web analytics
≡ Menu

Was it Obamacare’s victory or the triumph of self-defeat?

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.

{ 3 comments… add one }
  • Chiu Chun-Ling April 1, 2010, 3:24 am

    In a sense, the fatal blow was struck in the Marbury v. Madison decision, which invented the power Judicial Review out of whole cloth and used it to strike down as unconstitutional a law that the Congress had passed in compliance with the explicit directives of the Constitution.  The law in question had already been superceded by a later act of Congress, the immediate substance of the verdict rendered was favorable to the new President (Jefferson) and thus his naturally hostile reaction was muted, and the power arrogated to the court pleased lawyers (including judges) everywhere.

    That decision set a pattern of abuse of the Constitution by tortured readings which found meanings exactly opposite the clear wording of every passage of the text.  It is a miracle that the decay of Constitutional government has been so slow, a testament to the will of the American people to remain free, no matter what the learned students of rhetoric might claim about the nature and intent of the law.  But that will has never been sufficiently focused to actually reverse the loss of freedom, only to shift the momentary objectives of tyranny.  Now, America must be truly renewed to Constitutional government as it has never renewed itself before…or it must fail.

    The Constitution itself will survive.  Even if the nation is destroyed, those with the wisdom and ingenuity to hold onto some measure of civilization in the aftermath will pattern their new nation on it.  All too blind to adhere to the profound principles it expresses will be swept into chaos and oblivion.  That is sufficient for me.

  • Alan Lee Keyes March 31, 2010, 5:41 pm

    It was the founders who sought a strong central government to remedy the deficiencies of the government set up by the Articles of Confederation.  The issue has never been the strength of the Federal government, but the limited powers with respect to which it has authority to exercise its strength.  The founders despised feeble government as a contradiction in terms.  They prize limited government as a prerequisite for liberty.
    The limits on government power, whether at the national or the state level, derive from the requirement that government action respect the unalienable rights of the people.  This is not a matter of strength, but of justice.  The founders wanted the government to be strong not feeble in the exercise of its just powers.
    Far from fighting for limited government, the South fought to sustain its stubborn rejection of its basic premise-that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.  Slavery utterly contradicts this premise.  Southerners like Calhoun were open and explicity about their rejection of the premise of God ordained equality among men.  The founders feared that the inevitable crisis implied by the contradiction between the institutional practices of the South and the moral premise of the U.S. Constitution would destroy both the Union and the Republic.  De Tocqueville thought it would destroy the Union, but the republican form of government would survive. Thanks to Lincoln’s extraordinary statesmanship, they all proved to be too pessimistic.
    Nothing Lincoln did altered the Constitution’s provisions for a Federal government, limited in it powers.  The direct assault began during the so-called progressive era, with things like the 17th amendment and the income tax.  It is culminating today as the Obama faction seeks to install overt elite dictatorship.  Throughout the 20th century there was a steady assault on the moral ideas and principles that the republic is based on, starting with the premise of creation and the authority of the Creator.  The elites have rejected the principles.  But those principles are still alive in the hearts of many of the people.  The question now is whether the people will find the understanding, courage and leadership to act on what their hearts still know to be true.  The battle is coming to a climax, but it’s not over yet.   

  • doublee March 31, 2010, 4:09 pm

    “[W]hat’s next in the Obama <img style=”width: 22px; height: 22px;” src=”http://kona.kontera.com/javascript/lib/imgs/grey_loader.gif”/>faction’s thus far successful bid to overthrow and replace America’s constitutional republic?

    I would argue that our Contstitutional Republic has already been overthrown.  I don’t know that I, or anyone, can point to a single event in our history that could be identified as one when the overthrow took place.  If there is one event in our history that would be more significant than any other, would it not be The War Between the States and the fact that the Union forces won?  Was it not the Southern states that were fighting to defend the Constitution and its principle of state sovereignty?  And was it not Lincoln who favored a strong, central government?

    Nevertheless, the broad sweep of our history has been one of a gradual chipping away at the Constitution.  The election of those who are either ignorant of the Constituion or choose to ignore it has been the one of the contributing factors.

    Add to that the fact that the judicial branch has done its share of violence to the Constitution, and we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: