The Meaning of Change

By: Thomas E. Brewton

Candidate Obama charmed inexperienced, poorly educated youth and disaffected elders with promises of an undefined abstraction called change. That change, we now can see, was to be forcible imposition of Obama’s true religion, secular socialism.

Change that candidate Obama promised turns out to be restructuring society to achieve social justice, which in the socialist lexicon is egalitarian redistribution of income and wealth. That means higher taxes, tight regulation of all sectors of the economy, and further enervation of a population increasingly dependent upon the political state for its sustenance.

The president’s pattern of industry czars and heavy new regulations, along with government financing and partial government ownership of major private companies is reminiscent of Mussolini’s Fascist State Corporatism in the 1920s and 30s, as well as of Hitler’s tight regulation of German industry after 1933. In neither case did these dictators seize full ownership of private industry, which liberal-progressives tell us is the definition of socialism. Instead, Mussolini and Hitler followed the prescription of socialism’s early theorists: regulation alone is sufficient to impose socialist statism.

Elite councils of people like David Axelrod, a Chicago socialist agitator who formulates the president’s views, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who were leaders of Weatherman assassins, and San Francisco socialist Nancy Pelosi will decide what is best for you and me. As the president said with regard to people who question his programs, they should shut up and get out of the way.

More threatening to the survival of the United States is Obama’s continual diminishment of American political, economic, and military stature as a step toward world government, a sort of international egalitarianism. If the United States is impoverished by high taxes and socialistic regulation, and other nations become equally so, a world government will be at hand. Hypothetically war will cease to exist as an instrument of national policy. All of us will live harmoniously while scrounging for crumbs that remain from the former period of capitalistic plenty.

The president’s proposed National Socialist healthcare program is an example on the domestic stage. Obama offered several different rationalizations for partial socialization and extensive restructuring of our medical care system, all of them shown to be false or of doubtful effect. If the president’s aim had been only to provide medical insurance for the 15% of American citizens who allegedly lack it, there were far less costly and less intrusive ways to do so.

Choosing instead government takeover of most of the medical care industry makes clear that his vision of change, in consonance with the Democrat/Socialist Party platform of the past five decades, is British and Canadian style socialized medicine.

The same sort of thinking is apparent in the president’s nationalizing two of the Big Three automakers, as well as in his partial nationalization of the major banks. His czars, with the guidance of Congressmen like Representative Barney Frank, are regulating executive compensation, the types of loans that banks can or must make, facilities locations, and the sorts of automobiles that Government Motors will be permitted to make. And, in the automakers’ case, the president disregarded priority rights of bondholders in order to give substantial control of company assets to those quintessential exemplars of socialism, the labor unions.

On the foreign policy front, the president’s faith in pagan worship of Al Gore’s global-warming myth will grind industry to a halt, eliminate millions of jobs, and reduce all Western nations to poverty levels equal to those of the lowest tier of economically emerging nations. To a vicious degree, propositions supported by Obama will impose egalitarianism here and abroad.

The president has toured the world, kowtowing to Muslim dictators and to socialist strong men like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro brothers. His obsequious pleas to Iran have been met with insulting counter demands. He is now proposing to make meaningless the sacrifice of our armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq by premature withdrawals and curtailment of military support. This cowering self-denigration of the United States before the world’s forces of evil is again in consonance with the aboriginal doctrine of socialism, supported by the Nobel Peace Prize committee in socialist Norway.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to

About The Author Thomas E. Brewton:
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.