Joseph Pecar
The nation Kennedy envisioned - - versus the Obama-nation "change" Kennedy promoted
By Joseph Pecar
On January 20, 1961, the day he was inaugurated President of the "freest" country in the world, John F. Kennedy uttered his most prescient admonition to us — pleading, "Ask not what your Country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country!" Of all the remarkably incisive issues about which Kennedy expounded, this statement predominates so much so that it's now known as the "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You" speech.
Today, even after praising his mother and Michelle's father for their selfless sacrifice — enabling them both to obtain college educations at prestigious schools — what is Barack Obama's admonition to us?
Obama's advice is the antithesis of Kennedy's. In a blatant, reprehensible, despicable act of pandering, Obama promises, if elected, a government so large that our Country "will do for you" — practically everything. Do you have a problem paying for college, for health care, for retirement, for anything? Don't worry, when Obama is running the government, he will take care of you.
What propelled Kennedy to oppose this "Ask what your Country can do for you" screed, and to urge all citizens to do as much as they can — for themselves and for their Country — was his conviction that it is morally the right thing to do and the only way protect the freedoms and the liberties mandated in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. So beyond moral rectitude, Kennedy felt profoundly compelled to warn us what would happen if we didn't do the right thing.
As an astute observer of history, Kennedy understood that in saying "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty," Thomas Jefferson was admonishing us to never allow our Government to grow so large that it could essentially control its citizens — instead of the other way round. Kennedy "connected the dots for us" by warning us that governments grown big and powerful enough to claim they can provide all or most of the essential needs of all of its citizens, is also in a position to, at worst, deny or withhold those needs, or at best to empower bureaucrats to determine, what, when, how, under what conditions and to whom benefits would accrue.
Kennedy was keenly aware that in the last century, Communist regimes promising to do everything for the proletariat, failed miserably, and ended up slaughtering nearly 100 million innocent people to gain or maintain control.
Likewise in the last century, we witnessed the demise of less tyrannical socialistic governments as they scurried to privatize, otherwise adopt free enterprise economies, and scale down the size of their governments. Not surprisingly, nearly all Eastern European countries freed from the tyranny of Communism now have "Flat Taxes" with even Russia following suit. Hoping to have some impact on slowing down the growth of our Federal Government and what appears to be a relentless trend to socialism and big government in our beloved America, we can and should take to heart Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's counsel forewarning us that Communism and Socialism are the same plant — just in different stages of development.
What is most appalling about Obama's proposal for a government so large it "will do for you" — practically everything, is the absolute ruse involved when he tempts us to believe that nearly everyone will get something — some benefit for nothing — with no increase in revenue or taxes. But how can that be true? He's not going to pay the bills with his own money, and the government does not create wealth. The sad answer is that the government "can't do anything for anyone" unless it collects money from its citizens to cover the cost. Obama has no magic — no ability to transfer wealth from some mythical Greek civilization — to "change" that.
Do Americans really want our government to confiscate an ever-larger share of what citizens earn — so that instead of we citizens deciding how to spend what we earn, bureaucrats will? Do most Americans favor socialized medicine that means when we need treatment we will have to go first to a bureaucracy to determine what treatment we are allowed to receive, what doctors we can use, what hospitals or clinics we can use and how long we must wait for treatment?
If most Americans think deeply about this, and understand that despite what Obama says, there is no free lunch, surely they will prefer to retreat back to the early days of the last century when there were virtually no large government programs that gave the Federal Government the authority to send any citizen a check for any amount, save remuneration for work or goods delivered to the Government.
Our glorious Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee happiness, success, wealth, a good result or anything of that sort. But if the government continues to take larger and larger portions of our income, soon our right to pursue happiness will be denied. As one example, if a man is obligated to support "one size fits all" government schools, he may be denied the ability to choose to educate his children in a private institution simply because he can't afford to do both.
Michelle Obama says that until recently "she was not proud to be an American" without really explaining why. Barack characterizes the operation of our Government over the last eight years as an "abysmal failure" blaming George Bush for a leveling off of our economic growth, insufficient access to medical services, uncertain retirement outlooks, less than third-world-quality education, and numerous other quality-of-life measures.
But, in truth, neither George Bush nor his administration could spend money not appropriated by Congress or start wars or establish programs without Congressional approval. Moreover, it's not clear that what any single President or administration or Congress does in four or eight years can be held wholly or even principally responsible for grievous hardships that result from the actions of a bloated, out-of-control Federal Government.
No. The real problem is that over the last century, most of the succeeding Administrations and Congresses have grown the size of our Government so large that it can now have disastrous impacts on the weal of everyone and every enterprise. We have the world's largest economy with a gross domestic product in the order of 15 TRILLION DOLLARS. If the government is so large that its tax and regulatory powers, or the size of its revenue budgets are so large that it can materially impact such an immense economy, then the fundamental problem is the same as that of socialistic and communistic countries — namely the Government is simply too damn large and wields too much power over its citizens and its private sector enterprises.
Apparently, because he doesn't understand the real problem, what Obama proposes as a solution to current problems — for which he holds President Bush responsible — is to create an even larger and more powerful Government. Sadly, the only "Change" Obama seeks is merely a change in the people running our currently "out-of-control" bloated Government. Even more regrettably, he wants to replace them with those who want to make the Government even larger and more intrusive.
That clearly is not the Change we need. The Change we really need is to do everything we can to make and keep the economy of the United States of America the greatest in the world, to endow it with the most powerful military force in the world to protect us from enemies who would destroy us, to develop energy and other resource independence, and at the same time reduce the size of our Government to a point that it cannot adversely effect the commonweal of our God blessed wonderful Country.
If we have the courage and fortitude to cause that change, perhaps Barack and Michelle will finally be able to join the majority of Americans and truly be proud to be an American. Perhaps Barack might even be patriotic enough to hold his hand over his heart when our National Anthem is played!
© Joseph Pecar
On January 20, 1961, the day he was inaugurated President of the "freest" country in the world, John F. Kennedy uttered his most prescient admonition to us — pleading, "Ask not what your Country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country!" Of all the remarkably incisive issues about which Kennedy expounded, this statement predominates so much so that it's now known as the "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You" speech.
Today, even after praising his mother and Michelle's father for their selfless sacrifice — enabling them both to obtain college educations at prestigious schools — what is Barack Obama's admonition to us?
Obama's advice is the antithesis of Kennedy's. In a blatant, reprehensible, despicable act of pandering, Obama promises, if elected, a government so large that our Country "will do for you" — practically everything. Do you have a problem paying for college, for health care, for retirement, for anything? Don't worry, when Obama is running the government, he will take care of you.
What propelled Kennedy to oppose this "Ask what your Country can do for you" screed, and to urge all citizens to do as much as they can — for themselves and for their Country — was his conviction that it is morally the right thing to do and the only way protect the freedoms and the liberties mandated in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. So beyond moral rectitude, Kennedy felt profoundly compelled to warn us what would happen if we didn't do the right thing.
As an astute observer of history, Kennedy understood that in saying "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty," Thomas Jefferson was admonishing us to never allow our Government to grow so large that it could essentially control its citizens — instead of the other way round. Kennedy "connected the dots for us" by warning us that governments grown big and powerful enough to claim they can provide all or most of the essential needs of all of its citizens, is also in a position to, at worst, deny or withhold those needs, or at best to empower bureaucrats to determine, what, when, how, under what conditions and to whom benefits would accrue.
Kennedy was keenly aware that in the last century, Communist regimes promising to do everything for the proletariat, failed miserably, and ended up slaughtering nearly 100 million innocent people to gain or maintain control.
Likewise in the last century, we witnessed the demise of less tyrannical socialistic governments as they scurried to privatize, otherwise adopt free enterprise economies, and scale down the size of their governments. Not surprisingly, nearly all Eastern European countries freed from the tyranny of Communism now have "Flat Taxes" with even Russia following suit. Hoping to have some impact on slowing down the growth of our Federal Government and what appears to be a relentless trend to socialism and big government in our beloved America, we can and should take to heart Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's counsel forewarning us that Communism and Socialism are the same plant — just in different stages of development.
What is most appalling about Obama's proposal for a government so large it "will do for you" — practically everything, is the absolute ruse involved when he tempts us to believe that nearly everyone will get something — some benefit for nothing — with no increase in revenue or taxes. But how can that be true? He's not going to pay the bills with his own money, and the government does not create wealth. The sad answer is that the government "can't do anything for anyone" unless it collects money from its citizens to cover the cost. Obama has no magic — no ability to transfer wealth from some mythical Greek civilization — to "change" that.
Do Americans really want our government to confiscate an ever-larger share of what citizens earn — so that instead of we citizens deciding how to spend what we earn, bureaucrats will? Do most Americans favor socialized medicine that means when we need treatment we will have to go first to a bureaucracy to determine what treatment we are allowed to receive, what doctors we can use, what hospitals or clinics we can use and how long we must wait for treatment?
If most Americans think deeply about this, and understand that despite what Obama says, there is no free lunch, surely they will prefer to retreat back to the early days of the last century when there were virtually no large government programs that gave the Federal Government the authority to send any citizen a check for any amount, save remuneration for work or goods delivered to the Government.
Our glorious Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee happiness, success, wealth, a good result or anything of that sort. But if the government continues to take larger and larger portions of our income, soon our right to pursue happiness will be denied. As one example, if a man is obligated to support "one size fits all" government schools, he may be denied the ability to choose to educate his children in a private institution simply because he can't afford to do both.
Michelle Obama says that until recently "she was not proud to be an American" without really explaining why. Barack characterizes the operation of our Government over the last eight years as an "abysmal failure" blaming George Bush for a leveling off of our economic growth, insufficient access to medical services, uncertain retirement outlooks, less than third-world-quality education, and numerous other quality-of-life measures.
But, in truth, neither George Bush nor his administration could spend money not appropriated by Congress or start wars or establish programs without Congressional approval. Moreover, it's not clear that what any single President or administration or Congress does in four or eight years can be held wholly or even principally responsible for grievous hardships that result from the actions of a bloated, out-of-control Federal Government.
No. The real problem is that over the last century, most of the succeeding Administrations and Congresses have grown the size of our Government so large that it can now have disastrous impacts on the weal of everyone and every enterprise. We have the world's largest economy with a gross domestic product in the order of 15 TRILLION DOLLARS. If the government is so large that its tax and regulatory powers, or the size of its revenue budgets are so large that it can materially impact such an immense economy, then the fundamental problem is the same as that of socialistic and communistic countries — namely the Government is simply too damn large and wields too much power over its citizens and its private sector enterprises.
Apparently, because he doesn't understand the real problem, what Obama proposes as a solution to current problems — for which he holds President Bush responsible — is to create an even larger and more powerful Government. Sadly, the only "Change" Obama seeks is merely a change in the people running our currently "out-of-control" bloated Government. Even more regrettably, he wants to replace them with those who want to make the Government even larger and more intrusive.
That clearly is not the Change we need. The Change we really need is to do everything we can to make and keep the economy of the United States of America the greatest in the world, to endow it with the most powerful military force in the world to protect us from enemies who would destroy us, to develop energy and other resource independence, and at the same time reduce the size of our Government to a point that it cannot adversely effect the commonweal of our God blessed wonderful Country.
If we have the courage and fortitude to cause that change, perhaps Barack and Michelle will finally be able to join the majority of Americans and truly be proud to be an American. Perhaps Barack might even be patriotic enough to hold his hand over his heart when our National Anthem is played!
© Joseph Pecar
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
