by Jerry Richardson
It has become obvious that the only kind of Czars that Obama appoints are left wing Czars.
Is there a difference between left wingers and liberals? James Kalb in his book, The Tyranny of Liberalism, writes, “Where liberals are reformist the left is radical [having opinions far beyond the norm] and uncompromising...Leftists, who tend to live by their cause and treat it very much as a religion, want to do something radical right away...In general...[they] step up their denunciations of existing [governmental and societal] arrangements...” Yep. That's Hopenchange.
As only a single example of numerous radical, left wing Czars, take a look at Obama's new safe schools Czar, Kevin Jennings:
“[Sept 24, 2009] President Obama's "safe schools czar" [Kevin Jennings] is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men.
Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student.
Jennings was obviously chosen for this job because of the safe schools aspect... defining 'safe schools' narrowly in terms of 'safe for homosexuality'," Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told FOXNews.com.”
– Reference (1) at bottom.
Now, reflect with me...the American people were assured by Obama and the Left Stream Media (LSM) during the 2008 Presidential campaign that Obama wasn't really friends with all those radicals that he had spent his life around, they just happened to live in the same neighborhood, or they just occasionally bumped-into each other at work.
According to Obama, and reported as creditable by the LSM, he didn't really remember hearing any of Jeremiah Wright's hate filled rants, even though he and Michelle were members of Wright's church for twenty years.
And no, according to Obama, and reported as creditable by the LSM, he wasn't really friends with Bill Ayers, one of the former leaders of the Weather Underground...that little group that devised bombs and planned to blow-up things. Little, irrelevant past activities like that. Old news. People change. Let's move on. Similar vague answers were given for any requested details about Obama's past.
It is disturbing that so many American voters failed to heed the obvious DANGER signs related to the Obama-connections that were reported and covered by some of the media.
It is disturbing that the LSM avoided exploring and reporting on the many, left wing connections of Obama...American voters deserved to know about those connections before they cast their ballot for Obama...but, they were not told by the LSM, who aided and abetted a major political deception.
Fortunately, I am not one of the voters who was deceived by Barack Obama.
And thankfully, there are many others, 58+ Million voters, who were not deceived by Obama. But how did he manage to fool so many people (some portion of 62+ Million)? Obama is the modern equivalent of the old wild-west, snake-oil salesman. How did they deceive people? By promising them what they knew many were hoping for, a quick fix to a health problem. Obama promises quick fixes. He was elected President promising quick fixes to problems that have no quick fixes. He also postured as a political moderate (that's a laugh). Classic demagoguery. That's Hopenchange.
Of course Obama doesn't appear to be a dissembler. His facade is one of modern, no-nonsense sophistication. Out front, there's the Harvard law school veneer reinforced by a touted brilliance that somehow has failed to produce any available record of brilliance (but who needs actual evidence).
To counter balance the political liability of an intellectual-elite image, there's the obligatory story of struggling-to-maturity, the unfolding drama of a young man grappling with a racially divided self and a racially divided society who finally becomes a successful community organizer who “...learns about the value of community, the necessity of healing old wounds, and the possibility of faith in the midst of adversity.” It is a story straight out of a book Obama claims to have written, Dreams From My Father. The reason I say claims is because there are serious questions as to whether Obama actually wrote the book:
“[Sept 24, 2009] In a new book just released, Christopher Andersen’s Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, a reference was made based upon information the author was able to get through interviews with friends and neighbors. Normally, this information would not mean so much, but in the light of the multiple Czar appointments and the lack of background check of those in the shadow government Barack Obama is setting up ... without Congressional oversight, combined with the recent revelations of Van Jones (recently dispatched Green Jobs Czar due to radical, political affiliations that were recently uncovered), and independent ACORN investigations/convictions for illegal activity, this past connection validation becomes of greater importance.
Andersen writes in his book that after Obama finally got a new contract to write a book, Michelle Obama suggested that her husband get advice “from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.”
Obama had not as yet written anything. But he had taped interviews with family members. Andersen writes: “These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.”
Andersen also writes, quoting a Hyde Park neighbor of Obama: “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.”
Finally, Christopher Andersen concludes: “In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant — so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”
– Reference (2) at bottom.
The entire Obama performance is staged; Scripted by progressive ideologues such as David Axelrod, top advisor to Obama; inspired by Saul Alinsky's RULES for RADICALS (think ACORN); crafted by modern, political marketeers such as David Plouffe, and Larry Grisolano, both now with Axelrod's former media consulting firm; and bankrolled by America-haters, principally George Soros. All of this is being done for one purpose: To acquire political power.
Obama and the puppeteers behind him intend to use the power they have acquired to fundamentally change political, economic, and social life in America. Obama himself has spoken openly about his intent for radical change. On November 2008, before the election, speaking at the University of Missouri in Columbus, Missouri, then Senator Obama stated: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Earlier, Obama had inadvertently revealed his economic agenda when he said to Joe The Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), “...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Earlier (2001), while he was still an Illinois State Senator, Obama said, on a radio program interview,
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
–Reference (3) at bottom.
Karl Marx (of Marxism, and the father of communism) infamously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Barack Obama said, “...spread the wealth...”
Both men were actually advocating the same economic end result: Redistribution of wealth. Not just a one-time redistribution, but an on-going redistribution.
“[Sept 24, 2009] By 2012, nearly $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of American families will be redistributed among the bottom 70 percent if Obama’s proposals on taxes, health care, and climate change become law, according to the Tax Foundation
Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, said. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”
– Reference (4) at bottom.
There is little doubt that our Founding Fathers would have considered this type of government to be a form of tyranny. Perhaps soft tyranny, a concept derived from Tocqueville's Democracy in America, and recently popularized by Mark Levin in his book Liberty and Tyranny. Tyranny can be soft in the sense that it need not be brutal, and that it can be imposed for the ostensible good of the governed (like paternalism or nanny-statism); but all forms of tyranny involve restriction or reduction of individual liberty; where liberty is immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority,i.e., government must abide by the rule of law; and liberty is freedom from excessive rule of law (intrusive governmental control).
We are currently faced with two forms of soft tyranny.
First, we are faced with Barack Obama's progressive form of statism (state socialism): An effort to nationalize health care, coupled with on-going redistribution of wealth.
Second, we face the increasing possibility of having a Pravda-like media to control the news in ideological lock-step with the Obama administration:
“[Sept 24, 2009] The U.S. Government should have the right to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that foster a "diversity" of views, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
"If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome," wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution."”
– Reference (5) at bottom.
Our Founding Fathers would rise up in righteous anger. So should we. Soft tyranny should not be ignored simply because it is soft. Soft tyranny is still tyranny, and it needs to be exposed, opposed, and stopped.
I am reminded of a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
I think it is time for all Americans who truly value liberty and truly believe in constitutional government, as established by our Founding Fathers, to take this oath, to take it seriously, and to politically live by it.
1. President Obama's safe schools Czar
2. Obama/Ayers Link Surfaces In An Oblique Way
3. Barack Hussein Obama discussing "Redistribution of Wealth" from 2001
4. Obama's Policies Would Redistribute Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth Every Year
5. Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air 'diversity' ads