Democrats

The Democratic Party may be on the verge of achieving a self-perpetuating dominance over America with the Troika of House, Senate and the presidency firmly in its grip. Unlike Paul Revere, the protected punditocracy, secure on Mt. Olympus, has failed to raise the alarm and warn the electorate of Democratic assault on the political terrain.

Even some Olympian Republicans - oblivious to this threat - have endorsed the openly socialist Barack Obama, "spread the wealth" by which he means, the government controlled by the Troika of Democrats; a candidate who opposes both limited government and personal economic freedom, the free market.

The likelihood of veto-overriding Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate raises the near certainty of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democratic Troika. Any limited government concerns about pro-life George W. Bush's advocacy for expanded federal bureaucracy fade and complaints that John McCain is "Bush-lite" disappear before the clearly envisioned plans of Democratic Socialism, a Europeanized America, with expanded welfare state and federalized banking and credit markets.

Europeanizing America would supplant individual initiative with government mandated and controlled, collective welfare socialism where the most productive and least productive are treated "equally."

Mr. Obama's campaign to the presidency has been staffed by, among others, ACORN, which rationalizes its fraudulent actions, claiming ends justify the means.

Big Labor is betting big on Mr. Obama. Its priority, "Card Check" would essentially collectivize America with European style union Welfare State. The elimination of the secret ballot in Union Elections invites intimidation and coercion and, almost certainly, insures union victory. The unions think so which is why they are investing tens of millions on Mr. Obama and the Democratic campaign. And the result would be enhanced funding of the "Progressive" agenda of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats' Leftist and Double Standard Main Stream Media, reaching far more Americans than talk radio or "conservative" news channels, plan to silence dissent and disagreement from "conservative" talk radio by invoking the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine." The judiciary can be enlisted to suppress "untrue" political speech as is happening in Missouri now.

Enhancing regulation clearly suppresses business innovations and accountability in the private sector and public politicians escape without punishment for the politically caused failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Shrinking the military encourages Jihadist Iran, an expansionist authoritarian Russia and an assertive communist China.

Mr. Obama, during the most recent Presidential Debate, claimed healthcare to be a human right "because our country is wealthy enough to afford to help the little guy." Does not this unrealistic statement create unreasonable expectations that their unlimited demand can be satisfied with real world limited supply?

There is a difference between freedom and slavery, is there not? Between free markets for free people and the Olympian, centralized and concentrated, command and control collective, the military model, combining power and wealth in Washington, coordinated by a few government bureaucrats, the expert power elite, is there not?

If you are smart enough to vote, you are smart enough to decide how to spend your own money. State Socialism/State Capitalism is necessarily authoritarian and can lead to no good as Nobel Prize economist F.A.Hayek demonstrated in "Road to Serfdom."

The Troika undermines a system of separation of powers, of checks and balances, central to the Founders' fear of the tendency of power to corrupt.

More government; less freedom; the few rule the many.

Bob Guzzardi is a businessman and political activist; his Web site is www.crnblog.org. Bob Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist.

[My "loyal" son was asked to choose between the above (favored by Guzzardi) and the below (favored by his father); who says "Blood is Thicker than Water"? Both versions are included in this "web-version" to empower the reader to decide if he concurs that my version was more "academic," whereas Guzzardi's was more in-tune with an op-ed piece....]

The Democratic Party envisions itself as being on the verge of quietly achieving a self-perpetuating level of control over America. Unlike Paul Revere, however, the Protected Punditocracy—secure atop Mt. Olympus—has failed to sound the alarm as to how this ten-step strategy is intended to unfold. It encompasses voter registration, unionization, payoffs, stifling free speech, and promoting big government. It is dangerous.

First, the spate of illegal immigrants has seeped into voter registration rolls and, second, the specter of ACORN-enhanced fraud has already begun to haunt the legitimacy of swing-state contests. Consider what has occurred in Ohio, when one voter testified he had registered 73 times and “potential” residents were able to register and to vote on the same day, a month before election day.

Obama supporters scoff at those who would, instead, purge the rolls, mandate photo-ID, or even dip thumbs in purple ink. The heart of their rationalizations are cries for recompense for previously “stolen” elections and against alleged Bush Administration corruption…essentially arguing their worthwhile “end” justifies pursuing any available “means.” That ACORN endorsed Obama, therefore, is claimed not to have tainted its taxpayer-supported efforts, even when (1)—its spokespeople exhort employees to encourage voting for Obama, and (2)—its employees instruct electors how to vote for Obama. It has implemented the traditional war-cry of Chicago politicians, “vote early and vote often.”

Third, Big Labor is betting big on Obama and, fourth, burgeoning unionization would create a sense of loyalty transcending other policy considerations. Its major legislative priority, “Card Check,” would instantly collectivize America à la Europe. Denying workers the use of a secret ballot in union elections would routinely ensure union victories through intimidation and coercion exerted by coworkers.

Obama supporters complain of an overarching need to reverse erosion of union membership. Rather than attempting to repair flaws in individual policies, however, they admit the compulsion to revamp the system. This proposal—supported by Obama—would eliminate privacy from the labor-management equilibrium, a fundamental tenet of democracy.

Fifth, Democrats have directed appropriations—“walk-around-money” (WAM) in Pennsylvania and earmarks in Washington—to dependable donors and, sixth, proposing “refundable tax credits” represents a blatant effort to purchase the votes of the 40% of the population who currently pay no federal taxes.

By transforming budgetary deficits into plausible bond issues (classically, for infrastructure), Democrats can institutionalize escalation of debt service in blocks of 30-year payback commitments. They can then pay favored bond counsel through expenditure of public monies.

Seventh, threatening prosecution of those who challenge Democrats by claiming defamation (as is now transpiring in Missouri) represents an overt assault on Free Speech and, eighth, reinstitution of the “Fairness Doctrine” would silence dissent articulated by hosts of and callers to “conservative” talk radio.

They ignore the fact that listeners can simply choose what they wish to hear by weighing available alternatives offered by myriad available stations. It would be impossible to classify (and, thereafter, “balance”) public perspectives on each identified controversy. Indeed, this would institutionalize the dissemination of the power of the leftist Mainstream Media to ridicule all Republicans, just as it has mauled the McPalin ticket.

Ninth, promoting the concept that government can solve problems encountered by individuals reinforces dependency needs, and tenth, economic central planning threatens to stifle initiative, ingenuity, industriousness and innovation.

Senator Obama, during the most recent Presidential Debate, claimed healthcare to be a human right rather than a responsibility or privilege, “because our country is wealthy enough to afford to help the little guy.” What happens if the rights of the producers of healthcare goods and providers of healthcare services conflict with the patients/consumers thereof? Insatiable demand cannot be satisfied by limited supply, so will the power of government be used to force the healthcare industry to treat all comers? How could the rights of physicians be honored, for example, if they were compelled to accommodate even the most litigious of patients, particularly if they could not alter compensation levels established by federal bureaucrats?

Conjuring belief in Constitutional, limited government is not merely a mantra for libertarians. Fearing socialism as a subversion of the explicit views of the Founding Fathers is not merely philosophical exercise. Recalling the traditional benefits of checks-and-balances is not merely a nostalgic, patriotic enterprise. Preserving the need for economic freedom to be exerted through elimination of non-confiscatory taxation is not merely an academic exercise.

Once the political “funny season” ends, rhetoric over regulation, blame, and criminality will cease to preoccupy the electorate. Indeed, the Republicans wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddy; leaders of the Democrat-controlled Congress (such as Rep. Barney Frank) try desperately to foreswear responsibility for the economic meltdown (and the pre-election timing thereof); and Wall Street intermediaries still accept gigantic “severance packages.”

No serious student of political silence can conclude that Obama, the most left-wing presidential candidate in American history, would resist the social welfare entreaties of House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. This troika would raise taxes due to the trenchant desire for “fairness,” even if lower revenue would be collected. Thus, after the Feds have undermined the free market through purchasing banks and underwriting credit markets, the Democrats mock argument that pro-life George W. Bush pursued a policy of limiting government…and segue into labeling McCain as “Bush-lite.”

This is how the Democrats plan to achieve dominance, and then to embed it in steel-reinforced concrete. To Paul Revere’s signals (“one if by land, two if by sea”) must be added “three if by air.” That’s why we use six lanterns to flank our warning against this full-scale challenge to America’s heritage.

Bob Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist; his website is www.doctor-bob.biz. Bob Guzzardi is a businessman and political activist; his website is www.crnblog.org.