America To Obama: We The People Don't Want Your Communism! by Tim Siggia

America To Obama:

We The People Don't Want Your Communism!

By Tim Siggia

July 31, 2009

"The best-laid schemes of mice and men go oft askew." -- Robert Burns (Standard English Translation)

It's amazing what can happen when the people get pushed too far. They stood by and watched as the "Porkulus Package" got ramrodded through Congress. They stood by and watched as a previously unheard of budget of $3.6 billion got enacted. They stood by and watched as federal bailouts resulted in government ownership of banks, insurance companies, and two out of the "Big Three" American automakers. But when Comrade Obama ignored the real concerns of his countrymen to make health care -- specifically a program of socialized medicine that would raise taxes and result in an overall decline of health care quality -- his overriding priority, the people finally put their collective foot down. They began calling their senators and representatives, and, as a result, what was once considered a done deal for the Obama administration is now causing many Democrats -- particularly those of the "Blue Dog" variety -- to get cold feet.

According to the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll of July 29, only 29 percent of respondents now strongly approve of the way Comrade Obama is doing his job as president, with 39 percent strongly disapproving. Only 23 percent believe health care costs will go down if Obamacare is enacted, as opposed to 53 percent who believe those costs will rise. In addition to this, 50 percent expect the quality of health care to decline under Obamacare. In addition to this, only 34 percent now believe our country is heading in the right direction, with 61 percent believing otherwise. And 49 percent -- nearly half -- now believe America's best days are over.

Naturally, you won't hear a peep about any of this from the Obama Advertising Agencies, Inc., a.k.a. the "mainstream" news media. They want Americans to think everything is still rosy and peachy-keen, and that Comrade Obama is God come to earth. The trouble with all that is that many Americans are now thinking for themselves rather than letting the talking heads do their thinking for them, and it's showing up in Scott Rasmussen's daily reports. (For further information, call up www.rasmussenreports.com.)

People may wonder about my choice of terminology, i.e., why I persist in calling Obama a communist rather than a socialist, as most other conservative observers are. The matter does deserve some attention. After all, as I have previously noted, Barack Obama is not, and as far as it is generally known never has been, a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America. Socialism is a system in which a nation's economy is run by the government rather than by private enterprise. In purely economic terms, communism is no different. Going beyond the parameters of pure economics, however, the differences between the two systems tend to make themselves known. For instance:

Socialists do not play rent-to-own with private businesses. Communists do. We have seen several instances of this, most notably with the government takeover of General Motors, AIG, and various banks. We have also seen our current treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, ask for extensive, overreaching powers unprecedented in the history of that cabinet office. The principal takeover medium is money, and in this respect it bears an eerie resemblance to borrowing from the Mafia. Take Mafia money, and the Mafia owns you from that point on. If businesses take federal "stimulus" bailout money, the ultimate result is government takeover. Some businesses, in fact, have actually had to ask permission to repay their "stimulus" bailouts.

Socialists do not seek to disarm their citizenry. Communists do. It is already a matter of public record where Comrade Obama stands on gun control legislation. Shortly after he was elected, record sales of guns and ammunition were recorded, much of this happening in anticipation of punitive tax increases Obama intended to levy upon these items.

Socialists do not seek to silence opposing viewpoints. Communists do. Comrade Obama has said for the record that he opposes reinstatement of the so-called "fairness doctrine" which, if re-imposed, would effectively silence talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. However, he has also exhibited what was heretofore thought as a purely Clintonian trait; namely, that he'll say anything for public consumption if he figures it's what people want to hear. But note the difference between what he says and what he does. Should the "fairness doctrine" be reinstated by the Congress, don't look for Comrade Obama to veto the measure. For the real story, read between the lines of what is routinely dished out on network news -- specifically ABC News, where earlier this month a supposed "town hall meeting" on Obamacare was aired: one in which no dissenting viewpoints were presented or even allowed. Even when opponents of universal health care offered to pay for air time to present their rebuttal, they were refused by ABC. Not a word of protest came from either Obama or anyone in his administration. It must also be noted that no president in our country's history has been as thin-skinned with regard to personal criticism as has Barack Obama.

Socialists are not called Comrade by Marxist heads-of-state. Communists are. Much as I would like to take credit for it, the phrase, "Comrade Obama," did not originate with me. The Idol of the American Left was called this by one of his own idols, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who jokingly applied the moniker to Obama after his nationalization of General Motors. In fact, Chavez said in that anecdote that he and Fidel Castro should be careful, or they would both end up to the right of the American president!

Communists often refer to themselves as socialists, but, curiously enough, it is almost never the other way around. Obama, for his part, has never publicly identified himself as either. However, in this as well as so many other matters, it is Obama's actions, rather than his words, that tell the real story. To call Obama a mere socialist, while in itself truthful, does not render complete identification. He is a communist, whether or not he has ever either called himself that or belonged to a political organization that goes by that name.

But now, it seems, a most wondrous thing has happened: Many Americans, not all, to be sure, but an increasing number, have rediscovered their heritage and their American identity. They don't want Obama's communism! And, while they may not be telling their legislators this in those particular words, the tides of discontent are rising throughout the country. TEA parties (an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) have sprung up on a nationwide scale, and, though they and those who attend them are routinely pooh-poohed by Obama and his liberal apologists, they are having their effect. Stung by criticism for having passed bills without even bothering to read them, many Democrat legislators are slowing down on the subject of universal health care despite pressure exerted by Comrade Obama to get the matter passed before the August congressional recess. As of right now, it is scheduled to be addressed after the recess.

The Democrats should have seen this coming, but, in their zeal to place ideology over common sense, they have once again placed themselves in political jeopardy over socialized medicine. Americans didn't want it back when Ted Kennedy proposed it. They didn't want it in 1994 when Hillary Clinton tried to ram it down their throats, and said so by electing a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years. Here in Connecticut they didn't want it in 2006, when New Haven mayor John DeStefano made it the centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign, and he was soundly defeated by Republican incumbent M. Jodi Rell. Now in 2009, the Connecticut state legislature, in an act of supreme arrogance and disregard for public sentiment, overrode Governor Rell's veto of universal health care, saying in effect to the people of Connecticut, "We don't care whether you want universal health care or not, you're getting it, you're paying for it, and you're going to like it, or else!" And they did this at a time when there wasn't even a state budget in place! Hopefully in November of next year many of these non-representing representatives will find out the hard way that voters do in fact have long memories.

In the meantime, Democrats in Washington would do well to heed the words of Patrick Henry when he said, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third may profit by their example." In like manner, they too can profit by the example of those who, in the past, have tried force socialized medicine on a citizenry who had made it more than amply clear that they didn't want it. Hopefully, they too will somehow rediscover their American heritage, and realize that our best ideas -- those that have worked and have stood the test of time -- have come from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and yes, Ronald Reagan -- not Karl Marx.