Trading Your Liberty For An “Obamaphone”

By Al Benson Jr.

On July 14th and September 30th of this year I did articles pertaining to the presidential election. In both articles I said it didn’t look like Romney was really trying. He was there to go through the motions this year just as John McCain did in 2008. While I am no fan of Romney’s I really did wish I could, after election day, write an article saying “I was wrong.” Such is not to be. Sadly, it turns out that I was right and all the Republican pundits were wrong. What does that tell you about their “insight?”

Of all the Republican candidates he seemed the most wooden, the one least capable of getting himself across the people and so the Republican establishment wanted him—because they knew he was not going to win anyway. He was almost too good in the first presidential debate and he made Obama look like a dufus without his teleprompter. However that oversight was corrected in the next two debates with his teleprompter on board and the moderators both ready and willing to run interference for him when he stumbled.

At any rate the charade is now over. Obama has been, so they tell us, (depending on whose voting machines you use) handily re-elected and so we can now look forward with eager anticipation to another four years of class struggle. After that, who knows? We might be ready for the dictatorship of the proletariat, Marxist style, at that point and we will need no further elections to muddy the Marxist waters. King Barack will be “dictator for life” if the Council on Foreign Relations people that pull his strings are willing to let him. It all depends, because it is really their agenda he is promoting, not his own.

Just for laughs I checked out the popular vote in this noble contest. Obama, at least at this point, got over 60 million votes, or 50.4% and Romney got over 57 million, or 48%.

You’d be surprised how easy it is to get votes for Obama these days. I will give one example. Four years ago and older lady I know complained about Obama, saying he was a Muslim and not a Christian (she was probably correct) and she had no use for him. Now, four years later, she has become the proud recipient of one of the famed “Obamaphones” which have been passed out to millions, supposedly “for free.” Now, all of a sudden, Obama has become, for her, mankind’s greatest benefactor. Other older folks I know were raving about these wonderful “free” phones they had been given. When they asked me if I wanted one I didn’t take it. I don’t like “government gifts.” They have a way of coming back to bite you. I tried to explain to the lady who wanted me to take the free phone that nothing is ever for free—someone had to pay for it. Government produces nothing on its own so some poor stiff somewhere had to pay for her “free” phone. Her comment was “But it’s free to you.” How can you argue with such trenchant logic? Obviously the public schools these folks went to taught them nothing about the true nature and function of government. They all seem to think it exists to give them goodies when they want them and they will, even at an advanced age, vote for whichever candidate promises them the most freebies.

I’m sure that is one way Obama won the election. He is promising more goodies to various groups and they vote for him to get them. The fact that he will take much more than he gives never enters their minds.

It reminded me of the biblical narrative about Jacob and Esau in the Book of Genesis and how Esau was willing to trade his birthright for what was, basically, a bowl of bean soup. It meant so little to him that he was willing to trade it away to satisfy his hunger. And that’s where we are currently in this country. Just let someone in government promise us some new toy to play with and all of a sudden government becomes the saviour—its function—to distribute gifts to the eager and willing. Rush Limbaugh, who I often disagree with, said that when the government becomes Santa Claus lots of people line up for presents. In this instance he was right.

You are forced to ask—how were these folks educated? Were they ever taught any real American history or civics? Were they ever taught the proper functions of government—what government should be doing and what it should not be doing? I can remember back to my high school years and I don’t recall anything about the proper functions of government ever being explained to us. If it was that bad back then, what do you think it is now? How many public school graduates voted for Obama because they think it is government’s job to “take care of them?” And how many welfare people voted for Obama because as long as he stays there they keep getting the goodies? Not that they don’t get them with the Republicans, but the Democrats seem even more willing to stiff the middle class in order to pay for the welfare lifestyles of “the rich and indolent.”

Remember, part of Obama’s agenda is to destroy the middle class. This is what his handlers have told him to do and he’s pretty good at it. According to http://www.newsmax.com  Steve Forbes, the son of Forbes Magazine publisher Malcolm Forbes, this country is headed for a recession with a second Obama term. Forbes says “Raising taxes on capitol, raising taxes on small businesses, which we will likely get now, particularly since the Republicans did so badly in the Senate races, that is going to pose a real burden.” Of course it will. It’s supposed to. Obama’s (and the CFR’s) plan is to, bit by bit, do away with the middle class. That’s where the resistance to Marxism and socialism comes from and so the middle class has to go, while all the while Obama prattles about how he is trying to help the middle class. Well I guess he is trying to help it—out of existence!

The education bureaucracy is also trying to help the middle class to self-destruct because it makes sure that our kids don’t learn much of anything about the proper role of government. Hence we now have generations of kids who think the federal government owes them a living. We now have a federal government that makes sure we are all “safe” with wonderful agencies like Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration—all to go hand in hand with the Department of Education. Better to be “safe” than free—right? Unfortunately this is the agenda of both major parties because both major parties are controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission whose vision for this country is to turn it into something Gorbachev would have loved. And a brainwashed and compliant public who has been educated  to vote for socialism happily complies.

Recently I reread an old book I have by Janice Holt Giles called The Believers. It was historical fiction about a group in the late 1700 to early 1800s called the Shakers. These folks were apostates. There is no other way to say it unless you want to be politically correct and label them as “theologically challenged.” But since I am not noted for political correctness I will call them apostates. They had a lifestyle that allowed for no freedom of thought or action—all in the name of keeping their flock “safe” from the world. I don’t even know if they exist anymore but I due to some of their odd beliefs I rather doubt it.. Mrs. Giles’ book was about their activities in Kentucky. Years ago my family and I visited Pleasant Hill in Kentucky, where one of their settlements had been located. The buildings are still there.

On the last page of her book Mrs. Giles made an insightful observation. She said: “This country was established by freedom-loving men, and few with the zeal and spirit to endure can willingly exchange freedom for safety.”

Unfortunately, her statement tells us where this country is today. We have embraced Marxist “safety” in exchange for God-given liberty and we will live to regret it.