Sunday, October 26, 2008

Point of No Return for America?

Friend sent me Mark Steyn's latest this morning, Point of No Return, and who can disagree, if Obama gets the Presidency it will certainly be that point of no return, from which America will no doubt not ever recover. If McCain gets in we'll still get there but more slowly. Thanks to the fantastic emptyheaded idealism of the Left and its arrogant aggressive hatred of the Right, we're inexorably headed for the One World Order and the dissolution of the wonderful experiment in freedom that was America.

Some quotes from Steyn:

McCain vs Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it’s not an “ideal world”, and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will “heal the planet” and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux.* I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls “a point of no return”. It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, “Jimmy Carter’s second term”, but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.
It's been working.

“People of the world,” declared Senator Obama sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people — the Barack Obamas of the day — were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity.

And the wall came down not because “the world stood as one” but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire (notwithstanding its own incompetence) would have survived and the wall would still be standing.

Senator Obama’s feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because it’s the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing the easy listening anthems of one-worldism, and the planet will heal.
Obama has been running for savior of the world from the beginning. I think that's apparent now. He now regularly talks about changing not only America but the world. But he also says it's WE who are going to change the world. WE must all work together, WE must be united. "United in what?" you might ask. Well, in his fuzzyheaded agenda for changing the world for starters, at least in holding hands and singing those anthems, and then in whatever causes he gets around to defining eventually. We know it starts with redistributing the wealth.

I don't know about you but that gives me the impression of an army of true believers all in lockstep with the Fuhrer who is calling the moves. The Fuhrer at first will talk in soothing lulling tones with a look of sweet serenity permanently stamped on his face and the worshipers will hold hands and sway to his tune.

Any dissident, anyone who resists being "united" is going to become the enemy of the state (and the enemy of the world-state as well).

To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews listening to an ugly neo-segregationist, race-baiting, grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present”?

... Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice.
I think we can be sure that we holdouts will respect their choice, because most conservatives believe in the fundamental principles of America which have always allowed us to give way peaceably to opposing viewpoints and opposing administrations, but if instead McCain and Palin win, their opponents are not likely to respect the voice of the other half of America as they have not done so for quite a long time already, and the aggression is going to get louder and perhaps physical.

I have my reservations about the idea that Obama would be content to be a benign monarch for his appointed term, though. I think all that taking of the easy path is a symptom of his refusal to declare himself on specifics, including his own history. It's possibly even a strategy, designed to leave him free to define himself and his administration when he has the power to back it up. I think when the time comes the empty suit will be channeling some pretty potent versions of the One-World "We Are the Children" type sweettalk, backed up by reprisals against those who will not go along with it.

Which of course means us Christians, and I hope there will be many others who will yet wake up and join us. The cost will be great but nothing compared to the reward.

* Faute de mieux means "For lack of something better."

No comments: