The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

Are Obamalanders uncomfortable with the free-market driven success of talk radio? Then they will "figure out ways to use the political process" to shut it down. In the case of talk radio, how else to explain the threatening Reid-Obama letter to Rush Limbaugh's business partner? How else does one explain the attempt to retrieve the "Fairness Doctrine" from the dustbin of history? These are nothing more or less than the "use of the political process" to subvert someone else's freedom. Period.

Are Obamaland followers hostile to oil? Do they hate SUVs? Do they think you have no right to heat or cool your own home beyond what they consider politically correct? Do they think you should pay $5 -- or $6 or $7 or $8 or more -- for gas at the pump to ensure you conform to the Obamaland world-view? Yes, they do think all of this and their Obamaland answer is inevitable. They will "use the political process" to stop drilling off shore in its tracks. So too with stopping the use of oil shale or ANWR or anything else that even hints at allowing average Americans their basic freedom to drive whatever vehicle wherever they damn well please whenever they damn well please. In Obamaland it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is gospel from the secular bible that they must use the political process to stop refineries from being built, to keep nuclear power plants from being built, to keep coal from being burned. Use the political process to forcibly mandate the temperature inside every single American home. As a matter of fact, why not just go all the way and nationalize the oil companies -- this actually being suggested by Obamaland's New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey.

Tired of debating global warming? Use the political process to set up show-trials for oil company executives. Who will be around to object if you have successfully used the process to silence the world of talk radio?

As we learned in one of his last debates with Mrs. Clinton, presented with the economic fact-of-life that cutting the capital gains tax resulted in increased revenue for the government, not, as he was portraying it, a loss, the ringmaster of Obamaland simply shrugged, saying he would raise it anyway because to do anything else was "unfair." The idea of your having the freedom to do with your money as you please -- even when doing so increases the revenues for Washington politicians to spend -- was simply irrelevant to Obama. No, your freedom must pass his "fairness test" -- and if it doesn't, well, too bad. Your income is going to suffer right along with your freedom to listen to talk radio, drive an SUV, debate global warming, eat what you please, heat your house the way you please or -- the latest Supreme Court decision notwithstanding -- own a gun if you please.

Is there a problem in Obamaland with your constitutional right to own a gun? It's an easy-to-solve problem, as state senate candidate Obama proposed way back in 1996 when he filled out a questionnaire endorsing the idea of, you guessed it, just banning your freedom to own handguns. Interestingly, when this questionnaire came to light the Obama camp denied their candidate had done this, which prompted the Politico to come up with an amended copy of the questionnaire plainly showing the candidate's own handwriting. The Obamaland acolytes say their leader favors the use of guns for hunting and target shooting, but on the issue of handguns -- well -- his stiff response to the 5-4 decision of the Court that insists gun ownership is, in fact, a constitutional right suggests that handguns in Obamaland would go the way of talk radio and oil. The first Supreme Court vacancy announcement would have barely made it onto the cable news networks in an Obama Administration before an Obamalander would be named to fill the vacancy on the understanding that at the first opportunity he or she can grandly reverse that 5-4 decision and effectively ban the entire Second Amendment.

SO LET'S SUM UP what America would look like in an age of Obama.

To start there would be no more driving SUVs. No more Rush. For God's sake absolutely no driving your SUV while listening to Rush. No more eating whatever you want. Definitely no keeping your home as warm or as cool as you prefer. No capital gains cuts because they are unfair. Your guns will be banned. And if you have a different opinion on global warming? All those lofty supporters of rights for terrorists are going to strip every oil executive in America of theirs in a heartbeat, live and in living color.

Is anyone paying attention here? Today the targets are talk radio, oil, SUVs, or guns or debates on global warming and so on. But what about tomorrow and the day after that and the day and years after that? What freedoms will next be targeted with that deadliest trademark of an Obamalander -- moral superiority? What do we have when the sole purpose of the government as run by the chilling principles of Obamaland is to "use the political process" to remove freedoms large and small one by one by one?

Someone needs to speak it plainly.

The word is fascism.

Jeffrey Lord is the creator, co-founder and CEO of QubeTV, a conservative online video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.

topics:
Trade, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Television, Business, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO, Fascism, Energy, Oil