Your description of Obama’s take on Sharansky’s concept of ‘belonging to something greater than self’ is spot on! And it cuts to the heart of the elitist mindset – namely, that we all need to work toward the common good, and there is a special, self-anointed subgroup of us whose destiny includes the power to define ‘common good,’ and the power to define the collective means to achieve it.
If there were an ideology more opposed to the preservation of individual liberty I can’t imagine what it might be.
I watched a portion of the McCain-Obama ‘service summit’ held at Columbia University last night. Although there were many things about that ‘summit’ that were disturbing, the one that caused me to turn it off in disgust was a comment made by Obama in which he spoke pseudo-inspiringly about the benefits of ‘community service’ and then proceeded to say (I don’t know that this is verbatim, but it’s pretty close), ‘In an Obama administration I will see to it that citizens perform extensive community service, in co-operation with their government.’
As I said in a previous response, Davy Crockett, of all people, displayed uncanny eloquence and insight into representative government in a speech delivered before the House in the early 1800s. The speech was entitled ‘Not Yours to Give’. Through the use of an incredibly moving personal anecdote, he addresses the fact that any attempt by the federal government to involve itself in ‘charity’ by forcing the citizenry to give of its time and its money for noble causes is both immoral and unconstitutional.
As you point out so powerfully, under an Obama administration the Constitution would become ever more irrelevant and ‘bothersome’ than it now is, and our liberties (such as they are) would be clearly and forcefully defined by Barack and his fellow elitists. His 'summit' comment regarding government and the citizenry working together in service-related causes is one glaring illustration of that mindset. Genuine volunteerism would find itself systematically replaced by forced financial and physical servitude, the devastating results of which might even be an inverse relationship between the growth in the power of the federal bureaucracy and the number of genuine acts of altruism performed.
I truly believe that, in the history of mankind, America has indeed stood as an example of goodness when it comes to caring for the freedom and well-being of others – whether they be our fellow citizens, or people from other countries. And for Barack Obama to believe that he needs to teach us a lesson in that regard – and to use the power of the Presidency to do so – is testimony to nothing more than his thirst for power, his disdain for Constitutional order, and his personal arrogance.
Your ‘stray ... hopefully coherent’ thoughts serve as an example of the power to combine education, research, wisdom and critical thought into conclusions that are virtually irrefutable. Thank you!
~ joanie
The recognition of this great truth goes all the way back to Plato....
Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office....
joanie-f, thank you so very much for the link to "Not Yours to Give." I'd never seen this account from Davy Crockett before. It's simply outstanding, and I hope anyone reading these lines will take the opportunity to read it as well. We need more Horatio Bunces these days, to put it mildly.
"Enforced" charity isn't charity at all. Your paraphrase of Obama's remarks at the Columbia "service summit" — "In an Obama administration I will see to it that citizens perform extensive community service, in co-operation with their government" — ominously indicates that the sort of public "charity" Obama has in mind is virtually indistinguishable from public slavery. It would entail a virtually limitless projection of government power against the people.
How much do you want to bet that, under an Obama administration, all genuinely private charities would be repressed, and especially the likes of e.g., the faith-based Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, et al? Because (1) they are religiously-affiliated charities; and (2) they'd be "rivals" of the (secularist/atheist) government-enforced programs, and therefore must be eliminated, perhaps on the excuse that they represent a "duplication of services and thus need to be coordinated with the government to assure maximum efficiencies."
Truly, America would become a "brave new world" under an Obama administration. And the Constitution would be sacrificed to the overweening lust for power that characterizes the self-selected "elites" who arrogantly assume that the American people are unfit to govern themselves, and so they will tell us how we are to be governed. They will rule; and we must submit. With the Constitution gone, the pernicious "rule of men" would extinguish our free society.
Obama is their Trojan Horse....
Wake up America!!!
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post dear fellow patriot and sister in Christ!