CHANGE, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT

In the first week of April, Wallgreens stocked their stores with the newest Chia pet, the Chia-Obama. By the second week, they nervously pulled them off their shelves. It seems political correctness gutted the product release and triggered a huge corporate apology.

This would be just another humorous footnote in the history of race relations, were it not for the fact that it betrays a change in American culture. Mr. T was immortalized by his own Chia effigy, and nobody said a word about it. But suddenly the meaning of things has changed. If we don’t properly take note of the President’s ethnicity, we are suddenly racist and our opinions are potentially a detriment to national security.

It seems these days, that any view of the President that is not warm and inviting – especially as it relates to his policies – is suddenly bigotry. And so, to avoid the label, people are beginning to speak about him in hushed tones, or at least out of site of anyone who supports him.

And discussing him at all with someone of color feels oddly uncomfortable. If you vary at all with Obama’s edicts, the concern immediately arises that you’re somehow suspect in their mind. It’s as if ethnicity is the only issue, while the truth is that we should be discussing everything regarding this man. We did so with Bush and all 42 of his other predecessors. Why should Obama’s policies be any different? But criticize this President, and you’re a racist, regardless of whether color even enters the discussion.

So maybe there’s a deeper issue; one that the media is helping to obfuscate.

Viewed from his recent speeches, our President is obviously ashamed of America. During the campaign, he made it clear that he wasn’t happy with our capitalistic system and he continues to apologize for our past sins, whatever the rest of the world thinks they should be. And as for our economy, he wants us to evolve toward a global version of the EU.

While his gaffe list is growing, even the press, at times, can’t help but note his seeming ineptitude. In the first few weeks after taking office, the term “amateur hour” was applied to his administration. Some have called him inexperienced, while others say he’s just naive. Not at all! While the public’s lack of political astuteness hides his real intent, he’s quickly beginning to accomplish precisely what he promised. It’s as if he’s basing policy on NASCAR; “Just step on the gas and keep turning left!”

So what exactly is this “change you can believe in”?

When the public heard the word “change”, many interpreted it to mean that he was going to clean up corruption. Others thought that he was going to increase social benefits. Granted, he is expanding the welfare state to a gargantuan size. But as for corruption, it seems the only way to get a position in his cabinet is to stop paying your taxes or have managed fraudulent mortgage funds. Both his personal friends and his tenure working with ACORN seem to have taught him well the ways of shady politics, leaving him relatively at ease with the “business as usual” atmosphere inside the Beltway.

Of course, most of those who elected him never got past the color of his skin. Due to either national guilt or kindred identification, being black was enough to pacify their political curiosity and gain their vote. And, of course, some just went along for the ride. It was a historic event, and these folks would have voted for anyone with a melodic chant and loads of media hype.

Considering that the average person is basically ignorant about politics, they didn’t understand what he meant by “change”. In this man’s dictionary, the word involves completely restructuring America. Barack Obama, it seems, is not a capitalist. We have just elected our first true socialist President, and “change” means to tear down the fabric of what made our nation great, to remake it in the image of France; possibly that of the former Soviet Union.

Does this sound outlandish?

First of all, we know he is a globalist. President Obama’s view is clearly shown in a most recent statement, where he announced, “To face our economic crisis, it is not necessary to debate whether it is better to have a rigid, government-managed economy or an unfettered capitalism with no regulations; it is necessary to take pragmatic and responsible measures that promote our common prosperity.”

By “common prosperity”, can we thus assume that his desire is to create a middle ground in world economics and to anchor America’s standard of living to it? Our national policy has always been to do exactly the opposite and force the debate over competing economic systems, arguing that reasonably “unfettered capitalism” is what drives affluence. Converse to globalism, aren’t we supposed to be the light on the hill that beckons the world onward to bigger and greater heights?

And what is meant by “pragmatic and reasonable measures”? Didn’t we elect him to increase America’s abundance in a time when our nation’s wealth looks more like Haiti’s, than to worry about finding some quasi equity with the rest of the planet?

This may come as a shock, but the U.S. workforce isn’t really interested in finding “common prosperity” if it means making $9 per day, the average pay of laborers in Mexican factories.

Still, Obama seems to believe that America’s future is best folded into globalism, and that by blending our economy with that of the world, we will attain some sort of nebular piety. According to him, that can’t be done by “unfettered capitalism”, which leaves only the alternative, “a rigid, government-managed economy”.

But how can he do it; how can he force us to change from free markets to fascism?

Ram Emanuel, his White House Chief Of Staff, made the news stating, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The comment was not lost on our President. It seems he understands well that to reorder our society, he has to completely annihilate the existing one.

So far, in less than 100 days, he has used the bailouts to begin nationalizing both our banking structure as well as industry. He has started reducing various military systems and weakened our national defense. He tied the hands of our intelligence community by eliminating necessary investigative tools through the release of the “Torture Memos”. He heightened empowerment of the EPA to start mandating an extreme environmental agenda, and even went so far as to begin normalization with Cuba and held out a hand to the dictator of Venezuela.

Some have suggested he’s a Manchurian Candidate, with the likes of George Soros pulling his strings. It’s very possible. Or is he a committed socialist who intends to bend America into a “rigid, government-managed economy”?

There is no question he intends, with the full backing and urging of many in congress, to usurp industry. The White House has already become the boardroom of General Motors, Wall Street is on the auction block, there’s at least one congressman calling for wage controls, and it’s only a matter of time before we all start registering for socialized health benefits. What’s next, a national identification card? From the direction set already, that too is likely only a matter of time.

And you can kiss off the present concept of legal immigration.

Worse yet, any opposition to these directions are decidedly being stifled. With the aid of an eager and willing press, it’s no longer acceptable to speak anything but praise for our new leader. Dissension equals racism, and nobody wants to wear that brand. In a recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, anyone holding any conservative leanings is suddenly suspect for domestic terrorism. Owning a gun, being a member of a militia, or worse yet, attending a peaceful protest over Congress’ out of control spending, are all examples of “rightwing extremist activates”.

In other words, you’re only a good citizen if you agree. If you’re one of those evil, mean-spirited, subversive, wild-eyed, hare-brained, nutcase conservatives, you’re obviously out of touch with America’s new “progressive” direction. You now bear watching, since you are more likely to bomb an abortion clinic than to seek tax hikes for spreading the wealth to the less fortunate.

Sadly, most Americans don’t realize that when political discourse is restricted or denied, there is then an impending danger of a de facto dictatorship. This is exactly why we have the first Amendment. The problem is, thanks to government run schools and a serious lack of critical thinking, our citizens see this intercourse as divisive, and are no longer capable of even having the discussion in the first place.

Opposition is demonized, and conservative grass-roots efforts, such as the Tax Day Tea Parties, are held up as social mayhem instead of reasoned and peaceful protests against bad fiscal policy. And God forbid you write a letter to your local newspaper or post your demonic right-wing musings in a blog. In the context of modern political discourse, you’re now a racist and a fanatical right-wing terrorist, regardless of content and especially if you’ve honorably served our country as a member of the armed forces.

We are truly in danger of losing the passions of Adams, Madison, and Jay, to the political philosophies of Marx.

As James Madison wrote, “The freemen of America will remember, that it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one: but it is very difficult, almost impossible to reverse the matter ― very difficult to regain freedom once lost.” (Published in the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, March 15, 1788)

He understood what was meant by “change”. And he warned us severely about it!

America is not yet lost, though it seems his warning has become more prophetic than historic. Under the so-called leadership of this president, we are forsaking our responsibility as citizens to resist the forces that steal from us our rights as free men. Weren’t we to safeguard our legacy of free markets and the right to choose our own destiny without the interference of government?

Instead, we are changing. We no longer value liberty, and would seemingly rather have dependency, a road that will never lead to prosperity!

On September 18, 1787, as Benjamin Franklyn was leaving Liberty Hall at the finish of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman asked him, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I must say, it’s not looking good for the republic, but we sure have change . . . though not of the sort we can believe in!