The article below may help those who doesn't understand what we're facing in 2009
Only the beginning
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was only the first wave of meaningful socialism to invade America. Unlike his wife and many around him, FDR was no socialist ideologue. He was rather a talented charismatic politician who was willing to try socialism (without calling it that) if it would advance his career.
The New Deal which he ushered into Washington in 1933 was the first full-force wave of socialism to hit these shores. There had been flirtations with it in the past. The New Deal yanked it out from the fringes of the body politic and put it into full play.
The Great Society
The second wave of socialism came to America in 1965 when Lyndon Johnson, following his landslide victory, introduced his Great Society, which vastly expanded the government even more.
But this time, there was a new twist: Along with big government and economic socialism (under the misleading slogan "War on Poverty"), the sixties era took an ugly turn when cultural Marxism emerged — appealing largely to young people who had enjoyed many great advantages of American society, and yet rebelled against it. Some of that was driven by LBJ's going to war in Vietnam. His hard-core base then turned against him. But there were issues beyond that — issues more fundamental.
Many of the baby-boom kids were angry with their parents, angry with all authority, and resentful of American values in general. Some of them took the counter-culture only so far and then grew up and went back to the mainstream. Many others faded from public view, only to emerge a few years later advancing anti-Americanism in universities, the media, and government. At the core in the sixties were subversives — a small but violent cadre.
Note here, we are not talking about the civil rights revolution which took place at about the same time.
The third wave?
In 2008, we may be about to embark on the third (and who knows — the final?) wave of socialism.
Barack Obama seems to be a poster child for both the 1933 brand of socialism and the 1965 variety. Every policy plank in his program clearly indicates he wants to carry the crusade to what politicians of his ilk see as the logical conclusion.
In years past, there were anti-communist socialists, or at least socialists who considered themselves as such. But since socialism basically is communism on a slow train, more have come (tacitly if not overtly) to embrace basic tenets of the harder Marxism, if not always its practitioners (i.e., Joseph Stalin).
Naming our enemies
In the past, socialists and many liberals have had a tendency to place themselves firmly in the camp of the "anti-anti-communists." Today, they are in the successor category of "anti-anti-terrorists." Anything that's anti-American, they're for. It's gotten to be a habit. And we are not talking about sincere pacifists or the genuine (however naïve) belief that the best way to avoid war is unilateral disarmament. We are talking about those who have problems with America on two fronts: In their view, our society does not (to use an Obama phrase) "spread the wealth around" enough, and secondly, preparing America to resist its enemies makes us the "bad guys."
Consider the fact that Joseph Biden, the Democrat vice-presidential candidate, declared that because of a President Obama's perceived (we say real) inexperience (and his naiveté about the threats facing America), this nation would face an international crisis within the first six months to test the new administration. Obama himself has said he'll sit down without pre-conditions with the world's worst thugs.
Consider this warning from Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney in the TV ad campaign by Let Freedom Ring:
"When we see candidates taking positions that others think convey the determination neither to use military power nor to ensure that they have it at their disposal should it be necessary, they are conveying to our enemies weakness. And weakness invites aggression."
"Spreading the wealth around"
Let Freedom Ring next spotlights a small businessman dubbed as "Mad Mike":
"I'm thinking of expanding my business. And I could grow my business by 20 or 30 more employees. But I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to take the risk if Obama becomes president.... I can't take any more [tax] increases. People like Obama have never had to meet a payroll.... They say they know what it's like to run a small business, but they don't."
Higher taxes on income, capital gains, Social Security, and Medicare would kill jobs, discourage investment, and make the economic slump worse — likely a whole lot worse.
The life issue
LFR then features the Rev. Frank Pavone — a Catholic priest, and national director of Priests for Life — who says there is no more fundamental issue than life itself:
"If a politician can't respect the life of a little baby, how is he or she supposed to respect your life and mine? That politician believes in a different kind of government than what our Founding Fathers established."
As a state senator, Barack Obama fought against a bill that would have preserved the life of a child who was born after a botched abortion.
Obama's universal health care plan would move an estimated 32 million to 52 million from private coverage to government "care." Long waiting lists, lagging technology, and higher taxes in Canada (which forbids private health care) have sent many Canadians rushing from their "single payer" system (which Obama has defined as ideal) to the USA for the care they need. Our present health care is not perfect (how can it be, when it's about half socialized as it is?), but this would drive the final nail in the coffin of what is — for all its shortcomings — the best health care system in the world.
The enemies of free speech are on the march (Part 14)
Behind that velvety resonant voice with its "change" rhetoric, Barack Obama is a man with a jack-boot mentality. He has shown no hesitancy in trying to shut up anyone who disagrees with him — or even works for someone who does.
In the final days of the election cycle, he kicked three newspaper reporters off his plane. The Washington Times, The New York Post, and the Dallas Morning News have one thing in common: They all editorially endorsed John McCain. At the same time, the reporters (not part of the editorial staff) were doing their jobs and playing fair with the candidate. That didn't matter. Their papers preferred the enemy, so the reporters would be punished.
This is in line with socialist Democrat plans to shut down conservative talk radio. Shades of Venezuela's Chavez, Cuba's Castro, and the old Soviet Union's Pravda.
I have had it with conservative columnists and activists who have made brownie points with Obama — either directly or by cheap shots at McCain and Palin — possibly angling for more cocktail party invites in D.C.'s Georgetown, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, some Malibu mansion, or maybe (wow!) state dinners at the White House in the next four years.
ACORN and other cheats
An Obama presidency will strengthen the socialists' hands in their ongoing effort to steal future elections (just as they have worked to steal this one) through their thug pals at ACORN and partisan vote certifiers in public office who have prostituted the responsibility with which they have been entrusted.
A one-party country?
There is little patience here with the pipe-dreamers on the right who assume that Obama will over-reach so badly as to create a Republican backlash a la 1994.
Wishful thinking at its worst. With the presidency and both houses of Congress firmly in their grasp, the socialists will quickly act to sew up a permanent majority for themselves. Not only will they try to silence their opposition, they will put some 20 million illegal aliens into citizenship (who will then vote Democrat) and give D.C. two reliably Democrat senators.
The socialist-oriented education establishment will be emboldened further in shedding all pretenses at honest scholarship and will redouble its efforts to teach your kids and grandkids to grow up to be reliable socialists like their school role models.
Backlash? Don't make me laugh. That assumes there will be a Republican Party around in the future or that Sarah Palin (or someone like her) will have a chance to pick up the pieces in four years.
© Wes Vernon
November 3, 2008
Wes Vernon, RA analyst