuild and reshape them to reflect his worldview.

Those who hope that with experience he will moderate his views are hoping in vain.  He has an absolute, fanatical faith in the righteousness of his cause, and will not be swayed by public opinion or political pressure.  Adhering to the Alinsky principle that any means are acceptable that furthers the cause, he is willing to visit any misfortune on the American people in order to accumulate more power for himself as the head of state.

The survival of America as we know it will depend on the extent of his cult following and the influence of the coalition of Democrats, socialists, environmentalists, Marxists, fascists, the state media, and other groups that share his statist goals in the next two or three election cycles.

Advertisements

4 responses to “An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda

  1. “The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people. Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.”

    Right. Government, properly directed, can actually serve the people instead of frustrating them.

    “The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people. Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.”

    Right. The government and the people should work together to get things done.

    “The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans. Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.”

    Right. Human rights are God-given, and American rights are constitution-given. (Hopefully they’re the same thing.)

    “The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest. Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.”

    Right. Since everyone can’t run the country’s financial system at once, we set up a system that does that for us.

    “The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations. Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.”

    Right. We should all be free to live our lives in whatever community we choose.

    “The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts. Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land. He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation. It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.”

    Right. The Constitution rules, and when something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up.

    So what did you say your problem was?

    • One of my problems is citizens who do not understand the difference between federal, state and local government and their proper sphere of responsibility. Most of your comments are valid to a degree when discussing state governments, but not when discussing the federal government. Ex., your last comment

      “The Constitution rules, and when something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, fairness and justice in general rule. It is a document that has historically been reevaluated as new issues came up.”

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
      ~Amendment 10, U.S. Constitution

      If the Constitution can be “reevaluated” and changed without formal amendment, as new issues come up, then we do not have a Constitution.

  2. That’s actually my favorite amendment – I wish they’d invoke it more often. I see the President starting to do that – backing off of certain state laws, for instance, when his people have no constitutional basis for getting involved. I think he’s very aware of the difference between state and federal jurisdiction, and I like that.

    As far as the comment goes, I didn’t mean that the reevaluation was supposed to generate case law. I just meant that when we needed an amendment, we amended the constitution. I agree that the Supreme Court justices shouldn’t “legislate from the bench”. I just don’t believe that’s what’s on the agenda. Every President knew that was inappropriate, no matter what his party or idealogy was.

    And I definitely don’t agree that the President doesn’t love the institutions that define America, or that the majority of his thoughts were influenced by the minority of his acquaintances. In my head, that’s kind of silly. Do you not have faith in what you say? Would you advocate having a President that was swayed by political pressure if he believed that what he was doing was right and the majority of the voters agree with him?

    He’s not doling out misfortune. He’s asking us for ideas on solving problems so everyone will be happier. Good luck with getting everyone to agree on the best way to do things. Someone is inevitably going to be unhappy, and this year, it’s the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” crowd with the sideblinders on who don’t quite understand what’s broke in the first place. Last year, apparently it was the “If it’s broke, fix it” crowd. Give it a chance. If it doesn’t work, then holler.

  3. Most problems are simply solved after the morass of irrelevant symptoms are distilled out.

    A simple analysis of laws passed by Congress, candled against the Constitution, reveals the key component of failure.

    If there was a block to filled out on each piece of Congressional legislation which required identifying where in the Constitution the legislation was permitted, in most cases, the block would be blank.

    As a result, no matter how well intentioned these unauthorized laws may be, such Congressional legislation better represents anarchy rather than respect for the rule of law.

    The paradox is that most Americans if asked will reject anarchy as a form of government, but on the other hand, voted the anarchists into the majority last November to enable anarchy to persist.

    We can all argue about the details, but clearly the Constitution was the principle casualty.