What are we for? The Exceptional America Obama is Strangling

Shawn Mitchell
|
Posted: Jun 28, 2013 12:01 AM

Evidence of the administration’s incompetence, policy fails, and dirty deeds is piling up as fast as the worthless national media can be dragged and shamed into grudgingly reporting it. But don’t fool yourself that liberals will be reflective, conciliatory, or interested in fence-mending.

 

The latest retort to anyone rude enough to notice Obama’s many failings is: “Then what are you for?” The attempted verbal judo is an act of political bad faith.

 

In Obama’s first term, liberals’ all-purpose explanation for America’s continuing bad news was: “But..Bush!” Five years on, though, Bush is ancient history, even older than six-month-old-Benghazi— which was “A long, long, time ago…In a galaxy far, far away” as Jay Carney might put it. Obama defenders badly need a new drug.

 

Since they can’t defend the indefensible, the O-Team defiles Democrats’ Saint Truman with the ultimate buck-pass: “Then what’s your great idea?!” The retort is rubbish for two fundamental reasons: First, Obama is steering the ship. It’s his agenda that matters, and it deserves to be held accountable. Second, the opposition, lacking authority or an empowered leader naturally fragments into many voices. There is no singular opposition platform. Demanding one is just a dodge.

 

Attention, liberals: It’s Barack at the bat. Americans don’t need to sketch a whole different game plan to legitimately criticize this administration’s strikeouts and errors. Demanding one is just a dodge.

 

What are we for? Do Obama’s defenders mean: What would neo-conservatives do? What would libertarians do? Social conservatives? CrunchyCons? PaleoCons? What would Rand Paul do? Ted Cruz? Karl Rove? What would John Boehner do? The House GOP Caucus?

 

Realistically, none of that matters. No one controls the opposition. But, Obama controls the federal government (except, David Axelrod says he really doesn’t, because no one really can) and he sets the agenda.

It’s a revolutionary agenda that must be scrutinized. Obama declared, on the verge of victory he meant to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Wait, what? Fundamentally? Was America fundamentally flawed before now? I mean, apart from Michelle’s proud sensibilities?  

 

Next to that manifesto, Jimmy Carter’s infamous “Malaise” speech diagnosed a case of the sniffles; Bill Clinton’s inaugural declaration: “There is nothing wrong with America that can’t be solved by what is right with America!” was a glowing bill of good health.

 

What fundamentals did the man from Hawaii, by way of Indonesia, Harvard Law Review, Chicago welfare recruiting, Jeremiah Wright’s hateful pews, and Bill Ayers’ living room, believe needed to change? Actually, almost everything.

 

Obama has attacked and degraded most everything that is uniquely American: a constitutional order based on limited, central government and separation of government’s powers; a nation where crises like oil spills or failing car companies are addressed by the law of the land, not an executive bully who ignores the rules, makes it up, and forces his terms; a government whose federal agencies focus on implementing the nation’s enacted law, rather than “crucifying” a few examples and harassing citizens who disagree; a society based on free enterprise, not on central planning, collective distribution, and conformity to state whim, as embodied by the president; a society where the exercise of constitutional rights is respected as the nation’s sacred fruit, not marked as a red flag for persecution by hacks, cronies and the frenzied mob.

 

Yes, he certainly did mean fundamental transformation, and he’s done his damndest.

He’s battled shrewdly and eloquently to body-snatch the Founders’ vision and to sell his counterfeit: America is not about freedom through limiting government; No! It’s about progress through redistribution, collective effort, and conformity to the state.

His second inaugural was dedicated to the proposition that the Founders’ project would be incomplete until the progressive vision is triumphant. He returns to that theme over and over, most recently when he urged Americans to ignore the voices warning of possible tyranny, because those voices are the enemies of our brave experiment in self-government.

 

It’s bitter-tragic how clueless or deceitful Obama is about the vision, bravery, and sacrifice that built this nation. The Founders’ historic contribution to the world is limited government, not smothering, maternal government, and certainly not NSA Orwellian government.

 

President Obama deeply believes in--and seductively sells, with slobbering media help--government without limits; government mandates that trump personal conscience; and material wealth that miraculously exists without rightful owners or producers, except for government and its clients, some of whom are poor, some of whom are crony multi-millionaires.

He exalts the worst that the decaying European order has to offer.

 

So, what do we believe in instead? What are we for? I can’t speak for others, but listen up, statists, redistributors, socialists, fascists, controllers, cronies, supplicants, and naïve progressive clingers: Here’s what I am for.

I’m for the Constitutional genius of the Founders that made America--in a handful of decades--the greatest, most prosperous, stable, and benevolent nation on earth. I’m for a government of limited and divided powers, with the most important decisions made close to home, in our states and communities.

 

I’m for a society that appreciates the miraculous fruits of free enterprise, the system that Obama, in the heat of an election, disingenuously proclaimed to believe is the greatest generator of prosperity the world has ever known--the system where free people, responding to supply and demand, produce more food, more clothing, more shelter, and a higher standard of living than any other system ever known to humanity.

 

I’m for a government that supports developing America’s amazing energy resources, not choking them based on politics and crony deals more than the latest science. I’m for a president who won’t block development on every parcel under his control, and then sleazily claim credit for the boom that happened in spite of him on all the lands he couldn’t block.

I’m for a populace who isn’t so brainwashed by public education and a state-licking media that it’s not too ignorant to catch that lie--and a thousand other lies—from the mouths of dishonest politicians in either party.

I’m for an education system that teaches more about the amazing blessings and global contributions of the exceptional American system than about its warts and lapses.

I’m for an America that believes in the fruits of freedom, not in the salvation of government control.  I’m for a dream that I fear is slipping away.