If President Obama achieves his agenda, his successor will not be president of the same nation Obama inherited. Like Madame Defarge in Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities”, Obama is a revolutionary, slowly knitting together his plans to change America into something it has never been, to overthrow our economic system and weaken our defenses.
Monsieur Obama envisions a new America: a European welfare state, its government the overseer of every phase of domestic life, unwilling and unable to defend its allies and interests abroad.
Let’s hear no more about “partisan warfare,” about how Republicans are the “party of ‘no’,” or about how it’s out of bounds to wish Obama to fail.
As Rush Limbaugh reasoned at the Conservative Political Action Conference last Saturday, there is a key distinction to be made: America must succeed in the war against the terrorist nations and in reviving our economy. If Obama succeeds, America cannot do either.
The Republican Party shouldn’t be the “Party of No.” It must be the “Party of Hell, No.”
In his speech on Friday, Obama said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” So Obama has set a date certain for the withdrawal of American combat forces in Iraq regardless of the facts on the ground.
The president’s promise to offer an open hand to those nations that unclench their fists is being met by increased militarization and hostility from Syria and Iran. Obama cares less about Iraq than his predecessor, but Obama is repeating and enlarging on Bush’s mistakes. There is no “Iraq war” or “Afghanistan war” or a separate peace to be negotiated with the nations that sponsor terrorism. There is only one war and — as proved by about two thousand years of history — it must be fought and won as a whole or it will be lost in increments.
Monsieur Obama’s budget would take huge strides in revolutionizing our economy. Obama has already spent $1 trillion on an economic stimulus package that the Congressional Budget Office said was worse than nothing, having at the same time promised another $2 trillion on more bank nationalizations and bailouts, more (no one knows how much) to continue the bailout of the United Autoworkers Union and prevent the necessary reform of the auto industry, $75 billion to bail out homeowners from mortgages they couldn’t afford when they got them and another $35 billion on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Now Obama has proposed a budget that our economy could not afford even if it were in perfect health. As even the Washington Post admits, this $3.6 trillion budget marks the biggest ideological shift since the advent of the Reagan administration.
Among the transformative legislation he aims to ram through congress are a nationalized health care system (he proposed $635 billion to start), a “cap and trade” system — really a huge tax — aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and a new government fund to make college tuition and auto loans. While doing all that, he also wants to raise capital gains taxes on every investor — including the middle class. And he also wants a multi-billion dollar education bill to extend G.I. bill-like benefits to civilians who serve the government for a time.
Obama wants to spend billions to convert our economy to something it is not: a highly-regulated “green” economy supposedly saving billions by converting to the use of “clean energy.” Anyone who bought a Toyota Prius knows this is a phony argument: it takes far longer to recoup the higher costs of buying a Prius (compared to a non-"hybrid" small car of equivalent grandeur) than the Prius — or even its batteries — can last.
These are not investments that pay off: they are costs that breed the necessity for more and more spending. They are new entitlement programs that benefit only ideological constituencies. By comparison, Medicaid is a bargain.
As my friend Larry Kudlow wrote the other day, Obama is declaring war on “investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.” This is how governments turn short-lived recessions into long-term depressions.
Even some liberals are chary at Obama’s ambitions. Liberal Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Ks) told the Kansas City Star, “We’re just not going to be able to go there. We have no money." But realizing that is no barrier to liberals. They will spend money as fast as the government can print it.
The political fight over the Obama budget — and the changes to our economy and defenses it includes — is the most important fight we may ever face. And — make no mistake — Obama wants the fight.
In his Saturday radio address Obama declared war on his opponents. Describing his budget initiatives, the president said, “I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I.”
It’s time for Republicans to shake off their fear of going directly against Obama. Three House Republicans told me last week that their leader, John Boehner of Ohio, continues to insist that Republicans can’t take on the president, only Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. That is a major misjudgment that Republicans must disregard.
As former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told the CPAC audience last week, “We’re at one of those rare moments in history, when the biggest tests come all at once. We don’t have the luxury of taking them one by one. We have to get a lot of things right, and all at the same time.” Just so.
The tsunami of destructive legislation coming out of the White House is moving so fast that many House Republicans feel overwhelmed. As fast as one bill comes up, another is queued up right behind it. This week the House will take up and pass the patently unconstitutional bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.
But those House Republicans — and the Senate conservatives — have to shake off their fear of opposing Obama. His budget “state of the union” speech lifted the veil. Mr. Boehner and the rest of the Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill will lose many battles, but they will lose them all — and destroy what credibility they are regaining — if some continue to timidly refuse to say that their central opponent isn’t Pelosi or Reid: it’s Obama.
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama’s approval ratings have slipped to 58%, down more than ten points from his pre-inaugural high. Even the most faint-hearted Republicans should take courage from that.