Obama’s real agenda slowly unfolding 
by Alex Lee
The US president, together with his SecretService protection team, is holding up traffic in the UK capital as theleaders of the G20 gather to discuss the state of the world in theLondon Docklands. This piece submitted by a Maryland based CivilLiberty supporter is a timely pointer that President Obama representsthe same global elite and vested corporate interests as his haplessTexan born predecessor.
As an American, I find myself lucky to have witnessed (and survived)the recent presidential election. As far as I can tell, no otherelection in the relatively brief history of my country has caused sucha worldwide stir. To be honest, I suppose most of the presidentialelections that I’ve witnessed have been interesting. I was old enoughto remember the election of President Bill Clinton, but beyond that, Iwas just a toddler. So I’ve lived through eight years of Clinton andeight years of Bush. The era of Barack Hussein Obama has begun.
I am a conservative American. I’d bet that the image which comes mostimmediately to mind is that of an evangelical Christian, since that’sthe image which is painted most often by the mainstream media.“Hardcore conservatives” as the media portray them are often just veryreligious people, usually of European descent.
I, however, am not that particularly religious,although I am of European descent and care deeply about my culture andheritage. This naturally means that my politics lean to the right onthe American political scale, and on some issues, even farther to theright than those “hardcore Christian conservatives” that the media loveto talk about. This means that I did not support Barack Obama for theUS presidency. This does not mean, however, that I voted for JohnMcCain, for reasons that I’m about to describe.
I would wager that most people, both in the United States and abroad,would assume that I support the Republican Party because of myconservative viewpoints. However, any serious educated conservativewill tell you that the Republican Party has lost almost all of itscredibility for true conservatives. It has pandered nearly exclusivelyto the religious demographic in the past decade with issues such asabortion and gay marriage, and upon the nomination of John McCain andfollowing the election of Barack Obama, has tried to “broaden itsconstituency” by pandering to typically leftist demographics, such asminorities and college-aged people.
This means that conservatives like me in America who want a limitedfederal government based on our Constitution and an end to botheconomic and social engineering by the government essentially have noparty. I personally voted for Chuck Baldwin for President. ChuckBaldwin was the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, and wasendorsed by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul wasthe Republican Party’s last chance to revive its traditional Americanconservatism. Now most conservatives like me admit that it may be timefor a new political party.
What we want is mind-bogglingly simple. We want to shrink our bloatedcentral federal government back to its Constitutional limits. TheUnited States Constitution outlines the few large, important thingsthat the Federal government is allowed to do, including (but notlimited to) the right to wage war, defend the citizens of the UnitedStates, and levy taxes and tariffs. Such was the vision of America’sfounding fathers, direct descendants of the first British colonists;such was the goal of the world’s first constitutional republicandemocracy.
Federal expansion
My fellow conservatives and I believe that America’s founders wouldbalk at our government today. Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas,maintains that the level of expansion undertaken by the US Federalgovernment, especially in the past fifty or sixty years, has done moreharm than good for society. Social Security is a good example. SocialSecurity, which was intended as a temporary measure for PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal program, remains in effect today,and according to government sources, is the world’s biggest governmentwelfare program on the planet and costs more than the US military infederal government expenditures. And are the American people at largereally benefiting from this program? Some experts claim that thedecline of the so-called “baby boomer” generation from the Second WorldWar will mark the beginning of the end for sustainable Social Securitybecause the size of the generations claiming Social Security benefitsis much larger than the younger generation supporting the SocialSecurity pot. It’s important to note that the United States governmentautomatically takes a portion of one’s paycheck for Social Security inaddition to an income tax for those earning more than a certain amountof money each year.
Social Security is just one example of the United States Federal government’s actions of questionable constitutionality.
Another example which is perhaps more alarming is the steadyencroachment of the federal government on the private lives ofAmericans. This comes in many forms, but the most recent and prominentform was in the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into power by President GeorgeW. Bush shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.This legislation was created supposedly to combat terrorist threats tothe United States. Critics and opponents of the bill, however, claimthat it gives the federal government much leeway to essentially spy onlaw-abiding American citizens. As of right now, this seems to be anunlikely scenario, but the successful implementation of the PATRIOT Actcould set a precedent for future presidents to infringe further onAmericans’ civil liberties, especially considering the steady swingleftward seen in American politics today. And in the United States,that shift to the political left indicates a larger, overactive federalgovernment. A large, overactive American federal government’s enemy isthe traditional American conservative, who wants to rein in thatgovernment.
Criminalizing thought
So what does this all mean? It would not surprise me if Barack Obamadecides to approve hate crime legislation, which would criminalizethought. Period. There are no ifs, ands or buts about this: hate crimelegislation criminalizes thought. The United Kingdom should know thisfact well, as would people in most of Europe. In both the UK and theEU, people to the right of the political scale’s centre constantly findthemselves victims of everything from harassment by members ofparliament to state-sponsored harassment and the criminalization offree speech, all because of the war against so-called ‘hate’.
As an American, I am aghast at the treatment of the political right inthe UK and in Europe. The First Amendment of the US Constitutionguarantees every American’s right to free speech and association;without such pivotal legislation, Britons and Europeans simply cannotspeak freely. I’m especially flummoxed by the fact that radical Islamicimams can preach martyrdom, rejection of the British way of life, andstir up hatred and disdain for Europeans and Christianity withimpunity, while people who are trying to save Great Britain and hernative population from literal destruction such as the British NationalParty (BNP) experience the aforementioned persecution. The radicalMuslims want nothing to do with democracy or English Common Law,whereas the BNP and patriotic Britons are considered a threat toBritish national security? Sounds like backwards insanity to me.
It’s still too soon to determine exactly how President Obama willfurther erode Americans’ civil liberties. When it comes to governance,though, Obama’s motto (along with Congress, which is now dominated byleftist Democrats) is “more government equals better government.”Anyone who has lived in one of the many failed socialist or communistcountries can tell you otherwise, though. It’s the same reason why somany Cubans in Miami vote conservatively: they’ve experienced agovernment-saturated existence, and they don’t care for it one bit.They know what the steady expansion of leftist government powers meansfor the future. They know what it’s like to have their every movemonitored by government agents who will arrest and harass them if theystep outside the official party line, and they no longer want any partof such a society.
I’m not Cuban, and I may not have lived in a socialist, communist, orfascist state, but I know my history, and I know that freedom almostalways trumps government control and oppression.
Thankfully, there is still hope for all freedom-loving people, be theyin the United States, Britain, or on the European continent. There arestill plenty of democratic institutions through which we can electpolitical advocates of freedom; all of what has been done can still bereversed. That’s what I fight for; that’s what we all must fight for,before we are no longer able to do so democratically.