The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda

Family Security Matters

“Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of  this Country.” — John Adams

The number of scandals involving the encroachment of the Obama Administration  into – and onto – the constitutional rights of American citizens is beyond  stunning. And it is without question criminal in many cases. But with an  Attorney General seated who – as a practice – routinely tries to manipulate the  limits of the law to affect an ideological agenda, and a federal “classification  system” that keeps those elected to represent us in Congress from bringing  issues of government instituted malfeasance to light, what recourse is left the  American citizen?

These encroachments against the United States Constitution are the product of  over one-hundred years of Progressive political advances in the area of  government. Put succinctly, two of the founding principles of the Progressive  Movement; two of the “givens” held in understanding by each and every  Progressive, are that: a) Progressives are enlightened; intellectually superior  to the masses; and, b) that through centralized government, Progressives can  help the masses help themselves to a better life, regardless of whether they  want it or not. Once these two facts are understood, you can begin to understand  some of the declarations made by Mr. Obama and his spokespeople about the many  scandals – or what We the People perceive to be scandals – surrounding  the Obama Administration.

According to R.J. Pestritto, the Charles & Lucia Shipley Chair in the  American Constitution at Hillsdale College and author of American Progressivism, “”America’s original  Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.”

Jonah Goldberg writes of Pestritto’s examination of the Progressive Movement  in Liberal Fascism:

“They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano  Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and  Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The  progressives, Pestritto says, wanted ‘a thorough transformation in America’s  principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing  individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and  all social and economic ills.’

“In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to  confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders  had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times  seemed to demand.

“…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation  of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an  anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need  at any given time.

“This perspective dovetailed with the progressives’ notion of an ‘evolving’ or ‘living’ government, which, like all living beings, could  rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances.  Similarly, progressives also coined the term ‘living Constitution,’ connoting  the idea that the US Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent  guiding principles — a document that must, of necessity, change with the  times.”


On the subject of the Obama “scandals” the key words here are  “…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives” and “…whatever the American  people seemed to need at any given time.”

In each of the perceived scandals, the Progressives of the Obama  Administration justify their actions through those eyes. They see the situations  as being too complex for the average American to understand, too emotionally  disturbing for them to fathom; the need for constitutional transgression in  their quest for the “fundamental transformation” of America too great. And so  they deceive their political opposition – and the American public – about their  actions, reasons, intentions and goals.

This understood, it is easy to see why, after myriad transgressions against  the Constitution and the mission of the Justice Department itself, Mr. Obama  declares that he still has “confidence” in Eric Holder. He needs Eric Holder in  the senior-most law enforcement position so that he can unilaterally achieve his  Progressive agenda through a totalitarian Executive Branch; so he can achieve  the “fundamental transformation” of our country through, Executive Order and  regulation, especially regulation – legislation through regulation.

It is for this reason – unilateral fundamental transformation – that  Progressives have sought to grow our federal government to its current behemoth  size; a bureaucratic labyrinth filled with “career” public servants (an  oxymoron?) and interminable political appointees whose entire existence is to  move the American political center incrementally to the Left; a task they have  been achieving with regularity since the days of Wilson and Roosevelt.

It is for this particular reason – it is for this particular governmental  mechanism: the bureaucracy – that Mr. Obama will not be directly linked to any  of these so-called scandals (scandals in the eyes of all those who revere the  Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but not as much to Progressives). The  entire Progressive Movement has culminated in this moment in time. They truly  believe it is their time. Progressives believe that because they have  achieved a twice elected hyper-Progressive president – disregarding the  retention of the US House of Representatives by Republicans and ignoring the  many governorships that went “Red” last election – that they have a mandate, not  for Mr. Obama’s “programs,” but for the complete transformation of our  governmental system from that of a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist  Democracy based on the now failed models of Europe.

In each scandal there is a bureaucratic figurehead that insulates Mr. Obama  from direct responsibility. In the IRS scandal we have Lois Lerner and Douglas  Schulman. In the Fast & Furious and AP/FOX scandal there is Eric Holder. In  Benghazi there were Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton…and dead men tell no tales.  In each instance, Mr. Obama has a dedicated and loyal “useful idiot” who will  fall on his/her sword for the “good of the movement.” It is assumed they will,  just as it was assumed they would execute their actions of transgressions  against the Constitution and liberty itself, with fidelity to “the cause” and  without a direct order ever being given.

As We the People watch the “scandals” of the Obama reign unfold, we need to  understand that even though Progressives believe this is “their time,” it would  have been “their time” regardless of who was in the White House. Was it easier  to execute with the first “Black” president in the White House, someone whose  constitutionally destructive actions Progressives could defend with a claim of  “racism” toward his detractors? Sure, it made it easier, but it would have  happened anyway, and it would have happened because of two reasons: a) the  public has become apathetic towards their duty to be accurately informed and  engaged, and b) the bureaucracy was in place.

Unless We the People insist on the decentralization of government, a  viciously executed reduction in the size of the federal government and a radical  transformation of the federal tax code to a limited flat tax, FAIR tax or  consumption tax, nothing will change with the 2016 elections, regardless of  which party captures the White House and holds sway in Congress. Our country –  our Constitutional  Republic – will continue to be “nudged” to the Left;  continue to be fundamentally transformed away from liberty and self-reliance and  toward servitude and dependence.

Barack Obama was correct about one thing all those years back in 2008, our  nation – the United   States of America – is in need of fundamental  transformation. That transformation, though, needs to be from a culture  of bureaucratic elitism in a centralized government where no one is able to be  held accountable, to a nation dedicated to justice for all and the rule  of law under the constraints of the United States Constitution.

Or, as John Adams so eloquently wrote in Novanglus Essay, No. 7:

“[Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington] define a republic to be a government  of laws, and not of men.”

We, my fellow Americans, are a Republic and not a Democracy, for precisely that reason.

Read more: Family Security Matters Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

2 thoughts on “The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda

  1. Pingback: The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda | Socialism is not the Answer | Es ist ein Klaüsterfökken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s