After passage of the health takeover legislation, what’s next in the Obama faction’s thus far successful bid to overthrow and replace America’s constitutional republic? David Limbaugh argues that their successful capture of the health sector will now be used as the paradigm for offensive thrusts in other key areas, in particular the energy sector (so-called ‘cap and trade’ legislation) and citizenship for illegal immigrants (called amnesty because we’ll forget they cheated their way into it.) “There will be no mea culpas for the outrageous abuses they committed in passing this bill….If anything, they’re puffed up even more, as if they’re entitled to kudos for thwarting the will of the people and prepared to give them more of the same- which they are , with the likes of amnesty and cap-and-tax.”
On the other hand, “Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who has been working on a comprehensive amnesty bill with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and President Obama, has said that there will be no chance of immigration reform this year due to the rancorous and partisan health care debate.” If we’re trying to predict the future (what will happen) there are reasons to go either way. If we’re thinking strategically, however, we’ll keep in mind that the future depends on how well the defenders of liberty prepare for what its adversaries do next. This isn’t just a matter of scoping out what the Obama faction is inclined to do. It’s also a matter of thinking through the overall disposition of the elitist forces with which they are connected, in a shifty relationship of reciprocal service and mutual manipulation.
It’s likely that at the moment, on account of the internal dynamic of that relationship, the vector for its next course is still unsettled. Its ultimate heading is certainly not in dispute. But the breakneck speed of its forward motion during the health sector takeover has produced a larger than anticipated frictional co-efficient. The purely selfish elements of the relationship (the shadow elites impatient with the sovereignty of the people mainly for reasons of profit and material ambition) are prone to think the headstrong rush of the more self-righteous Obama ideologues (fanatically prepared to deal with opposition by acting on their admiration for 20th century mass murderers like Mao Zedong) is generating opposing forces sufficient to threaten the overall success of the takeover bid. The Obama ideologues, with the passion of true believers, feel the urgent need to broaden and accelerate the offensive in order to outflank, splinter and thus reduce the impact of any developing opposition. A third view may also be part of the mix- strategists who understand the essentially dynamic realities of the political war. They know that a high velocity must be maintained, so their instincts favor the self-righteous ideologues. But they also know that acceleration must be properly timed, directed and calculated or the worst fears of the shadow elites will be realized.
The next vector or thrust of the offensive will therefore probably involve acceleration, dispersed among several objectives, but with greater energy ultimately concentrated on one of them. That focus of energy will be timed to achieve a breakthrough, at a moment calculated to have the greatest impact on the outcome of the 2010 elections. The choice for acceleration is logical mainly because of the nature of the opposing forces. The camp of liberty’s defenders, though united in opposition to Obama, continues to be divided and confused in its strategic vision. It is also liberally seeded with destructive decoys (RINOs, amoral, so-called libertarians, “big government conservatives,” etc.) charged to give out signals modulated so as to draw opposition forces into orbit around them, but timed to decay so that the signal alters, scattering them and dissipating their energy at just the right moment.
The strategic ploy of the elite subversives depends on the reliable tendency of their opposition to rally their forces in response to every poke and prod directed against them. If all their forces were focused on one theme of opposition, they could pick the time and place to draw the subversives into a pitched battle. On account of the inferior mass of their combined forces, the elite subversives would lose. The strategist managing a quantitatively inferior force can win battles by combining motion with mass to concentrate superior power at a given point, but this requires that their opponent be dispersed, separated into manageable pieces.
At the moment, the supposed defenders of American liberty play into the strategic needs of their adversaries. This results from following leaders who continue to fight over political issues instead of fighting the political war for America’s survival in freedom. Thanks to this strategic incompetence their adversaries keep the initiative, continually choosing the time and place of battle by casting this or that issue before the people. So might one woodsman keep the wolf pack at bay by casting here and there a chunk of meat into their midst while his companions concentrate their fire on one resulting cluster after another until they eliminate them all. If all the wolves could control their ravenous impulse in order to focus all at once on attacking their adversaries, they could altogether eliminate them.
The elite subversives cast many issues, and therefore many questions, before the American people. One morsel is health care. Do you want the right? One morsel is citizenship. Do you want the right? One morsel is taxing the rich. Do you want the right? One morsel is sexual pleasure. Do you want the right? One morsel is murdering the innocent. Do you want the right? For every aspiration, every ambition, every expedient goal, there is an issue to pose, a question to be answered, an opportunity to divide and conquer. But the goal of the elitist subversives has nothing to do with these issues. Their goal is to see the day when there will be no more questions, but only commands, and no more “issues” because only one alternative is offered: submit or suffer, obey or die.
This prospect ought to focus the mind wonderfully on a simple fact. The American people actually have only one question before them: Do you want to be free? There is a way to achieve victory for the constitutional republic that preserves freedom. But it can only be reached through a prism of leadership that unites the energies of all elements of the conservative spectrum in one creed; one discipline; one purpose; one goal; one unyielding and resounding yes. Not all will join us. There are those determined to prove Aristotle right in his belief that some are just born for slavery. But part of our creed of liberty holds that the motion for freedom is seconded by nature and its Creator, God. Trusting, as America’s founders did, that if we stand for God’s justice He will still take our part, we can achieve the unity that makes our victory not just a pious hope, but a moral certainty.