I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, the leaders of a powerful federal government decide what is best for other people.   

The first of these in modern times was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal classes did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.  

A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all. The consequence was catastrophe for Europe.

Mao knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over twenty million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow. 

Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. More than a million fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity. 

Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.

Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. All of the major media supported him, and he won the Presidency. This has made me wonder how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world. This worries me.

I don’t want to change our culture.

I like the fact that in our nation all citizens have the right to participate in the selection of their leaders unless they, themselves, have lost that right by some action of their own, such as violating the law and being in prison. There was a time when many did not have this power through the vote. At one time, only property owners could vote. At another time, Blacks and American Indians could not vote.  Now all citizens have the right.  I don’t want to change our current system of voting, even though I know it is abused by some political machines, its basis is sound.

I like the fact that the laws are to apply to all people. If I get caught speeding, I get a ticket. If my friend, Mr. Murphy, who owns the grocery store is caught speeding, he gets a ticket. Even professional football players get tickets! I know there are some whose wealth and privilege permit them to avoid tickets, the Kennedys come to mind, but such abuse does not make the system wrong, its basis is sound.

I like the fact that all people are given the same rights before the law, to equal treatment in the courts. All can request a trial by a jury of their peers and the poor receive free legal advice.  While any person who follows the news knows that being wealthy, or having wealth and fame (certain football players come to mind) often results in special treatment, this special treatment is against the law of the land. The basic law is sound.

I like the fact that all children receive a free education and that it is possible for a child of the poorest background to attend and receive the highest education that his or her talent, interest and willingness to work permits. It is obvious that some schools are better than others at preparing children for life in our society, but that doesn’t change the basic premise, which is sound.

I like the fact that all citizens have the right to choose what vocation they wish to enter, the only true restrictions being their talent and energy, there being no way, anywhere, of ensuring opportunity. There have been nations in the past, and probably still are, in which the vocation and status of the father determines the vocation and status of his children. Sorry, but I like our current system, which is sound.

I like the fact that our Constitution specifically forbids enacting ex post facto laws and laws designed to punish specific individuals. This is under current attack in Congress as they seek to punish officials of AIG for accepting the bonuses that Congress itself authorized. I hope this fails. I don’t want my local County Council or State Government to decide that I should have paid more taxes than the legal ones I have already paid and confiscate my home in reprisal. Sorry, I like our current, constitutional, laws, which are sound. 

I like the fact that I can attend, or not attend, any church without punishment, the only coercion being that employed by family members and friends.  I am a Christian and approve of Christianity, which has given us the current culture and laws under which we live, but this same culture permits people to worship in other systems if they so desire. I may not approve of those, or of segments of those such as the subordination of women to men under Muslim law, but if there are men who need religious justification for this and women who are willing to accept it, why not. It is simply that I have no wish to change the culture which gives me, and them, the power to worship as we please.

Why would I wish to change our culture? What culture on earth is better? The implementation of laws written in accord with our culture have their flaws, as illustrated by the sorry arrogance of some members of Congress, but to the extent they reflect our culture, they are good. Why change them? Why change our culture?

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, on Fox Sunday morning (January 18, 2009) amazed me. I have never seen a person more adept at answering a question one way and then reversing that answer completely in a second sentence. I believe her best, but not her only, such reply was her assurance to the nation that Congress would present a balanced budget and then going into the need to “borrow” almost a hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money to start the economy. Only politicians can balance a budget by borrowing money, but few can present such a contradiction as well as Speaker Pelosi did.

The fact that police in WashingtonDC were putting up signs, “prostitution free zone” for the coronation of Saint Obama pleased me. My initial thought was that everyone was getting into the act to welcome Obama, even prostitutes were servicing for free during the holiday. Then I realized no prostitutes would be permitted in that area (I guess they wear signs). What a travesty of campaign promises. Promising to put the world back to work, to restore the economy, Democrats are depriving hard working women of their jobs for a week that would have given them their highest income of the year from all of the visiting politicians.

While campaigning, then Senator Obama said he would immediately close the GuatanamoBay recreation camp for killers who profane the teachings of Muhammad by killing and advocating the killing of innocent men, women and children of all religious faiths around the globe. Now he suggests it may take four years to do this. Works out very nicely. Three and a half years from now he can campaign for re-election by promising to close the place immediately.

There are two questions regarding the handling of these avowed terrorists. If he simply wishes to quiet the negative publicity, he should move the place from its present location on the Caribbean. Currently, critics can go, visit briefly, enjoy the luxuries of the beaches and the bars of prestige hotels and then write scathing testimonials as to the mistreatment of the prisoners. Move it to some small town in northern Alaska where summer comes on July 4^th and the rest of the year you wear coats, hats and worry about frost bite. No one would go up there to visit, the Liberals would stay home and soon the place would be forgotten. However, if he truly wants to release them where they could do no harm and possibly improve the place, turn them loose in San Francisco. Or simply behead them all as they have done to innocent people. Granted this last would create a five minute burp in publicity, but then it – and they – would be forgotten.

Phyllis Schlafly has written an interesting article (1993 All Over Again) for Townhall.com (January 20, 2009). It is interesting, but I fear she is understating the case. Our economy had been in an extended bubble, but slowed down. The President put millions of dollars into an attempt to improve the economy, but unemployment increased and rose to 7.2%. The President with a Democratic Congress enacted laws and rules to restore the glory, but all failed. Now, a gifted speaker has been elected President and the Democrats have swept Congress all on vague promises of glorious change. 

Sound familiar?  No, it was not Barack Obama, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt. His slogan was not “Hope and Change” it was “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Ask the average person, including most college graduates, if Roosevelt solved the depression and they will answer, “Yes.” In a sense he did. He and Congress poured millions of tax dollars into the economy, constructing programs for the unemployed. At the end of the first four years of his programs that 7.2% unemployment under Hoover had risen to 20%, but he was still a gifted speaker. Re-elected, the unemployment rate rose to 24%. Then he maneuvered us into the Second World War, either deliberately or through bad judgments. Put 11 million men out of a population of 150 million in the armed forces, kill off or injure a million of them, and, behold unemployment is solved. End of depression!

Now we have another gifted speaker leading the faithful with promises of hope and change. President Bush, bowing to Congress, poured several billion dollars into the economy, but things only got worse. By the end of his presidency unemployment had risen to 7.2%. Now Obama promises to pour hundreds of billions of tax dollars into the economy. I hope it works, but the precedent isn’t very good. In fact, it frightens me.

This isn’t really relevant (if any of it is) but I read a recent news article extolling Obama’s selection of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. The writer exulted over Mrs. Clinton’s brilliance, claiming she had an IQ of 128. I had to laugh, but then looked up the statistics to be certain. In a nation of 300 million, which describes us, 6 million, 399 thousand and 900 people have higher IQs than Mrs. Clinton. 

Change the World?

By

William D. Dannenmaier

In a speech given during the primaries in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said, “We won’t just win in New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.” (Toby Hamden, Telegraph.co.uk) Do we really want that?

I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, a powerful federal government decides what is best for all people.   

Probably the first of these was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal class did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.  

A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all.

Mao also knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over two million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow. 

Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. Millions fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity. 

Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, but now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.

Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. Currently all of the major media, all of whom have supported him, predict he will win the Presidency. This has made me consider how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world.

For starters, I believe all lawsuits against ACORN for its corruption and millions in tax evasion will be dropped, Unlike Hitler’s Gestapo or Mussolini’s adherents, ACORN members will not start wearing black shirts or brown shirts to identify their allegiance – at least not immediately. A few hundred dollars cash will be thrown to the poor and the welfare careerists, much as the emperors of Rome and the nobility of Medieval Europe threw coins to the poor as they rode by, to ensure their allegiance. Higher taxes will be imposed on the workers, but not on the wealthy who already have their money, so the Pelosis, the Reids, the Kerrys, the Gores and other important, wealthy, friends will be spared. Health care will be nationalized, creating a new, privileged, bureaucracy in WashingtonDC. The “fairness” doctrine will be passed and imposed on radio, one of the two current means by which average citizens can express their wishes and communicate with each other. It will not be extended to newspapers and major media, as yet, as they are Obama supporters. If, however, they stop to think and analyze where Obama is leading the nation, it can be extended to them, as happened in Germany and Cuba and is currently happening in Russia. I also expect some sort of fairness doctrine to be imposed on the Internet, the other current media by which average citizens can express their thoughts and communicate with one another. In general, all power will be concentrated in WashingtonDC, where politicians, such as Biden and Kennedy, millionaires who have never worked for a living, know what is best for all of us. We may not like this, although many will. It is easier to obey than to accept responsibility for yourself. He will change our world, if not the world.  As indicated, others have succeed in one and attempted the other.