By Ronald Glenn
I asked an associate of mine what he thought of President Obama’s first 100 days and he replied, “Who said communism was all bad?” In summary, the ensuing discussion revealed the following — communism got a bad reputation, you know, because the wrong people tried to make it work. It does rather well, actually, if it is done the right way.
“Are you serious?” I asked.
“Only to the extent that the right kind of communism can be good.”
What is this communism he refers to? It’s an economic form, which supposedly defies the assumption that communism has to be enforced through terror and police coercion. If the public likes the idea of the socialist/communist state and a brilliant leader is in charge, the logic goes, the terror and police coercion are unnecessary.
For me, this provided an insight into why the current administration under President Barack Obama is emphasizing their objection to torture and other coercive tactics. They wish to promote the notion that America’s conversion to a leftist model is not being imposed against the nation’s will, save for a few fringe groups armed with bags of tasty beverage. (But the recent assessment from the Department of Homeland Security explains away any of that concern, as those who are opposed to leftist policies obviously have undercurrents of mental illness.)
Therefore, the argument concludes, if the American government is humane to its enemies overseas, then it will be good to its citizens as well.
This kind of tactic fits well into modern theories of government, in which contemporary governments do not rule by force but convince the public that what is being done for them is hoisted upon them for their own good. Why do you think cigarettes now cost more than five dollars a pack? Obama cares about you.
As you probably know, the EPA has declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare.” What this ruling does is simple — it opens the door for the emissions from cars, factories, and cows to be regulated by the EPA without the need for pesky legislation. This strategy was opposed by the Bush administration.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the concept of low-carbon eating, and while this EPA ruling certainly has an effect on that, it also shows concern for transportation. Plain and simple, the government is hijacking the auto industry. In years past, the government would merely make suggestions to Detroit, or at least it set emissions and mileage standards with benchmarks so far down the road that it was more suggestion than mandate. Now, however, the president has fired the General Motors CEO and is calling the shots with regard to mergers and bankruptcies and the like. Reportedly, in order to satisfy its obligations, GM will give the federal government a 51 percent stake.
Essentially, the government wants to regulate, by edict, what the pollution standards will be for cars, and is positioning itself to wield absolute power. All under the name of global warming and false environmentalism. As a result, everything fits together nicely into creating the mode of transportation Americans will soon be obligated able to buy. Soon, the government will control the means by which as move about and what we eat as well.
Pontiac, of course, is gone. Perhaps the government will design the “Geithner” line of cars instead — expensive to buy, expensive to fix, but free from taxation. Or maybe the “Hilliary,” designed by women who deny their husbands gave them any help of any kind, in any way shape or form. Honest. Or may be the “Obama,” a car made in a foreign country but advertised as assembled in America. And if you’re rich, it will cost you extra.
On a very serious note, if you consider the EPA ruling I just described, it means that every human being on earth is polluting the atmosphere just by breathing. Human beings also use electricity, which is made by pollution-ridden factories. Everything a human does, you understand, is dangerous to the world.
That’s why we have leftists working hard to save the whales, but reserving the right to kill an unborn human. Which brings me to my next point.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently received the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist. Every newspaper, it seems, is also reporting that abortions will be on the increase this year because of the bad economy. We’ve all been told that Americans might have to makes sacrifices this year because of the recession, but I’m certain that most people did not think this meant America needed to kill its children.
Do not ever forget that no matter what it claims, if a government makes something legal, for many this gives the action the odor of sanctification. I am sure that Hilliary did not hesitate to tell everyone how proud she was to receive such a prestigious award.
At moments like this, one wonders if even God has enough forgiveness to go around.
Saturday, April 24, 2009 was declared “End the Fed Day” across the Internet. Of course, this stems from the growing cry in America against the Federal Reserve, particularly since Ron Paul has introduced legislation to have the Federal Reserve audited.
To use an old analogy, many feel that if the Federal Reserve is not abolished, whatever “reforms” America institutes would be the same as changing the wallpaper on its prison cell walls instead of trying to break out of prison all together. Going with that analogy, I guess that makes Fed Chair Ben Bernanke America’s prison warden, telling us he intends to make our life sentence more comfortable.
I, for one, am tired of changing the wallpaper. I want to get out of this prison. How about you?
Ronald Glenn has worked in real estate and law for more than twenty years. He now works in Philadelphia, and lives outside the city with his wife. Ron has been writing for America’s Right since January 2009.