Wednesday, January 21, 2009

What Does This New President Mean for America?

It appears that Socialism won a major victory on November 7th and sealed the deal on January 20th.

On the heels of an "economic meltdown" brought on by the housing bubble burst created by congressional ineptitude and shameless pandering, the exciting prospect of an Afro-Caucasian assuming the Presidency and the alluring give-away programs promised by an Obama Administration were simply too tantalizing to be spurned by a preponderance of voters. Thus, the hopes and fears of a majority of Americans swept Barack Obama into the Office of President on January 20th, surely a historic, if not entirely over-trumpeted, event.

Despite the pay freeze for White House staff, a perceptual PR triumph, which Obama announced today during the swearing in of his senior staff, the inauguration, a $170 million star-studded extravaganza, ushered into office a man who is still an entirely unknown quantity--unknown not only to those who didn't vote for him, but, ironically, to those who did.

I have to admit that I couldn't bear viewing the entire Hollywood-like surreality which played out before us on the tube yesterday. Frankly, the more I watched, the more painfully tremulous I became. So, for most of the day I watched more stable fare on the Discovery and History channels.

I firmly believe that America's transformation into a failed European-style socialist democracy is now underway with precious little resistance to stop it. And despite the pleasant prospect of a conservative resurgence in the 2010 congressional elections to help stem the socialist tide, I also worry about the irreparable damage which can and likely will be visted upon our free market republican system in the short span of two years.

The usual honeymoon with the new President will surely mean that our cowering Repubican brethren will grant the new President much of what he wants, inclusive of gargantuan and counterproductive stimulus spending programs which will surely increase unemployment and further exacerbate inflationary forces. The very fact that spending our way out of such an economic mess has never ever worked seems to have been entirely lost on the new Administration. Hard to believe, but it looks like the painful economic lessons of FDR's profligacy, over-regulation and high taxation will need to be learned again. Knowing this, we can only pray that the nation can somehow survive, if not altogether avoid, the economic disasters which befell the FDR years.

Despite his ritual commitment today--by executive order--to government transparency and openness and an easing of FOIA restrictions,my concerns remain. Why? I still don't know what this guy is really all about. Is he even constitutionally eligible to be President? Does this new openness extend to exposing the vaulted copy of his birth certificate in Hawaii to help lay to rest the smoldering eligibility issue? Have his numerous radical associations over the years influenced his political beliefs? Or was he so singleminded in his quest for the Presidency, perhaps an overwhelmingly consuming personal ambition, that he was willing to use anyone and everyone along the way to call the White House home without adopting any of their radical viewpoints or their corrupt predispositions? And if that's true, what does that say about his core beliefs, his principles, his personal values? Is he a man of honor, a man we can trust? Does he believe that the Office of President transcends the individual, or does he believe that he will transcend the Office? Does he intend to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the letter?" Or will he continue to rely upon legions of attorneys and marketing specialists to govern? Will the Constitution and our Bill of Rights be so loosely interpreted by him as to render the documents of incidental importance? Does anyone really know the answers to any of these gnawing questions?

Never properly vetted by the cheerleading liberal media, only those of us who took the time to research this man are justifiably concerned. Swept up into the euphoric tide, the starry-eyed wishful thinkers and blind ideologues annointed BHO. For them, reality was an avoidable nuisance. Idyllic ignorance was their refuge.

While I believe the President's cabinet is, to some extent, centrist. I also know that his second level appointments are considerably less so. For us to better gauge the intentions and direction of this new order, I suggest we keep our eyes on those second-level apparatchiks.

Simply put, I don't wish any President success who advocates and attempts to implement a socialist agenda for the greatest free enterprise republican system in the history of man. In any way making us over into a "Socialist Democratic Republic of America" is neither a lofty nor a patriotic goal for any credible Chief Executive of the United States. Only if President Obama strictly adheres to traditonal American values, defends our Bill of Rights, the sanctity of life, our security and our Constitutional free enterprise republic can he count on my support and trust. Short of that, he will be continue to be viewed by me and millions of other proud Americans as little more than a charming menace to our very way of life.

At long last, idolatry must now give way to commonsense and objectivity. Now we will see and feel what Mr. Obama is really all about. Though I pray that my concerns are entirely unfounded, at the moment reality suggests otherwise.

Keep your ear to the ground and your eyes wide open. When you have legitimate concerns, voice them loudly, clearly and responsibly. Don't allow political correctness or the fear of being labelled a racist or right-wing ideologue silence you. Become constructively engaged in the political process. Remember that use of the race card is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so stand up to those who would attack you as a racist simply because you disagree with their socialist agenda. WE THE PEOPLE are still free and the 1st Amendment is, so far, still the law of the land. In the final analysis, we too have the responsibility of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and, in turn, our God-given way of life. Remember that the Constitution is incapable of protecting itself. The reponsibility for its protection lies squarely with us. We should always strive to stoutly and proudly defend and preserve our bountiful blessings and hard-won liberties no matter the cost.

Diversity & Inclusion Obama Style?

Merely to inject a little reality into the exuberantly hopeful, gushing, star-studded Lincolnesque inauguration, this tiny little tidbit:

Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) delivered a prayer at the National Prayer Service today. In attendance, President Obama and VP Biden.

For what it's worth, ISNA was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial which produced guilty verdicts on 108 counts.

The Center for Security Policy reports that during a recent question-answer period with her students at Hartford Seminary where she teaches, Ms. Mattson made the following statements:

"Our community's Islamic faith transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship."

"The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own."

"There aren't any sleeper cells in the United States."

Regarding Wahhabism, a glaringly obvious radical wing of the Islamic faith, she defended it as merely an "Islamic reformist movement analagous to the European protestant reformation." Apparently, nothing more nor less.

She praised jihadist Maulana Mawdudi who in his "Jihad in Islam" stated unambiguously that "Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it"; that "the objective of Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of any un-Islamic system"; that "the aim of Islam is to bring about universal revolution" to achieve its ends.

I guess my silly, silly question here is why was this woman chosen over those American Muslims who have voiced their opposition to Jihad, shariah law and, yes, ISNA itself? Was it merely another lapse in judgement, a simple bureaucratic oversight? Or does it portend something more concerning? Just a question. Just a silly, silly question. Probably nothing to worry about at all.