How Obama Revolution Came to America

Accuracy in Media ^ | April 6, 2009 | Robert Chandler

[fretzer]

There are ten easy steps toward a progressive-socialist-Marxist civil society: change the popular consensus; destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores; transform the culture; install a radical Left mind-control; attain political power; impose strict control of the military and law enforcement; restrict freedom; socialize the economy; erase American sovereignty; and embrace a world without borders.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The parallels with 93-94 are eerie.”

Really, I think they are natural and republicans will pick up many seats in 2010. Furthermore I dont expect a congressional landslide for republicans on the order of 1994? Why?

Because in 1994 democrats had been in charge of congress for 40 years. No one ever saw a republican congress, and a republican congress and president together was unthinkable. The country had reason for hope in those days, as did I. I was a different person then and used to talk about how conservatives would fix the country with reduced government and free markets if they ever got power.

But now because of GWB and republicans so recently ,and Obama and democrats now ,there will be a rational air of hopelessness that will be in the air in 2010, we have no one to turn to. This is the Tea Party revolution. Gridlock is our only hope,

[PhilCollins]

I agree that Republicans won’t win many seats in 2010. Democrats will gain three seats in the U.S. Senate and six seats in the House, unless Republicans work together, similarly to the Contract with America. This time, they would need to say that they learned their lesson, when they didn’t cut tax rates and spending.

[sickoflibs]

I think Republicans will win seats, but it wont be 1994. As you point out there are weaknesses in the Senate.

The problem with another Contract with america in 2010 is it's not believable yet, Bush just got out of power, the House and Senate have the same leadership, and Republicans are only opposing most spending because of political necessity (it's their only option now.) It's not like they actually believe that big government is bad or deficits cause problems.

[PhilCollins]

You said that a problem with another Contract with America is partly that “Bush just got out of power.” 1994 was the year after George H.W. Bush got out of power, but that contract helped us. Some republican senators and congressmen think that big deficits cause problems. Those Republicans should propose a plan that would be similar to the Contract with America.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You said that a problem with another Contract with America is partly that “Bush just got out of power.” 1994 was the year after George H.W. Bush got out of power, but that contract helped us’

The difference was GWB got out of power after having his own congress for 6 years, in the voters view it was 8 years of republican congress (polls showed this.) In 1994 no one had ever seen a Republican congress so anything they promised seemed believable, this is like Obama being an unknown.

Plus, George Bush 1 was generally liked and respected in 1993 and 1994. GWB is pretty much disliked and disrespected by almost everyone. The economy was much better in 1992 than 2008.

I am just saying it will take time for the wounds to heal.

comment#41

[KDD]

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.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, "Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don't watch out." These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when "one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state."

snip

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent.

At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible — of course. But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law... so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."

snip

You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event — and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government.

There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrenders without a struggle.

snip

CONCLUSION So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break. Once the government, on ground of public policy, has assumed the responsibility to provide people with buying power when they are in want of it, or when they are unable to provide themselves with enough of it, according to a minimum proclaimed by government, it will never be the same again.

All of this is said by one who believes that people have an absolute right to any form of government they like, even to an American Welfare state, with status in place of freedom, if that is what they want. The first of all objections to the New Deal is neither political nor economic. It is moral.

Revolution by scientific technic is above morality. It makes no distinction between means that are legal and means that are illegal. There was a legal and honest way to bring about a revolution, even to tear up the Constitution, abolish it, or write a new one in its place. Its own words and promises meant as little to the New Deal as its oath to support the Constitution. In a letter to a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging a new law he wanted, the President said: "I hope your committee will not permit doubt as to Constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." Its cruel and cynical suspicion of any motive but its own was a reflection of something it knew about itself. Its voice was the voice of righteousness; its methods therefore were more dishonest than the simple ways of corruption.

"When we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen... and when we see those timbers joined together, and see that they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few... in such a case we find, it impossible not to believe that... all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft, drawn up before the first blow was struck." —Abraham Lincoln, deducing from objective evidence the blueprint of a political plot to save the institution of slavery.

THE REVOLUTION WAS

Obama is just a caboose on a long train of usurpations of our original form of government. No one stood up then...and Americans were a more hardy stock back then..It will take radical change to alter the status quo. Our current generation is not up to it.

In fact...the only real bipartisan efforts coming out of D.C. have been betrayals of the American electorate. Republicans have been as much traitors to our Constitution as Democrats. And that is an unassailable fact.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Palin may not be the answer to the GOP but I am old enough to remember when some were saying Reagan was unelectable in 1980.’

Palin is NOT Reagan. Palin is not close to Reagan. Reagan was a successful governor that led and won a State tax revolution. Palin was popular in Alaska when oil revenues gave the voters services for free (our oil prices) but quit when times got tough. Watch the youtube clips of Reagan in the 1960s.

I know many here dream of that magical conservative messiah to rise up from no place and slay the evil liberal anti-christ that similarly appeared from no place, but it is not happening.

You know Palin just got off this ‘victim’ tour complaining about how her family was attacked only to once again use her family as hypothetical examples of victims of Obama’s future ‘death panels’. Talk about wanting to have it both ways. I know, if she is hurting Obama it's OK , but it's not presidential. She should try talk radio, should sub for Hannity and Levin.

[sickoflibs]

RE :nathanbedford: "Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts?"

RE :freekitty "Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.” "

Hi fellow freepers, I get challenged and yelled at every day for thinking outside the box. I thought it would be fun to take up nathanbedford challenge and repost a few pre-election comments of mine. To put them in context, these posts were made when hysteria here was at a peak with “McCain wins or we all die” mantra. So at the time I posted these so they were not popular. Enjoy watching democrats self destruct now!SOME PRE-ELECTION POSTS :

"Republicans will be humiliated if Obama wins, rubbing our faith in Bush in our faces. But democrats party will end early next year, when for the first time in 14 years, they have no one to point at but themselves. (they will still blame Bush for all the painful things they do, but that will wear thin, maybe people will figure out they ran congress since 2007.)" 8 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:28:00 PM by sickoflibs

"On the bright (not very bright!) side, if a lib must win, let it be the worst. A Obama disaster might make people forget Bush, a huge task." (60 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:33:23 AM by sickoflibs)

"With Bush out of the picture and Obama in power, the game changes completely. People might actually expect something from rats for the first time in 14 years, for 2-3 years democrats only had to screw things up to win votes, Situation reverses. " (11 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:30:49 PM by sickoflibs)

"No, It will be the MOST fun to have a democrat in office that is so stupid (as Pelosi/Obama may be)as to think they can use the US government to silence us. I always have said, if a liberal must be in power, then better to have the dumbest one. Right now democrats and their media still have the public convinced that GWB is the evil king and there is NO congress. But when Obama is president with Pelosi and starts really stupid stuff, and we didnt even have FNC channel in 1993-94 when democrats still couldnt Hush Rush, all hell will break loose." (52 posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:43:28 AM by sickoflibs)

LOL. Obama only has one thing going for him, like MSNBC: Bush. With Bush gone the magic spell will disappear and the NEW Stalin (a bit of an exaggeration, Stalin was a mass murderer) will not have a public that wants to be ruled. 9 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:38:52 AM by sickoflibs

Don’t misunderstand me. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Shumer... will be terrible for this country. But if someone had to loose this year to pay for Bush’s big government establishment sins, I just assume it be McCain, Mr Phony, BS, reformer, Maverick, no beliefs, any deal is possible, McCain. When McCain ran with us conservatives, he pulled ahead, when he dumped us, he dropped. We were lectured for 8 years he would get all independents and media. Guess what? I think McCain loss will be the seed of a rebirth of conservativism. Lets not blow it it this time. Resistance 2009! Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:48:12 PM by sickoflibs

[RSmithOpt]

Conservatism is based upon experience and truth and what really works....knowing the nature of mankind, acceptance of reality and the Word of God molds a humble and intelligent person to the conservative opinion.

Therefore, taking the heat of criticism isn't nearly as difficult as a warm fuzzy libtard explaining his/her opinion with their own words and reasoning.

Still this country is in for a very rough ride.

Freegards......

[spetznaz]

It is always easier for Dems to criticize when someone else is in power ...after all, all that it requires is to point a finger and twirl it around while 'tsk tsking.' However, when you take the top-seat, suddenly you have to perform and deliver. That takes effort and real work, and even under the best of circumstances is not as easy as pointing fingers and calling someone Chumpy.

To Dems: Be careful what you wish for.

[nathanbedford]

Well done sickoflibs!

You accurately predicted in writing the resilience and resourcefulness of the American people when their liberties are threatened. I accurately predicted in writing the breadth and depth of the power grab which Obama would mount. I failed to credit in writing the people with enough resilience and I overweighted the institutional power aligned against us. I think you under weighted the sheer greed and rapaciousness for power of the Obama administration. One could say that we both got part of it wrong.

I prefer to say that between the two of us we got it perfectly right. :)

[WVKayaker]

Palin is NOT Reagan. -SOL

True. She's got boobs and ovaries, instead of balls and boots. Palin was a successful governor. Sarah Palin is STILL POPULAR in Alaska, and wildly popular in the lower 48.

... I know, if she is hurting Obama it's OK , but it's not presidential. ...

It is your opinion! You are not joined by many on the Conservative side, though. Most of the Sarah naysayers are the MSM types and RINO's. Which category is yours?

You can crow all you want because you wrote some things a few months ago, right or wrong. Read what Sarah Palin said just yesterday...

"*** “I said , 'Thanks but no thanks to those death panels'": Speaking of death panels and living wills… On her Facebook page, ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has defended her debunked claim about the “death panels” that would occur under health-care reform. “Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health-care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,” she said. “The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision" ...

She's got Zero talking about her. Do you?

For those that want to support SarahPac, click the pic...

[MaggieCarta]

...To complete the picture, someday a conservative historian (presuming they are allowed to publish) will draw a straight line to Barak Obama which passes through Saul Alinsky, showing feeder lines off to people like Bill Ayers, and originating in The Frankfurt School...

I really don't know which is the more frightening to contemplate---the notion that future historians would not be allowed to publish, or the thought that few will be able to read and comprehend anything published if it exceeds the maximum character limit of many social networking sites.

[lakertaker]

When McCain got the nomination I knew we would get a Dem president. I remember Hannity pushing McCain and trying to convince us he would be the next Goldwater.

Yet a year earlier Hannity was going after McCain for his attacks on conservatives.

Limbaugh, at least, acknowledged that McCain as president with a Dem congress would be bad for conservatism.

[bamahead]

I may want to borrow your crystal ball sometime! :)

[sickoflibs]

I agree 100%

I followed those two (Rush and Hannity) very closely last year and Rush, while drinking the GWB cool-aid for a long time, was very frank about what a disaster McCain would make as president with a democrat congress. Peter Schiff made a similar point about how it would be better to have Obama win and fail as president.

Hannity promoted McCain as president as if he were Reagan giving him all softballs on his show (Cavuto ripped McCain apart for trying to have it both ways on the bailout) . Levin was in the middle. It’s one reason I no respect for Hannity anymore, he promoted GM bailout too because they are his sponsor.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I may want to borrow your crystal ball sometime! :)”

Thanks. I would like you to think I am brilliant LOL, but I had the exact same opinions back in 1992-1993 as many freepers do now and learned then that apparent losses can be easily turned into much bigger future wins that would not have been otherwise possible. If Bush 1 (who I still like to this day, unlike McCain) was re-elected, republicans would not have taken congress in 1994. But if Republicans never took congress in 1994 AND Clinton was president, he most likely would have lost (or at least closer election) in 1996, probably against a better candidate than Bob Dole.

As bad as democrats are , having republicans in power indefinitely regardless of what they do is not healthy for the country. If they could hold power by force, there would be a violent revolution and it would be justified.

My bigger Point : I have learned we must think outside the box and be willing to challenge the crowd when the points do not add up, even if we draw fire from those that tell us daily that ‘we are not REAL conservatives’ if we don't agree with them. Many times they are repeating a message they hear from a personality that they really want to believe, I call it the "Glasses that tell you your wishes will come true or that your beliefs are true." Some of it is just defending past bad predictions. If I don't get insulted here once per day for challenging the crowd, I haven't done my job.

I just got called a RINO at 7:12am today, YES!

[Impy]

"But if Republicans never took congress in 1994 AND Clinton was president, he most likely would have lost (or at least closer election) in 1996, probably against a better candidate than Bob Dole."

It was widely considered to be Dole's "turn" so I don't know about that. I figure he would have been better than either Bush at least.

One potential candidate in '96 that didn't run that comes to mind is Tommy Thompson.

It's a shame he didn't run in 2000.

[AuH2ORepublican]

In 1996, there was one clear choice for the presidency: Senator Phil Gramm. He was a 100% conservative and outraised Dole, but he ran the worst primary campaign ever (he even managed to lose the sham Louisiana Caucus that his followers had set up and that only Pat Buchanan participated in) and was gone by the time New Hampshire rolled around.

DJ must know who the GOP’s “most electable presidential candidate” was in 1996. “It’s as simple as ABC.” Right, DJ?

[sickoflibs]

I really liked Dole, he had a great sense of humor and again, was critical in bring down Clinton in 93-94. McConnall does not have Dole’s sense of humor.

But he would have been like Bush 1 which after Bush 1 made him a poor choice for a candidate and a big compromiser(then again look at GWB!) .