Three Questions for Barack Obama

If given the opportunity to interview the man who was elected to the presidency in 2008, I would very much like to ask him the three following questions:

1. Do you believe that the free enterprise system has been and continues to be the engine for this nation’s economic growth and the primary source of prosperity for America’s citizen?
   
   
2. Do you believe that an individual has the first and best claim to use of the wealth and property he or she honestly acquires—either through hard work, wise investment or good fortune — and that the wealth-producing productivity of private citizens should be commended and encouraged so that they will be free from dependence upon others for their well being?
   
   
3. Do you believe that all individuals should be treated equally before the law, and that there should be neither advantage nor disadvantage administered by the state on account of race, creed, sex or religion, and that every person has an inalienable right to hold and peacefully express their beliefs on any and all subjects without fear of reprisal from the law or its agents?

As for myself, I would answer each question with a resounding and unqualified “yes!” I suspect that Mr. Obama would also answer affirmatively, but then he would spend quite awhile explaining why none of these ideas are acceptable in practice.

In any case, actions speak louder than words and certainly none of Mr. Obama’s policies or pronouncements implies much commitment to the beliefs I’ve outlined in my three questions.

And what I find most troubling is that not only are these my beliefs, history has also shown these concepts to be fundamental to the American ideals. Therefore my question for others would be: "How could I possibly support the presidency of any man who holds to a counter and alien ideology?"

No, I Will Not Be Silenced

I don’t know to what extent a lot of average folks are paying attention to the Tucson shooting side-show—that effort by liberal pundits, activists and politicians to cast conservatives and Tea Party types as indirectly responsible for the horrific murder of six people (including a federal judge and a nine-year old girl) as well as the terrible wounding of a Democrat congresswoman and 13 others.

Yes, of course, a single madman was responsible, but you’d never know that if “Progressives” had their way.

Basically, this is their game plan: Having lost the public debate about the direction the country should take (as evidenced by the utter repudiation of loser-centric liberal policies in the recent elections) the Loony Left desperately wants to avoid a similar outcome in 2012 by making sure only one side has a voice going forward — theirs. Baselessly claiming that conservative talk radio, Fox News and Tea Party activism is to blame for causing a crazy man to do something violently crazy is the Left’s grotesquely exploitative plan.

Think I’m wrong or perhaps overstating the situation? Look at this way: The objection the Left raises is to people rebelling against status-quo, liberal policies like ObamaCare. It’s obvious that quelling dissent helps keep the disastrous legislation (and executive orders) of the past two years in place. Make no mistake; while they’ll swear they simply want to keep discourse civil, they really just want anyone who disagrees with Lord Obama to keep their mouths shut. You know the drill: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

I pray that conservatives and libertarians won’t be cowed by this rank intimidation. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Barack Obama is an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, empty suit pursuing idiotic polices in service to a hopelessly foolish political philosophy. He, his minions, allies and supporting self-interested interest groups must be opposed with all the vigor and to the fullest extent that the law allows. I sincerely feel to do anything less would be a disservice to my conscience and my country.

Lock and load! (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

What's Really at Stake

Recently George Steinbrenner passed away, and because this year (and this year only) there is no death tax, the Yankee’s owner, shipping magnate and philanthropist was able to bequeath the entirety of considerable fortune to his heirs … as he saw fit. That thought delights me. For as the legendary economist Milton Friedman once wondered, why is it better for a wealthy man to spend lavishly on himself, indulging in every whim, than leave too much money to his children?

I don’t have any children, but I have many friends who are wonderful, loving parents, and certainly I was once a child myself, so I’m still well acquainted with the concept of mothers and fathers “doing” for their offspring. In fact, as far as my circle of friends and family is concerned, anything less than total commitment to their children’s welfare is completely unfathomable. And surely, among life’s pleasures for these people, is giving a gift to a child that will utterly delight the young one.

Now imagine if such a special moment were interrupted by a brutish third party who steps in and announces, “That gift is much too nice. I’m going to insist on something of lesser value for your child.” Unfortunately in this scenario, the entity is so powerful that you have no choice but to surrender a portion of your little one’s joy.

Here then is the question: If it would disturb you to be stopped from giving your child as fancy a toy as you would like, how much worse would it be if this same interloper stopped you from aiding your child with a better education, better health care or — worse still— the life skills and moral character to flourish on their own.

Ultimately, that is the effect of wealth redistribution as favored by the current regime in Washington. And don’t doubt for a moment that Barack Obama and his associates truly want to keep middle-class parents from providing for their children at the best of their ability. Consider leftist opposition to anything other than government/union-run schools, their grab to limit and ration medical care, and an unrelenting assault on the values that made the nation great—namely individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

The magnificent thing about capitalistic, free-market economies and the liberty to make choices is that corresponding societies afford the greatest opportunity for upward mobility (or perhaps more to the point, a much enhanced ability to live a life based on one’s own priorities). For now, the vast majority of Americans (not just the super rich) have access to products, services and entertainments that their grandparents could not have imagined. This includes “doing” for your children, which is another legacy of "free minds and free markets."

But shouldn't we be willing to do with a little less, even for our children, if it means meeting the needs of the poorest among us? I would agree, if I believed that was the goal of left-wing politicians, but it isn’t. Instead, they want power ... and assuming the mantle of charity is merely a means to their ends. Some may want power for personal aggrandizement and some may want to “do good” but make no mistake, they want to rule. To achieve their goal, they seek to corner the market on much of the things that middle class people so readily have at hand. Once you understand this, you’ll understand why Barack Obama is so hostile to economic liberty and free enterprise.

This is the patronage system—Tammany Hall or the “Chicago Way.” If you want good healthcare, to send your children to the best schools, a home in a nice neighborhood … too bad! Your ability to get these things through your own efforts will be put out of your reach, regardless of how hard you’re willing to work or the talent you possess, or yes … even raw luck. (And is luck so bad? Don’t we all, on occasion, fantasize about being lucky?) Instead, you’ll need to show obeisance to the proper authorities, grease a few palms … maybe join the SEIU (the Party).

It is the hope of the statists to make us all dependent on the government for everything. And unless you want to be like the most pathetic of Hurricane Katrina’s victims, (waiting to be rescued because they never learned self-reliance) you will need to learn to adoringly chant something like “Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm! Barack Hussein Obama!”

And we will, because good parents will do anything for their children. Even wear the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama’s War on Responsible Americans

If you’re someone who works hard to provide well for yourself and your family, tries to instill good values in your children, endeavors to live an honorable life … and hopes to occasionally reap some rewards from all your hard work, I have bad news: You aren’t among Barack Obama’s constituent groups.

And if you know anything about Chicago-style, patronage politics, you know that you’re either with the Machine or you’re food for it.

Seriously, can anyone name a single policy endorsed by the current administration that makes it easier to do any of the things mentioned in that opening paragraph?

Provide for your family? Unemployment hovers around 10% largely because Obama’s profligate spending, eagerness to raise taxes and aggressive moves to regulate every aspect of the economy have so spooked businesses that they are afraid to invest or hire.

Try to instill good values in children? Attempting to bribe one politician with various favors to not run against another one; judicial appointments and a Department of Justice that judges people not by their character but by the color of their skin; government bail outs for bad behavior (personal and institutional) … those are some of examples that Obama is setting for America’s youth.

Endeavors to live an honorable life? Look at the cast of miscreants with whom Barack Obama is associated: Low-life felon Tony Reznik, domestic terrorist William Ayers, “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, the gang from ACORN, SEIU goon squads … if honor was money, they couldn’t come up with a nickel between the lot of 'em! Birds of a feather, I always say.

Hope to occasionally reap some rewards from hard work? Forget about it! The Teleprompter in Chief has plans for your money and it doesn’t include you! Some of your cash is earmarked for people who lead irresponsible lives with no interest in looking out for themselves or their children. (But they vote!) Then he also wants to pay off unions for their support and muscle (the Brown Shirt Brigades of the Obama-Nation). And of course the ruling class itself desires more and more perks and power! Buying votes and controlling everything is expensive. That’s not going to leave a lot of money left over for the people who earned it. Sorry.

Even big banks and corporations are more cherished by Barack Obama and his ilk than the average middle class family. Forget what you've always heard about socialist being for the "little guy." They see no real upside to being for the middle class or small business owners. Not when "too big to fail" policies enable Obama's thug-ocracy to extort more and more concessions against freedom that feed the downward spiral toward mass servitude.

Yeah, face it. If you’re a decent, hardworking American citizen, you fall well below illegal aliens in Barack Obama’s pecking order. And in fact, just because you have the temerity to want to take care of yourself and your family, make your own decisions and build your own future, you dare reject the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama wants to destroy your ability to make a better life for yourself than would be possible by solely relying on government. To that end, his policies are all about lowering your expectations and limiting your options. And as long as you cling to those things (as you might cling to your faith or other freedoms) you are an enemy of the Anointed One.

Independence Day Thoughts

If engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.

Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.

Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.

But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights at all should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.

Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.

Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “negative liberties.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, I may!).

We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.

Happy 4th of July!

There's No Other Explanation ...

For as long as I have considered such things, I have believed as Thomas Jefferson said, “That government governs best that governs least.”

When I was 14 years old, I sent two weeks allowance to Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential campaign to wrest the Republican nomination from President Gerald Ford. In high school, during Mrs. Sellers’s weekly current events discussion, (at the height of the farmers' protest movement for 100% price supports) I argued that farmers had no more right to government subsidies than any other business person.

During my college years, I debated with political science professors that we should eliminate about 75% of the federal government. In speech class, I spoke in favor of right-to-work laws (in opposition to unionization) and against the government-sponsored pyramid scheme known as Social Security. Also while in college, one of my greatest Eureka moments came when I read economist Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, perhaps the best defense of limited government and the free market ever written.

As a newspaper columnist in the mid 1980s I was a consistent libertarian-conservative, espousing a limited government approach to every issue: in favor of legalizing marijuana, pro-gun rights, against mandatory seat-belts, defending private property rights, against minimum wage laws, supporting tax-cuts … and always an ardent supporter of the First Amendment.

My views haven’t changed much. An 8x10 framed color photo of Ronald Reagan hangs on the wall over my desk. I still subscribe to Reason magazine (since about 1984) which carries the slogan, “Free minds and free markets.” I’m a registered Republican and have been for more 25 years. During that time I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates a few times, but only ONE Democrat. (Gladys Chapman, the supervisor of elections in Bay County, FL always spoke slowly in concise, grammatically correct sentences, and as a reporter I appreciated that.)

Before the 2008 presidential election, I took a quiz to see which candidate I should support. Out of all those men and Hillary (about 20 hopefuls there were, I think) Barack Obama was dead last. He and I saw eye to eye 8% of the time. Today, I heard that Obama called Kanye West a “jackass.” As far as I can tell, this is the first position he’s taken since becoming president that I agree with.

Yet apparently none of all that matters … not my political philosophy, my party affiliation, my understanding of economics or the lessons I’ve drawn from history.

No. You see, apparently the real reason I oppose Barack Obama’s agenda for America is because I’m a racist. For all the folks to the far left of sanity, no other reason will do.

Why I'm a Global Warming Skeptic

There are several reasons I don’t believe in man-made global warming. What follows are the biggest of these (though there are others not mentioned).

First, the warmest year in the U.S. during the past 120 or so years was in 1934. I’ve heard 1998 supposedly came close … but no banana. That means global warming has had 75 years to break the record (with the aid of tons of CO2 emissions) and still can’t do it. Does warming not really mean warming?

Apparently not. Since the aforementioned 1998, world temperatures have leveled off and in fact, since Al Gore’s 2006 Inconvenient Truth propaganda film, have declined about three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit. That may not sound like much, but it’s more than half the entire temperature rise since modern climate record-keeping began around 1880. Oh, you didn’t know that — that all the horrible global warming which is supposedly killing polar bears and threatening to sink Florida beneath the waves, amounts to one single degree Celsius from 1880 to 1998? Hype is an amazing thing when done well. And this why the preferred term has become “climate change.” (When I was a kid, “climate change” was what we referred to as “weather” or “seasons.”)

I’m also put off by the cultic behavior of the strongest adherents of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Try this, whenever you here the term “global warming” or “climate change” from an AGW alarmist, mentally substitute the word, “sin.” I thought about substituting “Earth” with “God” but Gaia is a wimpy little deity who’s constantly threatened by her creation. Essentially her only line of defense is to die and take the human race with her. Nevertheless, the AGW faithful gives the Taliban a run for the money in the intolerance department.

And a final big reason I’m skeptical of AGW is that I don’t trust the people pushing the theory. I think governmental funding and fear of being politically incorrect has utterly corrupted much of the science that purportedly proves AGW. (The United Nations? Really? People are actually taking the U.N seriously … about ANYTHING!?!) I believe the big companies that are “going green” are looking for ways to make a fast-buck, and liberal politicians are using this “crisis” as an excuse to bring huge portions of the economy, as well as how individuals live their lives, under government control. I don’t like people who use fear to stampede folks into making a rash decision.

Today politics is all about fear. George W. had the terrorists of course, (who actually DID kill about 3,000 people in New York). Two wars and the Patriot Act later though, I have to admit there may have been excess in the response. But today we have Barack Obama who sees “weapons of mass destruction” every where he looks — in the banking industry, with car manufacturing, in healthcare and threatening the environment.

I adored Ronald Reagan as president. He never played on people’s fears. Talk about “yes, we can” … now that was Reagan! Return the nation to economic prosperity? Yes we can! Defeat the evil empire of communist oppression? Yes we can! Be proud of ourselves again as a people? Yes we can! He did it all, and he did it by pushing an agenda of individual freedom and personal responsibility at home, and strength and determination abroad. By contrast, when Obama says, “Yes we can” he means we can turn our back on the economic system that has made America the wonder of the world; we can strip away the liberties that our Founding Fathers tried to protect with the Constitution; and we can forego Reagan’s shining city on the hill for an intermittently wind-powered hovel in government-run housing. Yes, we CAN be miserable!

Obama and his like-minded, left-wing cohorts in Congress will have “misery for all” as the new closing line for the pledge of allegiance. And I’m absolutely convinced AGW alarmism is a major front for making Obama's dream a reality.

Coming soon: But if I Did Believe In Man-Made Global Warming, Here’s What I Would Do