WHAT DID GREGG SEE???
In February, President Obama asked Senator Judd Gregg to join his cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. The president has been having trouble with his cabinet nominees and this one looked like a shoo-in while giving the president the aura of "reaching across the aisle." But then, suddenly, Gregg, after a few closed sessions with the administration, withdrew his name from consideration. Why?
At first, Gregg simply said that he and the president were "functioning from a different set of views on many different items of policy." That was an understatement. It has become more and more clear that Gregg was to be window dressing for the administration, a foil to Republican critics of policy, to be trotted out for the media to point at as an example of Obama's bipartisanship. But Gregg was having none of it. Since then Gregg has been a critic of the president's massive spending program. Saturday, Gregg went further. He charged that the president, along with the Democrat held congress, is engineering an "extraordinary move of our government to the left." and the the present course would "dranatically grow the size and cost of government and move it to the left."
I don't believe that Gregg went far enough. It seems obvious that the left is determined to destroy our two party system of government that has stood this country well from almost the beginning. We have always, regardless of which party has been in power, had a loyal opposition to temper the excesses of the party in power. They find that situation intolerable to their agenda.
Am I being alarmist? I think not. Let's first consider the end game of the radical left, which, at this point, is holding sway over the leadership currently in office. They believe that a strong United States is an impediment to world peace and a one-world government. Their goal is a weakened U.S. (militarily) with it's riches being "shared" (does "fairness" sound right?) with the rest of the world. Of course, only their most unthinking radicals actually voice such a proposition, because the vast majority of moderate liberals love their country and would abandon a party that even suggested such a thing. So, until now, the far left has moved in ways that attempt to conceal their motives. But now, they believe they have a "perfect storm" - a deep recession, high unemployment, a housing crisis and a financial crisis - and that now is their chance to make a quantum jump. Or, as Raum Emmanuel put it, "We can't afford to miss a good crisis."
There are a plethora of examples of how they are moving America toward the goal line, the massive spending, which will cause a devaluing of the dollar as the world's currency standard, being just one. Even as I write this, Russia and communist China are calling for a new, one-world, currency. And the policies embodied in the "solutions" to the housing crisis will be negated by the runaway spending, which depends on massive borrowing. As they lower interest rates to spur home buying, those same rates will have to be raised in order to "sell" our debt because of the higher risk to those purchasing our bonds.
But there's plenty more. Liberal leaders, such as Barney Frank, are calling for a 25 percent reduction in military spending, even as we fight two wars and a world-wide terrorist campaign. While that is happening, they intend to cripple military research and development, leaving us more vulnerable in the future. They intend to silence opposition while enhancing their own ability to spread their agenda. While Obama says he does not favor reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine", the left intends to use a little known FCC rule called "localism" to force radio stations to present liberal programming on talk radio, the one medium ruled by conservatives. Liberal talk radio, of course, has failed in almost all efforts because they do not draw sponsors to the stations. Its not a matter of fairness, of course. It is a matter of market demand. But the intention is, not to make liberal talk radio a success, but to drive conservative talk radio off the air, which is what will happen if stations are given the choice to lose money or switch to less controversial programming. At the same time, a bill has been introduced in congress to save failing liberal newspapers, such as the New York Times. Papers would be allowed to become "Non-profit entities", to be supported by donations (see GeorgeSoros), grants and, like PBS, taxpayer largess. A liberal immigration law currently making the rounds of congress will make citizens of up to 20 million illegals which will swell the ranks of the Democrat party. The census has been pirated, moved under the stewardship of the White House, and will be used to gerrymander districts to shut out opposition. Nancy Pelosi has cut the number of Republicans allowed on committees to guarantee passage out of committee bills she favors. One such bill will be "Card Check", designed to do away with secret balloting in elections to determine if employees of a company wish to become unionized. Of course unions are, by nature, very liberal. In one of the most galling instances, our taxpayer dollars are being doled out to organizations such as ACORN to be used against the very system they are trying to destroy.
So Senator Gregg was being a gentleman. But he was issuing a wake-up call. The left is going for broke, hoping to do grevious damage that cannot be reversed before the 2010 elections. We must convince our more moderate liberal friends that we are not the enemy.