"Concentrated power will always be the enemy of liberty." -- Ronald Reagan
On November 6, the American people will be faced with the next presidential election. This election, however, will be unlike any previous, or, hopefully, any of those which follow. It will not be merely the usual choice between Republicans and Democrats. It will not be a choice between two candidates who want essentially the same thing -- our success as a nation -- but merely disagree on how to achieve that success. The choice we as a people make this November will between a candidate who seeks to put Americans back to work and restore our birthright of freedom, and an incumbent president who seeks to fundamentally alter our system of government.
When Barack Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, began his campaign for the presidency, he used two slogans to propel himself to victory: "Hope and Change" and "Change We Can Believe In." They were slogans that in and of themselves said nothing, and nobody bothered to ask exactly what kind of change the candidate had in mind. The "mainstream" news media knew, of course, but they never told us -- largely for the same reason they never properly vetted this particular candidate with regard to qualifications, background, past associations, or anything else. That reason, plainly stated, is simply that they didn't want us to know. They wanted this candidate elected, and one of the surest ways to ensure his election was to keep the public in blissful ignorance of who and what Barack Hussein Obama really was.
Today, thankfully, an increasing number of Americans are coming to the realization that "Hope and Change" and "Change We Can Believe In" were in fact code phrases for communism. This is not a charge leveled lightly. It is based on a knowledge of who Barack Obama is, and what made him that way. It is based on the past associations that influenced him as a youth, and molded him into the man he is today. Specifically, it means the man Obama called his mentor during his developmental years: Frank Marshall Davis, a lifelong member of the Communist Party of the United States of America. It refers to perhaps the most evil genius our country ever produced, Saul Alinsky, author of Rules For Radicals, which would become Obama's bible. Even today this book, originally dedicated by its author to Satan (called Lucifer in the dedication), continues to serve as Obama's blueprint to marginalize and diminish his critics. It refers to communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's principal advisors, to former Communist Party member Van Jones, the one-time "Green Jobs Czar," to former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and to the Marxist professors from whom Obama deliberately chose to learn in his college days.
There is more to the story than just this, however. Consider that as a candidate, Barack Obama promised to make the economy his first order of business as president. Once elected and inaugurated, however, he promptly abandoned this idea in favor of a program of socialized medicine which was almost laughably entitled the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Bill -- later Act, after its having been railroaded through a partisan Democrat House and Senate. This act, if not repealed, will result in government takeover of roughly one-sixth of our entire economy. In the meantime, Obama took a bad idea from his predecessor, George W. Bush -- corporate bailouts -- and added his own twist to them. As he "bailed out" large segments of the banking, insurance, and automotive industries, he also bought stock in them at taxpayer expense, making the United States Government their principal owner -- to the point where the one-time automotive giant, General Motors (GM), became known in political circles as Government Motors. From this vantage point, Obama was now in a position to dictate what kind of products would and would not be produced by these companies -- and he took full advantage.
The push-through of the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act, better known as Obamacare, against the will of 60 percent of the American people, was a perfect illustration of what Democrats will do given the opportunity. Suffice to say that there is nothing democratic about the Democratic Party. Its leaders, if not most of its registered members, are socialists and power grabbers who, given their way, would take away our freedom, amass power for themselves, and dictate to us every aspect of our everyday lives: how we live, what we eat, what kind of cars we drive, and so on. As it has shown in the past, the so-called Party of the Common Man has nothing but contempt for the Common Man -- except at election time. Consider the recent Obama fundraiser hosted by Anna Wintour and Sarah Jessica Parker, in which a three-dollar contribution would be entered into a lottery, the winner of which could actually get to eat and hobnob with these and other aristocrats, including (swoon!) Michelle Obama! Even usually liberal commentator Juan Williams referred to this patronizing ploy as offering "the peasants a seat at the table." The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers (their most powerful constituency), Hollywood celebrities, the news elite, and union bosses -- not the Common Man. The fact that according to a number of polls Obama is not doing well among blue-collar workers, despite the backing of nearly all unions, should tell us something about how out-of-touch union leaders are with their own memberships.
Does this mean to imply, then, that the Republicans are always the Good Guys? Hardly. For one thing, Republican does not always mean conservative. Arlen Specter was not a conservative. Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee is not a conservative. Neither are Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar, or former Connecticut senator, later governor, Lowell Weicker. All either wore, or continue to wear, the Republican label. Only those of us over 50 remember Watergate, but more recent in memory is the Republican Congress of 1995-2006, who showed America they could spend just as freely as their counterparts across the aisle. One of the things today's Republican candidates must do in order to win this time is to demonstrate that they have learned from the mistakes of the past, and determine never to repeat them.
Another shortfall among Republicans is how they traditionally campaign. Democrats are notoriously ruthless campaigners who will stop at nothing and resort to any means, fair or foul, to win an election, as they demonstrated as long ago as 1960 in Chicago, again in Florida in 2000, and, most recently, in Connecticut in 2010 in that state's gubernatorial election. Unfortunately, Democratic ruthless too often is answered with Republican timidity, most conspicuously demonstrated in the last presidential election. Hesitant, afraid to offend, diffident in their desire to take the moral high ground, Republicans typically refuse to take off the gloves even as they're getting mauled and bloodied by the bare-knuckling of the Democrats. Then they wonder why they lose. Then, too, too many establishment Republicans seem to feel that the only way to win is to be more like the Democrats -- not in terms of campaign style, but in terms of policy: to be "Democrat Lite." This, too, is a prescription for defeat -- but for some mysterious reason, establishment Republicans seem unable to comprehend it. Like their most recent unsuccessful candidate, John McCain, they pride themselves on their ability to "reach across the aisle" -- while the Democrats make no effort at all to reciprocate. The Democratic definition of bipartisanship is that of all concessions being made by the Republicans -- which is too often exactly what happens. Again and again the Republicans cave to the Democrats, then wonder why the public gets disgusted with them.
With the infighting among Republicans apparently over and Mitt Romney now generally agreed as the presumptive Republican nominee, the battle lines are drawn. In Mr. Romney conservatives have a candidate who, while perhaps not quite conservative enough for their taste, nevertheless agrees with them on the basics. He is experienced at business, has created productive jobs, has met payrolls, and knows how the private sector works. Obama was a "community organizer." Romney sees our Constitution as did the founding fathers, as a foundation upon which to build. Obama sees it as an obstacle to be circumvented in his quest for ever-increasing government power. Romney believes in the system of checks and balances established in our Constitution. Obama does not. He has ignored court rulings, and demonstrated repeatedly that if Congress fails to give him what he wants he will rule by executive order.
Finally, Romney believes in and will work to preserve our birthright of freedom. Obama, like the left in general, does not believe in freedom. Since his inauguration in 2009 he has been working to systematically tear our country down in order to rebuild it along Marxist lines. Naturally, he cannot come out and state this intention. He knows that the vast majority of Americans do not want a communist government. Firmly rooted in his ideology, however, he seems to believe that if he spoon-feeds us communism, but calls it by another name, that we will not only accept it, but embrace it. In November, We the People will have our opportunity to prove him wrong.
The experience of other countries has shown us that socialism and freedom cannot coexist. This year's election offers the voters a contrast just that stark. Do we want our future to be one of freedom?
Or do we prefer government dependence?
Full List of Tim Siggia Articles found at Writers Journal Kingscalendar
Tim Siggia from Hartford Connecticut, attended Central Connecticut State College (now Central Connecticut State University) from 1963-67 and then joined the United States Navy. In 1973 he completed a bachelor or arts degree in English at the University of Maine at Portland-Gorham. In 1991 he retired from the Navy at the grade of Chief Journalist after which he joined the United States Postal Service, from which he is due to retire in 2012. He now lives in East Hartford Connecticut with his wife Penny. They have three sons and six grandchildren