Thursday, September 6, 2012

We are slaves of Barack...oh wait!

For the second time in two days, Obama was forced to distance himself from his own platform.   Today, he disavowed the credo that Americans are slaves of the government.

But Barack, the flick was vetted and approved by your minions.



Boy, the gig is up when somebody at the Wasthington Times gets it:

The other, more chilling way to read it is that people are creatures of government. That the government, by right, can exercise almost unlimited control over peoples’ lives. That the proper relationship between the state and the individual is that between master and servant. This is why the Obama campaign quickly threw the approved welcoming-committee video under the bus — its underlying tenet was just a little too blatant. The trick to collectivizing America is never admitting the objective. The end of freedom comes with the promise of “dignity” and the imposition of “fairness.” It starts with “hope and change” and ends with individual mandates.
The article points out that these odd reversals come on the heels of  the 'you didn't build that' nuclear bomb. This is really good news because it means a) the criticisms of Romney/Ryan have been effective; and b) Obama thought there was enough useful idiots in this country to completely expose the communist agenda and he now knows, there isn't and he has to backtrack.

In 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthews commented eloquently on the nature and origins of government. Sovereignty “is the author and source of law,” he wrote, but “sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” He continued that “the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” What voters have to decide in the upcoming election is who belongs to whom.
No exaggeration. 

No comments: