President Obama went on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, a comedy show, and made the most frank admission of his entire life. What he said reveals not only the scary truth of his own agenda but of the entire Progressive movement in the last century.
Fox News host Glenn Beck has spent the last two years pleading with people to understand that the legislation being proposed by Obama and the Democrats was all about structure and framework. About getting their foot in the door in assuming control over the last remaining pieces of our system.
Over these last two years most people have ignored his claims or written them off as ridiculous. Crazy conspiracy theories of a raving madman. Much of that came from Jon Stewart himself.
So during the October 27, 2010 interview with Jon Stewart, in reference to the health care overhaul President Obama said the following.
"If the point is Jon that overnight we did not transform the health care system, that point is true.
When I say that when we promised during the campaign change you can believe in it wasn't change you can believe in 18 months. It was change you can believe in, but you know what we are going to have to work for it.
The history of this country, let me make this point. When Social Security was passed it applied to widows and orphans. It was a very restricted program. And over time the structure that was built ended up developing into the most important social safety net that we have in our country.
The same is true on every bit of Progressive legislation, every bit of progress we have made.
When the civil rights act passed, there were still a bunch of folks down south who couldn't vote and I'm sure there were a bunch of commentators out there who said you know what, the laws not doing the job. There are still folks who aren't able to exercise their franchise.
The point was we had created a structure, we had put a framework in place that allowed us then to continue to make progress."
Understand that clearly now. The point of progressive legislation is to create structure, a framework for continued progress. The effects of the legislation take effect slowly and grow over time like a pot of water slowly being brought to a boil. It is the eventuality of incrementalism.
What you must also understand with absolute clarity is that the Progressives and the Communist Revolutionaries only differ in the process of achieving a socialist state not the end result. Progressives believe in slow incremental progress away from free markets towards a state run system. Communist revolutionaries believe in a quick and violent revolution as we have seen in Cuba and China. Same result just a different process.
In my opinion this admission was a grave error by Obama. Each time Obama is allowed to talk off teleprompter he ends up saying something the reveals his true beliefs. It is no accident that Obama uses a teleprompter more than anyone in history. If allowed to speak off the cuff to often it would be impossible to hide his true agenda. He's a passionate believer in the progressive movement unlike many of the self serving politicians that have come before him.
Progressives have learned well from their past mistakes and have developed a long term plan that most of us have no idea even exists. Past progressives over reached by openly trying to push a large socialist plan upon the American people. Take FDR for instance.
FDR's Second Bill of Rights
The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights declared by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
- Employment, with a living wage,
- Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
- Medical care,
- Education, and,
- Social security
Compare this to the Soviet Constitution.
- ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work
- ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work
- ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education.
- ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state
Look at how far we have come and how slowly those changes came about. FDR wanted a constitutional amendment because he knew these things are unconstitutional. Progressives realized if they did them one by one during times of national emergency they could achieve the same result. Once people became dependent on these benefits they would not be able to get rid of them even if they violate the constitution.
This is not about Obama. George Bush did more in his eight years as President to move forward the Progressive socialist agenda than any President since LBJ and the Great Society (Medicare). Bush laid the ground work for Obama with the expansion of Medicare and the Patriot Act and now Obama is merely accelerating the process. When Obama claims he inherited this mess from Bush and the Republicans he is absolutely right except it is exactly the mess they worked together to create.
The 2008 election gave us the choice between a leftist progressive Democrat in Obama or a right wing progressive Republican in John McCain. It was heads I win, tails you lose situation.
I hope you continue reading because this is where it all comes together. The goal of progressive legislation is to create the framework for continued progress and their definition of progress is every increasing government power and control over our lives. We can clearly see this if we examine each piece of major progressive legislation passed in the last century.
Social Security pay outs started in 1938 at a mere 5 million dollars annually, increased to 512 million by 1948, and today stand at 700 billion dollars a year.
Medicare started in 1967 at about 3.4 billions dollars annually, increased to 22.5 billion by 1977 and today stands at almost 800 billion dollars per year.
In 1961 President Kennedy issued an executive order that effectively cleared the way for government workers to unionize. The result is that the annual cost of federal pensions is in excess of 200 billion dollars per year and many state pension plans will be bankrupt with a decade.
The end result of these programs is that we now have promised 111 trillion dollars in unfunded benefits to people who will depend on them for survival.
Nearly 100 trillion of that 111 trillion total is due to Medicare and its prescription drug counter part. Right now, 25% of Americans are covered by some form of government health insurance even though the 2009 health care overhaul has not yet started covering anyone. When you combine federal, state and local government spending that total consumes 40% of every dollar produced in the country and we have not yet started providing health benefits under the new plan.
If you take them at their word and combine that with the historical evidence provided then the only possible outcome of the health care overhaul is the eventual end of private health insurance. The framework put in place guarantees that a public option will be introduced and that it will eventually consume all private plans and create a single payer system. This is not up for debate. It is only a matter of how long it will take that can be argued.
We will not be able to tax enough or borrow enough to pay for this type of system. The only way this can possibly work is if the benefits provided are slashed to horribly low levels as they currently exist in places like Cuba and Venezuela. All that remains between where we are now and our socialist destination is one last emergency and that emergency is being created right now. The debt crisis and resulting hyper inflation will "force" them to nationalize nearly everything in order to enforce price controls to protect "working families". The same people who are right now planning this crisis are the same ones who will be offering us solutions. Will we be that gullible again?
Without a radical movement to roll back the tide of progressive legislation our children will live in a country that more resembles the former Soviet Union than the United States and that's if we're lucky.