For Dems, it’s always ‘butter’ over ‘guns’

In the wake of the Obama Administration’s looming failure with its government health insurance and possibly its cap-and-trade proposals, it has made a grand splash on the international stage–at the United Nations in New York and the G-20 (formerly G-7) meeting in Pittsburgh. No one could fairly call Obama a tyrant, for he lacks a tyrant’s power, and he is certainly not acting like one (except for Honduras). When a tyrant runs into difficulties at home, he diverts attention by stirring up troubles abroad. But Obama is apparently contemplating reversing course in Afghanistan.

Like previous Democrats, President Obama’s international strategy seems rather to diminish than enlarge our world role. When he is not denigrating the previous administration or apologizing for his country, Obama is determined to build up the power and prestige of international organizations. Ostensibly aimed at curbing the aggressive designs of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, the President’s real objective is to check the supposedly imperial ambitions of the United States.

Like failed presidential candidate George McGovern, Obama wants America to "come home" from its international responsibilities, dropped into its lap by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and kept there by the Soviet Union’s drive for world domination. Liberal Democrats believe that almost all international "tensions" arise from either misunderstandings or America’s own failings.

When one puts this together with the pressures from domestic politics, we get retreat from international leadership. As liberal Democrats in Congress indicate their displeasure with Obama’s attempts to rescue its health care "reform" by reducing or masking its socialistic features, Obama may have found the tactic that will placate them.

Early on, Obama seemed to make good on his promise to give our efforts in Afghanistan the priority they have long deserved by a commitment of 40,000 troops with a new commander. However, liberal Democrats in Congress made it clear that they did not wish to continue our efforts there.

So when someone in the Beltway leaked to the Washington Post that the commanding general wants to ratchet up the total numbers to 100,000, the President suddenly announced that, until we have settled on our strategy and tactics, he cannot approve the request without more study. Friends, this was the "good war" that the bad Bush neglected for nation building in Iraq. Why the abrupt change?

I submit that, however forcefully Obama declared that he would prosecute the war in Afghanistan, his heart was never really in it. The truth is, the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were fought against the same enemy, often working in tandem with each other and always against the United States and the Western world. As Bin Laden is a terrorist without a government, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist with a government.

It was clever and useful for Obama to distinguish between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for it gave a patina of truth to his claim that his quarrel with Bush was tactical, not strategic. Obama needed only to accept the windup of the American campaign in Iraq, but Afghanistan turned out to be more difficult than he thought.

So now that the left wing of his political party (Obama’s wing) shows signs of restiveness over his domestic policy, that faction’s zealotry for socialism and indifference to the plight of other nations is combining to cause the biggest disaster for America since the fall of southeast Asia to Communism. That defeat, too, was a direct result of the left’s hostility to political freedom abroad and its disrespect for American honor.

Just as our retreat in Vietnam made meaningless the sacrifices of our fighting men in that long conflict, so those brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in harm’s way in Afghanistan face a similar prospect.

Lyndon Johnson was determined not to follow the example of his hero, Franklin Roosevelt, who shelved the New Deal in order to give priority to saving America from German and Japanese imperialism. The war in Vietnam was the "bitch" that Johnson felt he was cursed with but which he would not permit to delay his cherished Great Society.

Like LBJ, Obama would rather "transform" American society than attend to the common defense. Placing its faith in international organizations, this administration imagines that foreign threats will go away as long as our nation takes the socialistic course. We will pay for this folly.

Constitution? What's that?

We all know that Barack Obama doesn't think much of the Constitution.  And he certainly won't let it get in the way of the government takeover of health care.Courtesy of  Kim Strassel at the WSJ today comes some insightful commentary about what we can now expect from Obama and the merry leftists in Congress. The Baucus Bill has been subject to Congress' death panel and is DOA. Baucus attempted to craft a bipartisan bill that would enjoy a modicum of Republican support, but he ultimately caved to enough liberal demands that it got sufficiently watered down to appeal to precisely nobody. The Republicans find it too costly and pernicious in its penalties and taxes, and the left finds it far to soft on the insurance companies and other villains of the health care industry. Max tried, but in the end he truly made "mischief of one kind...or another" and got promptly "eaten up".

In any event, Strassel makes the very good point that we should all prepare ourselves for a renewed leftward turn in the health care debate as our President caves to the demands of his leftist base:

...Our bipartisan White House grew weary of the bipartisan process and pressured Mr. Baucus to produce. He jettisoned his colleagues and pushed out a product that Messrs. Grassley and Enzi promptly condemned. The White House did such a good job of suggesting that Ms. Snowe was its GOP patsy—a Republican who'd vote for a ham sandwich, if only they asked—that even the miffed Maine senator has stepped back.

The result is two-fold. With no, or little, GOP support, the only way Mr. Baucus can pry his bill out of committee is to allow the left to have its way. The White House knows this, which is why the president—despite seizing on the Baucus legislation in his speech last week—is already abandoning the finance chief and his bill to the tender mercies of West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller and New York's Chuck Schumer. The White House wants a bill, any bill, and this bloc now holds all the votes in committee. Pity Mr. Baucus, who just got used.

Into the hands of Rockefeller and Schumer we fall. And you can bet that what comes now is a highly partisan bill that will attempt the "public option" in one form or another, and a price tag that will be (conservatively) in the Trillion Dollar range. Worse yet, it will be couched in all sorts of creative accounting and political double speak that the public will think its getting steak when it is really horse meat with lots of sauce on it. Those who were gullible enough to elect Mr. Obama may likely be gullible enough to take his latest sleight of hand at face value.

Worse yet, it is apparent that Obama wants a bill -- any bill -- and will do whatever is necessary to force it through, even if it involves using the reconciliation tool that requires just 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to overcome an inevitable Republican filibuster.

What has changed is Mr. Obama's determination to push a bill through, regardless of what his party, or the public, thinks. The White House will make the case to waverers that the political fallout of a health-care failure will be worse than backlash that comes with voting for a bill. Maybe. Behind that is the further threat that Dems will go this alone, via 50-vote reconciliation, if necessary.

Reconciliation was meant to be used only for finance bills, not for momentous, life-altering legislation like major health care reform. The Framers of the Constitution created a system where major political initiatives such as this would be subject to the normal process of debate, with the rights of the minority (in the form of the filibuster) in place. The system of checks and balances was put into place for a reason -- to slow down the system so that radical change would be difficult and would require the support of the minority party.

But no matter. In the power play now going on in Washington, the left wants its way no matter who gets trampled. Obama is already on record as saying that the Constitution "is an imperfect document", and this might as well apply to the rules around health care legislation as well. He, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and the others know best, after all -- and they clearly don't care what the people think or want.

We are in for a rough ride. Keep up the pressure on your local Congressional delegation. The only chance we have is that those in Congress will care more about getting elected than actually reforming health care.

Let's make it clear that an "aye" will result in a "nay" next November.

Wise up to Alinsky's Rule 13

The late Saul Alinsky and his writings are drawing much interest and study, in that the current President and Secretary of State were apparently his disciples. All one has to do is “google” (a new verb in the English language) “Rules for Radicals” and read for yourself. What I wish to comment upon is number 13 under “Tactics”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” It is this tactic, adopted by the Progressives, that seems to have thrown Republicans and conservatives completely! In practice, this means the Progressives “go after” someone personally, using everything and anything they can find, (or even things they make up!)

We see how they vilified George Bush over the last 8 years, then Senator McCain, then Sarah Palin, (who apparently has been chased off the political scene by the tactic!) Gone are the days of the Lincoln Douglas debates, where people will “agree to disagree”. Gone are the days of mutual respect and fair play.

The Progressives seek to seize power permanently and turn the country into their version of a Soviet State. It’s time for the “Defenders of the Republic” to “fight fire with fire” rather than whimper they are not being treated “fairly”!

“I don’t understand why I didn’t get a chance to respond!” lamented one conservative lawmaker who’d been lured to a “debate” where he was beset upon, ridiculed and reviled by a hostile crowd and didn’t even get a chance to open his mouth!

The latest target, however, has been citizens who have shown up at town halls to object to the Health Care plan. For the first time, the Alinsky tactic has not been successful, because thousands of people showing up at hundreds of town meetings are hard to target.

In many respects, the tables have been turned. Speaker of the House Pelosi accused protestors of “carrying swastikas”, which follows the Alinsky “polarize it” formula. The Obama joker pictures have triggered “racism”howls from the Administration, in spite of the same tactics used against Bush. Basically, the Progressives like to “Dish it out, but can’t take it!” The mass tactics of town halls and Tea Parties have been hard to vilify effectively.

The quicker the Conservatives lay aside their genteel notions of politics and go for the jugular in these political fights, the better the chances of survival. Of course there will be those who huff “we’re stooping to their level”! But that’s a little like the British Officers who railed against the Indians of North America in the 1750’s because they wouldn’t line up in rows on a battle field and “fight like men!”

Democrats socialistic? Of course they are

The greatest single weapon in the Democratic Party’s arsenal has been its ability to confuse the voters. Even though it has practically defined itself since the 1930s as the party of Big Government, with high taxes and spending, massive regulation and intervention, and continual encroachment on private property, its leaders and spokesmen have vehemently denied that their policies amount to socialism. But why? Is socialism such a bad thing? Maybe not if you advocate socialistic policies, but maybe so if calling something by its right name will antagonize the voters and lose their support. That’s been the predicament of the Democrats as they consistently seek to solve real or imaginary problems with government programs and income redistribution, rather than abiding by the Constitution’s protections for free trade and commerce.

There’s no point in trying to pin the socialistic tail on the Democratic donkey when the donkey disowns it. Better to define our terms and decide the question based on the relevant principles and salient facts, rather than accusations or denials.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines socialism as follows: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 

Governmental ownership of production and distribution of goods rather than private property, then, is the essence of socialism. This contrasts with the limited government and largely unfettered trade and commerce by individuals and corporations that have distinguished the United States of America.

How then do we understand the Obama Administration’s takeover of banks and other financial institutions, automobile companies and the current proposal to take over the health insurance industry? Plainly, these are all socialistic measures, not just because Republicans say so but because they are examples of what socialism is.

In Europe, where nationalized health care has long been in effect, along with nationalized heavy industry and mining, socialism is more "advanced" than in the United States. When President Obama says that he wants to "transform" America, following the European model is what he has in mind.

Socialists here and in Europe are not enemies of government by the people, or at least they have no intention of replacing it with any sort of dictatorship. During the many decades that they have promoted socialism, they have been at great pains to distinguish themselves from Marxists, who have advocated violent overthrow of so-called "bourgeois" (middle class) democracies and replacement by the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

The difference has turned on very different evaluations of modern democratic government. The Marxists believe that western democracies are a sham, allegedly dominated by the evil capitalists who manipulate the people by money and influence. These corporate chieftains will not, Marxists say, willingly give up their rule, so the only way to change things is through violent revolution.

Marxists have as much scorn for democratic socialists as they do capitalists for their supposedly naive belief that peaceful change is possible, if not their covert cooperation with the enemies of the people. But the democratic socialists believe that, through persuasion and effective politics, the majority can be brought around to socialism without violent revolution, and they now have several decades of success here and in other Western countries to prove it.

However, in spite of two great waves of socialism in America via the New Deal (NRA, AAA, social security) and the Great Society (war on poverty, medicare, racial quotas), and the wave now being stirred up by the Obama Administration, a majority of Americans still prefer limited government and free trade and commerce. If there is one overriding reason for this, I would maintain it is their firm belief that they retain the capacity to govern themselves.

That is why, according to recent public opinion polls, a.majority now views unfavorably the President they elected last fall. They have been shown by their harsh, bitter experience with the first few months of the new administration that the Democrats are not the political party of the little guy but of Big Government.

This emerging majority for a restoration of fundamental American principles of government may or may not be put off by Democratic denials of the party’s commitment to socialism, but they know that party stands for policies that threaten their health care, their contracts and their private property. Truly, socialism is the right name for those policies.

Socialists within are gaining

The socialists want to take over. Shall we allow them? The US is close to be taken over from within by Barack Hussein Obama, a development similar to those in Germany at the beginning of the 1930s. I grew up under the Nazis, and what I saw then there I see now here. There is nothing theoretical when I speak about what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society and when Christians become religious bystanders. I am not part of those who want some people to look bad by calling them Nazis, as Nancy Pelosi and so many people do nowadays. My writing is based on my own experience and that of my family. We were there.

The White House launched what could be called a "snitch" program by asking Americans to forward to a White House e-mail address anything regarding health care reform that they consider "fishy." This should help the government, explains the White House director of new media, Macon Phillips, to uncover the truth about the president's position and find the "disinformation" about health care "reform." The "snitch" program is opening the door to Gestapo methods.

When I was a child, Gestapo agents took positions in front of our church and wrote down the names of those who entered. It was intimidation, and everybody knew what it meant to be of different opinion than the Nazi government. My parents entered the church nevertheless, along with us four children. My father, a civil servant, in spite of being sacked when the Nazis came to power, did not compromise. For my parents, the greatest preoccupation in those years was the integrity of us children whom they didn't want to be infected by Nazi philosophy. The Gestapo had their informants everywhere, and they liked to discover through innocent children what their parents were up to. It was forbidden by law to listen to foreign radios and could lead to death penalty if found out. My father used to listen at 10 p.m. to the Swiss station Beromünster so we children wouldn't notice.

Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"

According to media reports, the end-of-life-counseling, part of the health care "reform" in the bill before Congress, contains the philosophy that not all people have the same value for society and that, therefore, treatment for old people should be different than that for young people. In various television shows, the issue of the possibility of euthanasia is being discussed. This is also a criminal Nazi concept at the heart of their ideology. The Jews were declared by "law" to be less valuable than the Arian German race and eventually killed. Important for the Nazis also was the contribution of a person to society. Handicapped and old people were of no use to them. Therefore, they were led to a cost-saving death.

Our home in Germany was close to the Bodelschwinghsche Institute in Bethel, a complex where disabled people were looked after. When a Nazi commission arrived to pick up these people to be killed, the head of this Christian institution, Pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwing, put up such a ferocious and noisy battle for their lives that the commission had to give up and depart. But the euthanasia program nevertheless went ahead and was followed by the Holocaust. Does the health care project lead to an early end for old people for cost-saving reasons? One cannot trust the Democratic Party, which has abortion in its political platform and therefore is most likely also open to euthanasia. I prefer the clean direction of the patriotic tea party movement, which has taken our corrupt government establishment to task.

Obama did not visit Israel, our only democratic ally for many decades in the Middle East, but he made a speech to the Islamic nations and spoke of a new beginning. I did not hear him talk about the ceaseless firing of Arab missiles into Israel, asking them to begin change with themselves and stop firing missiles. Instead, he set up a Gestapo-like apparatus in the American Jerusalem Consulate to monitor Jewish movements in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obama guaranteed the Palestinian Authority Israeli land they want, including East Jerusalem. Via the Israeli ambassador in Washington, he and Secretary of State Clinton try to dictate to the Israeli government what they should do and not do. At the same time, however, a senior adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Rashideh al-Mughrabi, declares in an interview with WND, "I don't believe there are any civilians in Israel; all of Israel society is a military society and therefore a military target." He joins Obama, who promotes abortion, in the philosophy that lives of others do not matter.

There are many discussions about what could be the real purpose of Barack Hussein Obama. It is important to know what his aims are to understand what we are facing.

In my book "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie," I speak of the enemy within and the enemy outside. I have a list of enemies of God, a few names only as examples, just to make the reader understand the essentials. Obama represents the melting of the godless enemies within and outside the United States in what is the coup de grace for a corrupt society. With other words, Obama's trillion-dollar projects belie a purpose to cripple the American economy and integrate a weak United States into the communist/socialist United Nations world order. This includes fake reasons to make the American people come along. If these projects became law, I believe, the middle class would have such strong financial difficulties that people would be unable to resist him. Therefore, rather than bipartisan understanding. rejection is the need of the hour.

The priority for Hitler as for Obama was then and is now to control the lifelines of their respective nations, which includes the silencing of the opposition so that they cannot be removed from power. I described in an earlier article how Hitler reached absolute power. Obama is struggling to get there.

What links the enemies within and without is organized godlessness. The lies of the outside aggressors and of the inside helpers may have different purposes, but they are all anti-American. I had to face the fact that my personal lies and my personal immorality made me blind to the nature of the Nazis and their anti-God purpose. Hitler could use me and millions of others, making us morally co-responsible for his atrocities in which I had no part. Every American who loves this country has to face the same responsibility for his government. Christian bystanders were in Germany and are in America the most important helpers of totalitarian politicians. America needs a moral rebirth.

Here's what I mean: Abortionist Barack Obama and Fidel Castro are part of the enemies of God because of the unchanged evil inside of them, their disregard of human life. They are on the wrong side of the battle line. Their purpose and actions are an insult to God.

The political and ideological battle line, therefore, is not between Democrats and Republicans, or between capitalism and socialism. The Nazis (national Socialists) were not Fascists. Fascism is not totalitarian. It is an ordinary immoral dictatorship. In their ideology, the Nazis were always part of global Marxist Socialism. Marxism, with its hatred and envy, is in its roots godless and incompatible with Christian teachings and therefore with our Constitution. Germany went down because of godlessness, and America is sliding down for the same reason. Obama and Pelosi, to name only two, are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

The economy is not the heart of the matter. It is only a consequence. The real issue where fundamental change is asked for is the relationship of this nation and of every American citizen with God and His commandments. When I speak of God I mean God, our creator, not religion. This country has too many laws that stink. Society has to be cleansed. America must become literally a nation under God. Then America can change the world. We need a president and members of Congress who stand for truth and life and not for lies and death.

Hilmar von Campe is the author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America." Having grown up under the Nazis, he offers a unique perspective on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. He warns that there are many similarities between the Nazi society and America of today.