Right before the presidential election, a November Associated Press article discussed a presidential candidate who "said he stood for change. He left a long list of promises."
These promises included: a streamlined bureaucracy, a new tax system, a pared-down defense budget, and comprehensive national health and welfare reform.
The article also explains that the candidate "billed himself as a candidate of the people, and outsider running against Washington insiders who are pawns of special interests, who've turned the government into a ‘horrible, bloated bureaucratic mess.'"
Sound familiar, right? Like candidate Barack Obama who, of course, is now president-elect Obama.
Only this AP article was not printed this November and was not about Barack Obama. The date of the article was November 3, 1976 and the candidate of change was Jimmy Carter.
The rest, as they say is history.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or perhaps more aptly: The more a politician talks about change, the more likely he's really for implementing old, tired, and failed policies of the past that he hopes you don't remember, or never learned about to begin with.
As Ben-Peter Terpstra recounts in his current American Thinker article, Barack Obama is not a candidate of change. His presidency is destined to be a rerun, a redo of what has come before, and which has failed before. To wit:
Roughly a year after Carter’s reign began:
January 11, 1978: Change is here. Robert De Fina’s paper for the Center for the Study of American Business informs literates that the “cost of regulations to be more than $65 billion” in 1977 and that private “businesses must pay 18 billion to fill out government forms.” Under Carter, a global cooling hysteric, “billions more are spent to pay for new equipment and employees to meet many other federal regulations.”
In this economic context too, “the 65 billion regulatory bill is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices” and this “cost averages $307 for every person.” Americans feel their empty pockets, and they don’t like the feeling.
Apart from penniless businesses, citizens are also discovering that the ungodly “expense of regulations is more than the federal government spends on health care each year” and that “it uses 73 percent of the amount spent for national defense.” Further, it is “more than one-third of the total amount spent by private industry for new plant and equipment.”
And, in all seriousness, the world’s largest pharmaceutical group openly admits before Congress that their company now “spends more time filling out government forms” for President Peanut “than it does performing research on cancer and heart disease.”
January 12, 1978: As it turns out, Carter is peanuts. Wilfred Burchett, an Australian Communist, receives a waiver to gallivant around America’s colleges and universities. “Integrity”? “Sensitivity”? One writer points out in The News Tribune that he is—I quote—the “professional communist propagandist who worked insidiously on our prisoners of war in Korea and later in Vietnam” and that he has “been identified under oath before the Soviet KGB” for some unfathomable reason. Oh, yes and “his record is despicable” What’s more, “The New York Post has published a devasting exposure of his record.”
Summarily, then, Carter made headlines for (a) attending a whites-only church and (b) allowing white KGB-approved preachers to freely preach. In the meantime, Moscow is happily “airlifting weapons and supplies to Ethiopia” and “filing false flight plans when stopping to refuel in countries,” according to an aerial subterfuge report.
Since, Carter’s inaugnaration the jubilant communists have really taken to “flying over countries that lie between the Soviet Union and Ethiopia” for some reason beginning with “C.” On this day too, William Buckley is challenging President Carter’s belief that—I quote—“Our concept of human rights is preserved in [Red] Poland.” The erudite founder of National Review responds:
What is preserved in Poland is not our concept of human rights. What is preserved is 1) Soviet colonialism; 2) the supremacy of the state; 3) the abolition of property; 4) the abolition of intellectual and political freedom; and 5) the perpetual insecurity of any human rights—save only the right to practice one’s religion, which the Soviet Union found it could no more control than it could, domestically, the consumption of vodka. […]
But that's how change looks like after one year. Change, in a liberal nutshell, is peanuts.
They say that those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Jimmy Carter was president a mere 30 years ago. How quickly our country has forgotten this recent history, inarguably one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, if not in all of U.S. history, occupied the White House. How stupid our liberally-educated dupes must be. Obama clinched the youth vote over McCain by the millions. This can only be the result of an electorate who have not been properly schooled in history, by those who want to erase and rewrite it.
Otherwise, how does one explain how Barack Obama could have won the election on “change” when all he’s doing is recycling the same crap we got from the Carter years? And the LBJ years? And the FDR years? That’s not change; that’s crap. And it’s coming to your doorstep January 20.
Does this mean that America under Obama is headed directly where Carter’s America did? Not necessarily.
But if it doesn’t, it sure won’t be for lack of trying.
Recent Comments