As the election draws near, I admit that I am anxious. I’m certain that the devastation a second 0 term would bring will further harm our country; I’m not sure how much. We are, after all, Americans and have survived all sorts of assaults on our Republic, the most harmful–excepting perhaps Islamofascist terrorists plotting and organizing overseas–from within (I’m thinking Wilson and FDR here), so yes, we are more than capable of pushing back the commie tide once more. I’d just rather get started on that in 2013 than in 2017. One thing about which I am certain is that I will never (again) be duped into supporting totalitarian, fascist, anti- and unAmerican actions from anyone. The Patriot Act . . . yes, I did think it was a good idea at the time. What a numbskull I was! How naive!
Look at what 0 has done not only to add to the power of the executive branch–to powers far exceeding any the Founders had in mind; indeed, to encompass powers the Founders deliberately denied the president. Actions rooted in the Patriot Act and that were and are cheered not only by leftists but by conservatives. Violating Pakistan’s national sovereignty to “get” bin Laden? Woot! No problem! Setting up a presidential “kill list” that directly violates the 4th Amendment, bypasses Congress, and is an affront to everything America stands for? Woohoo! Let’s do it! shout both lefties and conservatives! Let’s empower the president to unilaterally decide who lives and who dies–what a great idea! Only the very best banana republic dictators enjoy such a privilege.
So I’m reading “The Progressive Case Against Obama” over at Slate (yes, that Slate, regressive central), and I’m struck by a few points–quoted in order, but without context (read the whole article for their context—it gets nuts in places, with typical regressive ramblings about the horrors of the free market, individual responsibility, equal justice, etc., but is worth the read):
So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose . . . .
I’d argue that Stoller, the article’s author, leans more libertarian than progressive/regressive, but in this point, he’s spot-on. The society 0 is creating is more impoverished than ever before, the middle class is shrinking . . .by design. The society 0 is creating is more contentious, more divided than ever before . . . by design.
It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population.
Yes, it’s “as if” that, huh? How about it IS that?
Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis.
Yes, he did. As did Clinton when his administration forced banks to offer mortgages that lendees could never afford . . . never pay back. That was no accident, and neither was 0’s purposeful decision to encourage a foreclosure crisis. After all, comfortable, happy people don’t engage in Marxist revolutions.
As Sheth also notes, there is a lot more to women’s rights than abortion. Predatory lending and foreclosures disproportionately impact women. The drug war impacts women. Under Obama, 1.6 million more women are now in poverty. 1.2 million migrants have been deported by the Department of Homeland Security. The teacher layoffs from Obama’s stimulus being inadequate to the task disproportionately hit women’s economic opportunity.
Not many regressives are willing to admit that women are more than the sum total of their reproductive organs, so kudos to Stoller here.
The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America too frightened to put Osama bin Laden on trial.
Now this, this I find interesting. Leftists have always been more effective shrieking shrilly from the sidelines, speaking “truth to power,” whining and whingeing about “the man.” When they become “the man,” they don’t know what to do. Leftists are, by their actions and ideology, outsiders, complainers, radical outcasts stomping their feet to be heard. That’s what they do best. That’s actually the only thing they do well.
Leading is just too much for them, they get confused, bogged down in their own rhetoric (we HATE “pigs”; gee, you upstanding policemen and women are whom we are fighting for because you are union! We hate wiretaps [or insert any Bush policy 0 continued]; gee, those wiretaps [or whatever] are freaking fantastic!), and ultimately, they lose their moral and ethical compass. They can rage against inequity, but they don’t actually dislike it–they just don’t want the current “dominant” group to have power, wealth, whatever. They can rage against war, but they don’t actually dislike it–they are more than happy to support 0’s war in Libya, even if it was/is illegal. They can rage against . . . well, you name it, anything, everything. But they cannot offer viable solutions. They are best, are “better citizens” when they play watchdog not big dog.
Over at The Atlantic another regressive expresses his outrage at the 0 kill list in an article entitled “What If Mitt Romney Inherits Obama’s Killer Drone Fleet?“:
So to sum up, Obama has implemented a global killing program with zero checks and balances; he’s operated it out of the CIA rather than the Department of Defense; he invokes the state-secrets privilege to avoid defending it in court, even as he brags about its efficacy . . . .
And yes, if Romney is elected, he will indeed “inherit” this power. Only now are regressives worried, however, only now do they suspect that an American president should not have the power to unilaterally and unconstitutionally order the deaths of American citizens. Short-sighted? Stupid? Yes, and yes. But that’s the trouble with conservatives, too. We supported (or at least I did) The Patriot Act against all logic. But look what 0 has done with that power. Look what the next president, whomever that may be, can do to expand it, to enshrine dictator-like power in the executive branch for all time.
Good-bye Congress. Good-bye Supreme Court. Good-bye Constitution. Good-bye Republic. Good-bye America.
And what are 0’s solutions to the very real problems in America? Straight out of the commie handbook: regulating salaries and establishing a “secretary of business.” If that sounds familiar to you, you must be a student of history and know about the German Labour Front and the Reichsarbeitsdienst. As I’ve written before, everything old is new again. 0’s solutions are communist solutions (call it “Marxist” if you prefer, but Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto . . . not by accident. Well, okay, kind of by accident, but what Marx thought of his failed, hastily-written crap doesn’t really matter to today’s leftists/regressives/communists), and 0’s not just using Hitler’s playbook, he borrows heavily from Lenin, too.
American can and will survive . . . no matter who wins on November 6th. But wouldn’t it be better if we could stem the communist tide and start rolling back harmful, anti- and unAmerican policies? Wouldn’t it be better to change course now than in 2017? I believe Romney will change our course, and I believe that with our insistence on his maintaining Constitutional values, he’ll not only do the right thing but will do so with dignity and humility. If I’m wrong, I will be the first to say so, and I will be the first to hold his feet to the fire, call him out on every single thing he does that I would object to if 0 did it. Every. Single. Thing. I will never support Romney if he does the wrong thing, if he continues down the path of tyranny . . . even under a conservative banner. I will not sell my soul for partisanship; I will not sell my morals and ethics for political points. I will not, in short, be a hypocrite. Regressives have lost whatever voice, whatever gravitas, they had before they got power by doing just that, and making that mistake is not something I will be party to.
This constitutional conservative is done being a patsy for big spending, big government tyrants. Period. But the first step to restoring our Republic is to get the most dangerous one of all out of office.