The Audacity of Deception

Posted: November 1, 2008 in 1, Barak Obama, Economics, Socialism
Tags: , , ,

Here is the piece I would have written had I the time.  I read this and thought it needed to get out.  It incapsulates much of the case against Obama just before the election.  That is, just before it is too late.  This came from the Patriot Post.

The Audacity of Deception
By Mark Alexander
If you are perplexed, even bewildered, by the number of Americans who
normally make logical and rational decisions but now support Barack Obama, I
refer you to a lucid explanation for this phenomenon in the opening pages of
the candidate¹s political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. He writes, “I
am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen
on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own
views… I am bound to disappoint some… of them.”
Beyond the projection and deception, however, elections have consequences.
Some of Obama¹s supporters, the formerly logical and rational, will be first
in the soup line of deceived disappointees expressing buyer¹s remorse. They
will awaken from the stupor of all the good feelings that attracted them to
Obama and face the hard realities of the Socialist agenda they enabled.
In this, the final week of the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama bought 30
minutes of prime time on several networks to air an infomercial in which he
endeavored to pass as something other than the ideological Socialist he is.
Feigning the fiscal conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Obama claimed he would
review the budget, line by line, and cut waste. He even made taxing and
spending, a.k.a. “the collectivist redistribution of wealth,” sound like a
noble democratic gesture.
At one point he said, “Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they
call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist
because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!”
Cute. Of course, Barack Obama isn¹t proposing to “share” his sandwich.
Instead, he’s proposing to take your sandwich and share it with someone
else. He’s assuming that you aren¹t charitable enough to share it yourself.
Truth is, it is unlikely Obama ever shared a sandwich with anyone. With an
average annual income of more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, Barack
and Michelle only gave two percent–two percent–of their income to charity.
Obama¹s running mate is even more miserly. The Bidens’ income averaged
$260,000 over the last 10 years, but they averaged just $650 a year in
charitable giving.
So much for “spreading the wealth around.”
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain centered his soapbox message on Obama¹s penchant
to redistribute wealth, even uttering the word “socialist” in several
interviews‹and not a minute too soon.
Of course, Socialist policies are now the centerpiece of the once great
Democratic Party, packaged under the aegis of “fairness and equality” or
“investments in our infrastructure and people.”
Obama uses code words such as “political and economic justice” and
“coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
In the last two months, however, given the crisis of confidence in our
economy, Obama’s Socialist rhetoric has become bolder. Perhaps he’s heeding
the counsel of his mentors’ mentor, Karl Marx, who wrote, “A new revolution
is possible only in consequence of a new crisis.”
The fingerprints of Obama¹s radical Socialist mentors are all over his
“vision for America,” from his early childhood tutor, Communist Party USA
member Frank Marshall Davis, to his black radical spiritual advisor,
Jeremiah Wright, to the benefactors who launched his political career,
radical terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.These are the Leftists who fed Obama¹s unmitigated narcissism and shaped his warped worldview, which he now seeks to inflict upon the entire nation. Even
his campaign icon implies “Obama over America.”
Of course, when asked about his relationship with these radicals, Obama
responds, “[These people] are not advisors or donors to my campaign,” at
which point an adoring press corps dutifully moves on to the next question.
Despite having spent 20 years as a disciple of Wright, the man who
officiated at Obama¹s marriage and baptized his children, the man whom Obama
describes as “a father figure,” he claims he never inhaled any of his
spiritual mentor’s racial hatred‹never even heard any of it.
Obama claims that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood,” and “I was
just eight years old when he was a terrorist.” However, Obama was 34 when
Ayers used his radical celebrity to launch Obama¹s political career, and he
was 40 when this unrepentant terrorist was featured in a New York Times
article (on the morning of September 11, 2001) and quoted in the opening
paragraph proclaiming, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do
enough.”
Ayers added, “America makes me want to puke.” Obama was working on his
second major “philanthropic” project with Ayers at that time.
In addition, there are Obama¹s ties to the Socialist New Party, the ACORN
crowd, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis
Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga and other haters, hard
Leftists and convicted felons.
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul.” All committed Socialists
understand this principle.
For example, when Obama asserts, “We’ll ensure that economic justice is
served–that’s what this election is about… I think when you spread the
wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” that is tantamount to buying votes.
Michelle Obama echoes her husband’s redistributionist philosophy: “The truth
is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped
education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their
pie so that someone else can have more.”
In 1916, a minister and outspoken advocate for liberty, William J. H.
Boetcker, published a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots . “You cannot bring
about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by
weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You
cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and
independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot
lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of
trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on
borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they
will not do for themselves.”
A century later, Democrats are utterly ignorant of these principles. In
fact, Barack Obama’s campaign is built around their antithesis–“The Ten
Cans.”
I was speaking with a friend recently, a man who lived most of his life
under the Communist regime in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. He has
spent several years and continues to incur many legal expenses in his
endeavor to become a U.S. citizen, but he has since lost his enthusiasm.
“The prospect of an Obama presidency is like dèja vu for me,” he explained.
“The socialist goal back home was that everyone had equal wealth. They met
that goal–eventually no one had anything. Any attempt to work harder to
achieve a better standard of living for your family was considered contrary
to the welfare of the state, and dutifully discouraged. Socialism is a big
hole, easy to fall into and hard to climb out of.”
He lamented, “The American dream is not something I want to wake up from–but
too many Americans have no idea what they have, and are about to lose it.
Socialism seems an appealing ideal, collective ownership, equal society,
‘sharing the wealth,’ et cetera. But it has a downside: It doesn’t work.”
Indeed it doesn¹t work. It creates wards of the state–slaves, if you will.
In the 1980s, I spent enough time in Socialist countries, including the old
USSR, to know that we want to avoid, at all costs, a USSA. If we could
gather up all Americans who, knowingly or unknowingly, support collectivist
policies like those espoused by Barack Obama and transport them to the old
USSR for a week, they could see the terminus of such policies–he walking
dead–and the wisest among them would rethink their support for statist
concepts such as “sharing the wealth.”
It is no small irony that as the younger generations of former Communist
countries around the world are moving rapidly toward liberty and free
enterprise, our nation is moving rapidly toward Socialism and a tyranny of
the few.
Barack Obama recently said, “I don’t find myself particularly scary or
particularly risky.” It was a weak attempt at self-effacing humor, but make
no mistake: Barack Hussein Obama’s Socialist policies are both scary and
risky.
“Hope” and “change” may be pleasant catchall bromides, but as Benjamin
Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanac, “He that lives upon Hope will die
fasting.”
On change, John Adams wrote, “A Constitution of Government once changed from
Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
To that end, in 1787, the year our Constitution was adopted, Thomas
Jefferson, wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Let’s not go there, yet.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s