A ‘democratic’ revolution is indeed led by the people (small ‘p’) as opposed to the People (capital ‘P’ as in the Constitution). There is the difference. The Framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that all citizens were gauarnteed the same set of rights, privileges, and opportunities to influence representative decision making. The People are as much a part of the Constitution as the three branches and several States. This was accomplished with the Bill of Rights, other amendments, the Declaration of Independence’s stating “all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights” and the individually written essays and diaries detailing intent of our founding. ‘We the People,’ e pluribus unum, and others. However, without a doubt, the original document was weak in providing rights to blacks and women.

On the other hand, a network of like-minded organizations which seek power, influence, and, in some cases, control over policy decisions does not represent the will of the People; it represents the will of the people subscribing to those like-minded agendas. They influence policy not as if another branch of government but as coercers, protesters and instigators. Vladamir Lenin organized unemployed industrial and manufacturing workers raising their objectives to the forefront of debate. Did all Russians have equal influence in the negotiations forming the Soviet Union? No; the organized had influence. For that matter, did all American colonists have equal influence? No; the organized had influence.

A Harvard definition of ‘community organizing’ seems benign enough as words may be parsed to reflect a democractic movement familiar to Americans. Interestingly in the white paper (link below) is a hand-drawn chart which clearly indicates the intent of community organizing is power. Power for who? The organized. In the chart, power rests with ‘Resources.’

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/organizing/tools/Files/What_is_Organizing.pdf

So, who is being organized? Obviously labor unions are already organized with objectives of improved work conditions, pay and benefits. Minorities are organized in a thousand different groups designed to promote unique culture differences. The low-income are organized into welfare groups based on lack of employment, lack of healthcare insurance, lack of affordable housing. The people have been organized to stifle dissent by evicting mall kiosk owners selling opposition stickers/t-shirts, allowing teachers to lead sing-a-longs praising an individual president, and listening to a bias media full of half-truths or just omit credible details (many times the media simply do not cover stories which may reflect negatively upon the administration).

The sooner we all recognize a ‘democratic’ revolution is occurring in the US, the sooner each of us can decide, in good faith, to either support it or denounce it. 

I’m nearing a breaking point regarding the incessant race-baiting coming from liberals. Is it really true that anyone sharing an anti-Obama opinion is racist? I’m pretty sure not. Wasn’t it Obama himself who said “they’ll try to tell you that I don’t look like all the other men on the dollar bills?” Up to that point, and after that point, I never heard McCain/Palin, or any respectable Republican, call attention to Obama’s skin color. And still haven’t.

Just today Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) equated Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during Obama’s joint session as klan-like. What? Wilson called Obama a liar not a (insert non-PC term here).

Maureen Dowd wrote that Wilson “clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.” What?

Derrick Jackson provided the Boston Globe a glowing expose linking the GOPs choice of Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) for post-address comments as part of a polarization strategy in play since 1969. Jackson writes “You do not have to wonder why, when Louisiana was one of the most polarized states in the presidential election. Eighty-four percent of white voters voted for Republican John McCain, despite the disastrous economy and two wars handed them by McCain’s standard-bearer, President Bush.” Hear that Louisiana? Start believing the bad economy was Bush’s fault and middle eastern freedom isn’t worth our time or you will be branded a racist. Well, too late, you already have been.

Does Jackson know that approximately 95% of blacks in North Carolina voted for Obama? Aren’t those blacks equally racist in supporting a 140-day Senator with no executive experience charged with fixing a bad economy and fighting two wars? 

And over the week-end, on a local message board, a poster listed several facts regarding Obama’s policies and affiliations (which are not flattering by any sense of the word). A responder all but called him/her a racist.

So allow me to pon-pon-pon-pon-pontifinicate on the matter.

Obama supporters, whether black, white, Democrat, independent, etc, have erected a persona of a man that simply does not exist. Sure, he is educated and a good orator. He is a visionary, good father and probably a pretty nice guy with which to drink a beer. But he is also a politician and like all politicians before him, he is only as honest as he needs to be to fulfill his administration/party’s agenda.

He has not been transparent as he had promised. He has not been bipartisan as he had promised. He has not been fiscally fugal as he had promised. He has not turned his back to lobbyists and special interests as he had promised.

Many plain ole Americans simply do not like the fact that he interjected himself into GM’s bankruptcy. They don’t like GE’s CEO Jeffery Immelt sitting on the board of New York’s Federal Reserve. They’re not comfortable that a radical like Anthony Van Jones was appointed to any post in the administration. They don’t like our foreign policy appearing weak in the knees. Oddly enough, some don’t want the federal government messing in healthcare, not ensuring enforcement of illegal immigrant’s non-participation until being called a liar during a joint session.

Van Jones said this in 2008:

“We want to go beyond ex-systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But that’s a process and I think what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary. And so the green economy will start off as a small subset and we’re going to push it and push it and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.“

He also said that whites were intentionally directing poisons into minority neighborhoods. 

Don’t forget Van Jones and don’t forget our President appointed him. Don’t forget that Valerie Jarrett admitted to having “followed” Van Jones since his work in Oakland where he organized protests against the imprisonment of a cop-killer.

It’s time to hold all the non-firmed czars accountable, and the President as well. A challenging feat when the media refuses to ask.

Beck ran video clips of these individuals and quoted from their works. He connected organizations by identifying specific individuals who have participated in them. He informed America which is something so many of us have struggled to accomplish. I have written at length about these influences from as early as 28 October 2008 and will not reiterate them here. But Beck has the ear of the White House, I do not. He presented a series of reasonable questions that any decent journalist would ask and any transparent administration would answer. The White House offered that Peter Orszag is not a czar because he was confirmed by the Senate. Thanks for that clarification guys. Left-wing bloggers pointed out a misspelling.

Obviously, some of us are aware of the raging battle for liberty and have been throwing our hat in the ring whenever possible. What about the moderates and the disengaged? When will they break for a side and really shift momentum? What will it take for them to look up from their daily lives and engage in decisions which will impact their ability to ever again be submersed in their individualism?

Now that we know the facts of who is influencing policy, I pose a question to Obama supporters of 2008; is this what he promised you? Did he tell you he would appoint communists, socialists, and anti-capitalists to key advisory roles? Did he tell you he would consult with views of population control, internet police, placing a dollar value on human life, and global governance for the environment? Did he tell you these things? Are these the platform pieces that attracted your vote?

If so, stand proudly for these ideals as you have that right. If not, call your representatives, write them to express your concern, email them. You will not sound crazy! These are facts!  Always be respectful but brief when writing them.

Our hands are bound by the Constitution until election-day but these leftist ideals cannot infiltrate further. The People’s power rests within the States and the Congress which have checks on the Executive Branch. They cannot allow this administration to advance policy. 

Let your voice be heard.

THE PRESIDENT (continuing) “Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care.”

NYT: “Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.”

THE PRESIDENT: “Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.”

NYT: “And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.”

THE PRESIDENT: “So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”

NYT: “So how do you — how do we deal with it?”

THE PRESIDENT: “Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors (E. Emanuel, Complete Lives System), scientists (J. Holdren, population control), ethicists (et al). And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place (town hall meetings). It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels (clear & concise legislation, Cass Sunstein). And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance (HR3200, Sec. 1233, Advance Care Planning). It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now (yep).”

Admittedly, the President never suggested unplugging grandma but he admits openness to “society making those decisions.” He has appointed advisors sympathetic to cost-benefit planning and attempted to railroad a bill through congress for his signature three weeks ago. HR3200 and the appointee charged with its execution, Cass Sunstein, hardly ride the cusp of constitutional prudence.

On 30 October 2008, Obama said “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Just flip two words…”transforming fundamentals” is really what he told you.

Today I read a headline suggesting a consulting firm hired to conduct a multi-million dollar campaign for health reform may be linked to David Axelrod. I’m not thrilled with the allegation of a conflict of interest involving Obama’s chief political advisor but what really ticks me off is that the White House hired a consulting firm to campaign for health reform! What’s that all about? 

Not only is this a gross misuse of tax dollars but moreover it signals the frailty of the proposed overhaul of our health insurance, care, market, etc. With poll after poll indicating the People not “on-board” with this “change,” the left marches on the campaign trail using money from the People. We’re funding the government to change our mind! You’ve got to be kidding me. 

Why is a public insurance option for all of us so important to the left? Only 5-10 million citizens are truly without coverage but not by individual choice. Yet this is so important that Rep. Massa (D-NY) said “I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.” How elitist! The Senate leadership has threatened to pass on a 51-vote budget reconciliation procedure if the 60 votes are not available or to split the bill into more digestible pieces of legislation and only pass portions through the stealth procedure. Why the tricks guys? Of course, we’ve all also heard of the Blue Dog growls from within their own party.

The slightest off-message comment from Kathleen Sebelius suggesting a public option is not an essential element of reform led the left to reassure all of us that, oh yes, make no mistake, a public option will be in the bill. The left isn’t even interested in compromising to a co-op arrangement which is nothing but a public option in disguise. I guess they have compromised enough when convinced that a single-payer system can be achieved through a public option. That’s the intent; a single-payer system which will ultimately include government provided healthcare, not just insurance. They are on record!

Just yesterday our president said “We are God’s partner in matters of life and death.” That’s a joke, right? He didn’t really say that, did he?

So, with all the political power wielded by the left, they are still having enormous difficulty getting the People on-board. Can they not get it through their thick skulls that the People don’t want their brand of health reform? Do they care what the People want? No. 

Remember, this bill was to be rushed into law by the August recess and the current debate was never supposed to occur.  So when Obama suggests there is a Republican conspiracy to kill healthcare reform, he should bare one thing in mind…it’s not Republican and hardly a conspiracy. 

That occurred a couple of weeks ago and, honestly, I’ve not ventured back to the website so cannot confirm the solicitation remains. This creates a nice sag way to a second point. After a nine year ban, our federal government is lifting the restriction on federal websites to utilize internet cookies on all hits to their pages. Internet cookies result in retail websites recognizing you and suggest items based on previous purchases. Cookies also help route software updates and pop-ups.

The circle closed quickly as just two days ago, the People began reporting unsolicited chain emails in their personal inboxes; chain emails from David Axlerod and the White House supporting Obama’s healthcare agenda. 

As if that weren’t enough; Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, has written "we hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

And, "a system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.  Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

Also within the last two weeks Obama appointed a Diversity Czar at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mark Lloyd, in Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, suggests private broadcasters be taxed at a rate equal to total operating costs to fund National Public Radio (NPR). Lloyd’s views on localism and ownership imply his appointment may pick up where other attempts to oppress conservative talk radio have failed.

To me, this is just plain creepy and happening so quickly there is hardly time to react. But what can be done? The People voted for this madness and so many of them are still standing in support. History is ticking yet they continue to chant his name.

Obama won the presidential election and his party won strong control of the House and Senate. They rule the roost with lots of important issues at hand with a reasonable argument available that healthcare reform is lower on the list of importance when compared with foreign policy, unemployment, increasing deficits, etc. Within 200 days, they have appropriated a large stimulus plan (a second one behind that approved by Bush), they passed an over-packed budget with nearly 9,000 earmarks from both sides of the aisle, they played integral roles in GM’s bankruptcy and Chrysler’s merger negotiations, the House passed a Cap & Trade bill, the 2009 deficit will be more than four times that of 2008 which had been the largest deficit in our history. Through it all the Federal Reserve continues to print money day and night. All of this is true and cannot be denied.

It is also hardly deniable that healthcare reform is a bold initiative to be placed on a timeline by the President for July completion. That time has come and gone so the debate ensues. What does the bill say? There are several drafts but HR3200 is the predominant representation of the House bill and has attracted the attention of chain e-mailers. I received such an e-mail which read in part “Sec. 1233, Pg. 430 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).”

HR3200 reads: “PAGE430 ‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.” 

I researched many of the claims and found several more to be accurate. Section 123 creates the new Health Benefits Advisory Committee which will “recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” You will not be covered for every procedure, treatment and medication as many are leading. 

Section 152 extends benefits to illegal immigrants in that “all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics.”

On page 317, it actually states that hospitals cannot expand “the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms or beds.”

Section 1401 describes the Center for Comparative Research which will build databases of personal records “both published and unpublished” as well as communications networks in order to compare results among patients. These are facts of the bill and cannot be denied.

Republicans have offered many amendments through committee. A list of 31 defeated amendments has recently been made readily public by Rep. John Boehner; a few notables follow. 

Reps. Wally Herger (R-CA) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) offered amendments in their committees that would suspend the…employer mandate in the bill if the national unemployment rate reaches or goes above 10 percent. The Herger and Hoekstra amendments were defeated in both the Ways & Means and Education & Labor Committees.

Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment that would increase safeguards to ensure taxpayer-funded benefits do not go to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. This amendment was defeated.

This is a real kicker. Rep. Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-GA) offered an amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee to bar federal political appointees and bureaucrats from intervening in patient treatment decisions. The Gingrey amendment would have ensured patients and doctors remain as the sole individuals responsible for making these critical decisions. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) led Democrats in opposition to the amendment, which was defeated. Additionally, Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) offered an amendment to prohibit the federal government from conducting comparative effectiveness research, which was also defeated. Rep. Brown-Waite offered an amendment that would remove portions of the health care bill that would cut the Medicare Advantage program. Such cuts would impact millions of seniors nationwide, taking away their choices and forcing them into a government-run health care plan with fewer options. The Brown-Waite amendment was defeated as well.

On three occasions, Democrats blocked amendments designed to protect patient rights through, what may easily be construed as, clarifications to bill language. Three times made fact of the record and cannot be denied.

Let’s get back to the main character. Obama has advisors as does every president. He has appointed far more special advisors, aka “czars” than his predecessors. Most of these appointments do not require Senate confirmation. These are the points to which the president out-sources his authority. Obama’s “kitchen cabinet” is an interesting group.

"Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction." – John Holdren, Science & Technology

“The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control.” –Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment co-author John Holdren, Science & Technology

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes…whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible." – Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Healthcare Advisor

“A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.” – Senator Barack Obama

Are you sitting down? “Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”

-- The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever, Cass R. Sunstein, Regulatory & Information

Interestingly still is Carol Browner in Energy and Anthony Van Jones in Green Jobs are openly, admittedly, if not honorably, a Socialist and a Communist, respectively.

The above is a factual representation of the real debate on healthcare reform. Facts cannot be denied and I’ve attempted to summarize a very complicated debate as objectively as possible. I think these are reasons why real People started grilling their congressmen. The People may not be aware of all to which I have referred but they sense a great disturbance in the Force only a Sith Lord could conjure.

The prohibition of liquor led to crime, abuse, tax evasion and concerns of unsafe black-market products. It was just a bad idea (not to mention an intrusion of our pursuits of happiness). But the fact remains our leadership saw fit to amend the Constitution to provide a centralized mandate because the power to issue such a mandate was not otherwise expressly provided to the federal government.

I have conducted a word search of the US Constitution including its amendments. Many words one would think present are simply not there such as: health, healthcare, care, medicine, medical, doctor, nurse, hospital, clinic, insurance, prescription, and pharmacy.

This can mean only one thing, the States, through the People, can mandate healthcare programs as provided by Amendment X. Is it ok to add another federal program because we’ve grown up with Medicare and Social Security? Somehow this elementary argument has gotten lost in the race for “change;” another word not in the Constitution.

Drafts of various bills have circulated among the half dozen committees with oversight. Geez. Debate and discussion has occurred in each of these committees. Republicans have offered amendment after amendment with free market solutions, tax credits to offset premiums, tort reform, etc. These amendments have failed largely by party lines. Current bill drafts from the Democrats include a potpourri of poisons if ever remotely combined into a single bill. All of the talk about in home parenting training, rationing of procedures, increased taxes with still increasing debt, a squeeze on private insurers and employer based programs, blah, blah…it’s all true. Use your head, man.

The Dems prefer to have power over healthcare than to compromise and govern within an acceptable spectrum of our nation’s political personality. Where is the bipartisanship? Where are concessions to protect the patients and businesses? Why the bureaucratic mess? Why do they keep spending money on wild horses, otters and turtles? Or three private jets? And from where are you getting the money?

This is what real Americans are mad about. What else need be debated? 

This brings us to today. As a reminder, Obama won about 52% of popular vote and most Dems won by a relatively close percentage as well. The Republicans aren’t without sin but were hardly man-handled in 2008. One could surmise that about 50% of voters, or real Americans, might have actually been opposed to the crap this coup was shoveling. Of course to gage current voter, or real American, sentiment you need to adjust for inflation.  Hence, outrage at town hall meetings. 

Several Democrats are suddenly not planning town halls, well, some are doing a teleconference. If I were a betting man, I suspect they’ll run back to their beltway fortress and try to convince themselves this is nothing but a dream; never to bare witness of their tyranny. See you in 2010.

The above quote is long and cumbersome so I’ll break it into bite sized pieces. In the beginning, Obama states his belief that the Constitution constrains “redistribution of wealth and…basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

He adds that the Warren court interpreted the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties.” Obama then expresses his belief that “one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement” was it having become “so court focused.”

The court had ”a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."

In summary, Obama shared his view of the Constitution in that the Warren court should have broken “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.” He specifically said “it doesn’t say what the federal government…must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted…”

I interpret the above to suggest Obama would prefer a court which would “break free” from the Constitution in order for the government to do more “on your behalf.” On whose behalf? The minorities who did not benefit from the civil rights movement as much as Obama thinks they should have.  I suspect a wise latina woman would fit in quite nicely.  However, the sooner we stop drawing attention to our differences and begin seeing all as Americans, the sooner we can get past racial divide. We are the people, no matter of skin color. Why should any group prosper from the sweat off another’s brow? 

This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions and such has been introduced in 30 more states. The resolution seeks to reaffirm states rights as delegated by the Tenth Amendment which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The most recent states to pass sovereignty resolutions are Alaska and Nebraska.

Montana and Tennessee have passed gun sovereignty laws which says that guns made in the state, and which stay in the state, are not subject to federal regulation.

Arizona has placed a referendum on its 2010 ballot which would exempt state residents from a federal health care plan. Last week, Gov. Perry of Texas simply stated that his state would probably not participate in a federal health care plan.

Massachusetts is fighting a federal law not recognizing same-sex marriage. While California and six other states battle for legalizing medical marijuana.

The several states have been feeling the sting of federal intrusion for a while but it appears the people have been a bit slower to catch on. However, during Obama’s sixth month in office, Rasmussen has reported deterioration in his approval rating among those with a strong opinion of him. Among those polled at the end of June, Obama held a +1 advantage. At the end of July, that advantage had disappeared and became a -11; a twelve point swing!

During the month of July (or close enough to impact polling), Obama snubbed his nose at popular uprising in Iran in protest of staged election results. He was adamant that Honduras reinstate a despot to power although the country’s Supreme Court, Legislation and military acted in accordance with their Constitution in removing Zelaya from office. And, he hit the campaign trail in support of healthcare reform which does little more than violate every ounce of individual liberty regarding decisions about our care, the care of our family and who is responsible to pay the bill.

We may fair well to remember that our country has fought a civil war. That 19^th century division was based on states rights and personal property rights; two issues for which we continue to fight.

It’s about the fear of government tyranny controlling gun ownership. It’s about an assault on small business owners and the entrepreneurial spirit. 

It’s about our taking an apologetic posture on the world stage. It’s about throwing Israel under the bus while embracing our enemies. It’s about reading Miranda rights to enemy combatants captured on foreign soil. 

It’s about a stacked Cabinet and a regime full of czars. It’s about Clinton’s conflict of interest regarding foreign donations, it’s about Holdren’s sterilization agenda, it’s about Van Jones’ confession as being “radically communist,” it’s about Sustein’s internet police; it’s about Goldman-Sachs and GE. 

It’s about standing with the tyranny of Iran’s mullahs and a Honduran dictator.

I heard that woman in Delaware loud and clear. Did you?

Don’t forget Card Check; candidate Obama was a supporter.

Small businesses employ approximately 70% of those employed and has generated as much as 99% of new jobs during past economic revivals as corporations are hesitant to rehire.  And a 9.5% unemployment rate is not the full story as the statistic does not include those no longer drawing benefits, those whose hours have been reduced from full-time, or recipients of severance yet to draw unemployment benefits. The true unemployment rate is closer to 16.5% and is a lagging indicator. We can expect the rate to continue upward due to recent conditions having little or nothing to do with Obama’s policies. Might it have another 1 to 1.5% points to go?

The Bush tax cuts expire next year and proposed healthcare reform legislation includes a surtax on this same group. If that isn’t enough the proposal also includes a penalty for not providing insurance coverage to employees. The penalty would be equal to 8% of the company’s payroll but, of course, the insurance would presumably cost more. What would increased taxes and fines do to small businesses? Assume a small business employs 30 people paying on average $30,000 per year to each totaling $900,000 in payroll. The 8% fine would equal $72,000, or two employees terminated and one’s hours cut in half. Could this tick the rate up another 2 to 3%? What’s that now, 21%?

Obama’s Democrats are also pushing Cap and Trade legislation which would add costs to energy and, thus to everything produced, transported and consumed; another nail in the coffin of a struggling segment of our employment base. Not only will business costs increase but the higher unemployment and higher prices will translate to fewer goods and services being purchased, lessening the need for production even further. There’s even a provision in the bill for unemployment benefits should one lose his job due to the law. Maybe as much as 3% more? That makes 24%.

Insert Card Check legislation which would result in increased unionization which results in higher wages and costly benefit packages.

To make the assault on small businesses truly appear intentional, the Obama administration has declined support funds to CIT Group, Inc., the largest lender to small and medium sized businesses with nearly 1 million clients. CIT will file for bankruptcy protection and some portion of 1 million small and medium sized businesses will dry up too. What impact will this have on the unemployment rate? Another 5%? Maybe 10%? Really, 30+%!?!

Even if all of these policies do not come to fruition, why would Obama launch this assault on so many fronts? Why would he want such high unemployment? I believe he wants the ensuing civil unrest. He does not intend on taking full credit for our march to communism, oh no, make no mistake…he insists the people demand it. That’s “Organizing 101.”

Communism is defined as “a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party” (www.dictionary.com). The Dems seek to further their base through rewarding labor unions with Card Check legislation (and ownership in GM and Chrysler), providing a fourth healthcare entitlement program to America, broaden government services and programs yielding more government employees, and verbally appeasing environmentalists while providing a vehicle for the elite to become enriched via Cap and Trade.

The progressive Dems have it so easy! They win by making promises, many of which they know they will never keep but will be able to say “we tried.” What politician wins an election by campaigning on reducing government payroll (just lost votes in the targeted agencies), contracting entitlements (just lost the votes from recipients), continuing carbon based energy policy (that’s a loser on environment and national security) or curtailing the role of labor unions in American business (you wouldn’t believe how many voters are union members). This concludes our quick lesson on “a single and self-perpetuating political party” as I’m sure an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants is in our future. 

Regarding the first part of the definition of “a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state,” have we not seen the onslaught against free-market capitalism and the sometimes painful corrections such a system keeps? Is there not an obvious full-court press to nationalize economic activity and control? Russian columnists have even written of it! AIG, GM, Chrysler, banks galore, resistance to audit the Federal Reserve, printing money day and night, etc.

Social activity…controlled volunteerism through AmeriCorp, an empathetic Supreme Court nominee, “when we spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” hate crime legislation…I need hip waders!

Totalitarianism is simply a measure of their effectiveness.

The painful part will be the final transition which will undoubtedly require a basis adjustment to our monetary standard and some degree of social unrest which we can only hope will not be too violent. A group of conservatives will whisper among themselves “we tried.”