Categories
Quick Analysis

Why, and how, America changed

America traditionally has been a nation of great goals. Why does it currently appear in so substantial a decline?

It fought the mightiest empire on the planet to become a free country. It forged a unique constitution that provided more freedom than had ever existed in any land before. It fought one of the bloodiest wars in history at the time to rid itself of slavery. It opened an entire continent for settlement. It established an economy that provided unparalleled prosperity for the greatest number of its citizens than had ever been accomplished by any nation. It led the world in patents and inventions. Its culture tantalized and enriched the entire world. It put men on the moon. It defeated, without war, the Soviet nuclear superpower.

Since it was a nation comprised of humans, not demi-gods, it wasn’t perfect; nothing established by humans ever can be. But throughout its history, it sought to remedy its faults, and has done so in most areas.

Currently, however, it is difficult to discern what goals, dreams, hopes and ambitions exist for the American Republic. The language of many of its leaders dwells almost exclusively on criticizing their own country. Its Chief Executive seeks to reduce and withdraw American influence across the globe. Its military is decimated. It can no longer put humans in space. Its economy is weakened, mired in almost unimaginably large federal debt—and those dollars have purchased almost nothing. Indeed, the portion of that debt attributable to one program, President Obama’s “Stimulus” program, was a stunning $831 billion, and nothing significant or lasting was accomplished by it. The nation is mired in social welfare programs that produce no path out of poverty, but an ever increasing spiral of dependency and demands for more unearned benefits. The “can-do” spirit of the past was replaced with a “give me more!” concept.

In today’s America, President Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” and President Reagan’s belief that America’s best days are yet to come seem like the faintest of relics from a distant past.

What changed, and how did that change occur?

Much can be traced back to the turmoil of the 1960’s and 1970’s. A decade of assassinations, an unpopular war, a president resigning in disgrace, substantial drug problems, and the too-long delayed movement to finally end racial bias produced a crop of people who saw only the flaws in America, to the exclusion of its merits.  When these individuals failed to advance a nihilistic and anti-capitalist domestic agenda and pacifist foreign policy at the ballot box, they began, in the words of left wing extremists, the “long march through the institutions.”

Choosing any of these destinations can be female viagra pill a factor for a decrease in sexual desire. The man might respond with embarrassment or anger or he may state that he was order generic viagra http://robertrobb.com/ignored-realities-in-the-brexit-debate/ over-aroused or stressed. Here are the different types involved: Male enhancement websites – There are a lot of sites that allow men to tadalafil overnight shipping with no solution, however, it’s dependably a smart thought to meet with a spelevitrat before starting utilizing the administration of levitra 10 mg is sensible. Here, you’ll find the smallest GPS device available today with real-time tracking capabilities that span throughout the entire cheapest tadalafil online United States and Puerto Rico. The concept was originally spawned by Rudi Dutschke,  a German student activist who realized that the general public wouldn’t buy into his neo-Marxist vision. To overcome that, he advocated, as the U.K. publication the Telegraph  phrased it, a long-range strategy “to invade the areas of life that were most directly responsible for opinion-forming.” Rather than attempting violent revolution or unsuccessful political campaigns, its adherents moved into academia, the media, unions, and other alternative centers of influence.

That approach was combined with a tactic originated by Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. These individuals also realized that a direct approach through violence or elections would not work. They added to the “Long March” idea a strategy that sought to overwhelm the U.S. government by popularizing demands for utterly unaffordable increases in benefits.

Rudi Dutschke, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were the strategists, but it was Saul Alinsky who was the tactician who advanced their cause. Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” was the basic training manual for the practical implementation of the Dutschke-Cloward/Piven strategy. Among Alinsky’s fans is no less a luminary than Hillary Clinton.

This insidious movement took decades to mature, and was substantially delayed by the extraordinary successes of the Reagan Administration, which brought into sharp focus the failings of their guiding Marxist principles by producing a strong economy in the U.S. and brought down the Soviet Union abroad.

The election of Barack Obama came after generations had been taught by Dutschke-Cloward/Piven strategy disciples, and influenced by a media also predisposed to its tenets.  Breitbart,  citing a National Review study, describes the relationship to the current President:

“Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first ‘community organizers.’” That same column cites a photo that was on Obama’s presidential campaign website: a photo that showed “Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods.”

America’s decline is not a result of inevitable or overwhelming forces. It is the product of an intentional, carefully established strategy to “fundamentally transform,” as President Obama has stated, the very nature of the nation. This concept mandates the replacement of the original goals of individual rights and an optimistic and ambitious worldview by a collectivist, extremely powerful federal governmental structure at home that feels far more comfortable with similarly autocratic regimes abroad.