3 Reasons Why You Should Be More Scared of Obama than Palin

Living on the fault line, surrounded by Moderate Republicans leaning Obama's way, and Hillary Democrats leaning McCain's way, I hear a consistent complaint: okay, we get that both she and Obama are grossly inexperienced, but what concerns us more is her identity with the dreaded Religious Right, as Bush was.  What if she pushes that agenda again?  Besides the simple fact she is the usually-irrelevant VP not the top of the ticket, and that she did not institute those polices while Governor of Alaska, let's consider whether those fears are in any way less than the developing profile of Barack Obama as a radical in moderate clothing. 

Three items should condemn him well beyond any fears of the mere VP:

1. His own words in a newly unearthed interview condemn him as a radical
2. His own policy on union rights condemns him as like the socialists in England
3. His party's trial balloon to nationalize 401(K) savings condemn the unbridled Democrats as dangerous

1) Obama's Own Words Mark Him A Radical

A 2001 interview is flying around the blogosphere, and can be listened to here, here, here and here with commentary and transcripts.  You can hear & see the following in its full context.

First, reflect on where his politics lie when he says that the Warren Court was not radical enough:

[A}s radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, ... Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.

Obama also says the Constitution has a "fundamental flaw":

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

Jeff Goldstein's reaction:

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew…

As a consequence, there is no doubt that Barack wants to redistribute wealth to minorities as the new civil rights.  As he says in the interview:  "I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."  As the commentator at HotAir.com concludes:

This sounds very much like socialism and radical change, and there is no mistaking the context of this statement.  While Obama recognizes in this passage that the judiciary doesn’t have the “structure” to make radical changes to the Constitution, he doesn’t sound at all happy about it.

Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates.  He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement.  That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama’s vision.

2) Obama Supports One of the Worst Possible Labor Laws

Obama supports the Orwellian Employee Free Choice Act, whose Wikipedia entry is itself hugely misleading of the pernicius approach in this law: "Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation..."  The proposed law is Orwellian since it removes the secret ballot and thereby grossly removes choice from employees. 

Do we respect history so little we are willing to repeat one of its greatest mistakes? 

Margaret Thatcher is widely credited with saving England from socialism.  Her finest hour came with breaking the backs of the Trade Unions.  Her key legislation was a 1984 law which required secret ballots for unionization and union action.  To anyone with a view of history, open ballots lead to gross intimidation of dissenting members.  England languished before, and prospered after this act of huge political courage.

In England, the trade unions were the backbone of socialism.  Obama wishes to support socialism's core political tenet, of giving unions undue power.

The timing of this could not be worse.  Obama is poised to repeat the trifecta of policy that turned the 1930 recession into the Great Depression.  Most of us know the first two mistakes: a huge tax increase in 1931, and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.  (Obama supports a huge tax increase plus unwinding NAFTA and other free trade agreements.)  But we may not be as cognizant of the third and worst mistake: allowing companies to collude and empowering trade unions to promote wage increases.  A recent UCLA Study confirms that this prolonged the Depression for the seven years until WWII got us out of it. 

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity. ...

Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

The economics lesson: Deflation from 1930 - 1933 had made the US Dollar 35% more valuable, meaning prices & wages should have been dropping 35%.  (In inflation, prices and wages to go up to maintain purchasing power; in deflation, they drop but purchasing power stays the same.)  if you artificially prop them up, as FDR did, companies go bankrupt and employees get fired when by simply letting the prices & wages mark to market the economy would have righted itself. 

3)  The Democrats Will Be Out of Control

The Democrats are besides themselves with joy and anticipation over controlling Congress and the Presidency with a filibuster-proof majority for the first time since the Great Society.  Their confidence in Obama's win has led them to jump the gun with some of their schemes and intentions. 

UPDATE 10/28:  Biden spills the beans and lowers the "rich" from $250k to $150k.  Video is here.  This had been predicted by Joe the Plumber. 

The one that tips their hand the most is the trial balloon to take over the private 401(k) savings:

Via workforce.com:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

Here is another take on this: 

According to US News & World Report along with Congressional Records, a House subcommittee is considering the advancement of legislation that would ELIMINATE 401(k) plans and create as an alternative a "Guaranteed Retirement Account" for every worker in the United States. Under the plan, Americans' existing 401(k) accounts would be transferred into the GRA and would grow at an average yield of around 3%. The subsequent loss of preferential tax treatment among US employers who offer the qualified plans would be used to make a $600 per person government contribution into the plans. In addition, the GRA's would require a mandatory 5% contribution (tax) by all US workers.  ...

This legislation being considered by Democrats is perhaps the most dangerous proposal put forth by the Democrats to date. The system would essentially create a second Social Security System in which bureaucrats would control the funding, investment and use of the money. The government would control all provisions of the plan, and individual rights for determination of risk reward would be stripped.  ...

There is currently $4.5 Trillion dollars invested within 401(k) plans in the United States, the transfer of this wealth to the government would destroy not only the financial markets but would also cause the collapse of an entire industry of financial and accounting companies that have been built upon the Retirement Savings Industry. This would be the largest loss of wealth and seizure of public assets in world history.

In addition, consider the long term ramifications of such a system. A 3% savings rate will essentially double the account value every 24 years. That would mean that if you were 41 years old today and had $20,000 in your 401 (k) plan, that money would now be worth $40,000 at age 65 under the GRA. This GRA plan would depress savings rate to a point that multiple generations of Americans would be unable to outpace inflation within their savings and suffer inadequate incomes upon retirement. The resulting "Welfare" generation would only spurn more government taxes in order to provide for their retirement. The resulting vicious cycle of impoverishment and taxation would never end.

Final Thoughts: Free Speech & The Death of Democracy

Are we at a tipping point?   The worry is that when over half the voters are dependent on government, the Republic will be lost.  Obama's tax cut is not a tax cut since 40% of the beneficiaries pay no Federal income tax. It is a redistributionist scheme to turn over half the country's VOTERS into people on the dole who are dependent on government.   Obama's Union scheme intends to build an entrenched political cadre for socialism, as happend in England.  The Democrat 401K scheme makes retirees even more dependent on government, and removes a huge pool of private capital for use by the government. 

What is worse is the subversion of Democracy itself.  ACORN is trying to steal this election; if they figure this out at scale, how can the electorate take power back?  Articles are rife at how Obama and Biden use intimidation of the Press to suppress inquiry into their nefarious activities.  Consider how they reacted to a TV interview in Florida, and now Philadelphia.  And now they are intending to blackball Fox News.   Democratic leadership wish to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which is targeted at Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio shows, and is expected to suppress talk radio. 

The Free Press is the Fourth Branch of Government, the buttress against corruption and usurpation of power.  It is vividly clear in this election that the mainstream media (MSM) has utterly failed in their responsibility.  Why ios the MSM so in the tank for Obama?  Consider this take on it: 

I personally believe that the press is going “all in” on Obama because they figure it’s the best way to shut down alternative media - which is killing them - and go back to being the only game in town. The only game in town, and completely beholden to the government. That’s scary as hell.

Michael Malone puts in the final word:

The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game.  With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.  And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer. ...

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign.  Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates.  But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.

There is much more at stake in this election than worries about four more years of Bush or the inadequacies of Palin. 

Comments

[Jack]

hey Yelnick.

I've been reading your elliott wave summaries for several years now and just came over to this politick site on your own recommendation in last night's post. good stuff here. perhaps i should surf around more.

you have a very intelligent way of presenting your arguments.

keep it up.

cheers. jack

[rc]

likewise... am reading up on your posts here... they deserve to be much more widely distributed... they should be on drudge (though I don't know how they'd get there.)

[Paul]

I'm late to the game. But excellent article. I think it's something I should send to family and friend.