Tag Archives: Obama

How I Judge

The other day, as I was about to walk the dog, I must have forgotten something, so I tied the dog up outside for a moment. A few days later, one of the typical neighborhood busybodies asked me why I was tying my dog up outside. Living in extreme-left Downtown Denver, I really do not care about their opinions – I could just as well strap the dog to the top of my car. However, it does remind me that people are judging me all the time and over anything. Perhaps Jesus’s commandment not to judge is trickier than I had thought. Anyway, here is how I judge my neighbors – maybe I should meditate on lightening up.

I judge those who give bums cash. I find it shockingly selfish to give a bum cash. The majority of them are drunks or some other sort of addict, so the money just goes straight to their habits. None of them are homeless for lack of money – they are homeless for inability to accept the immense generosity of people who would help them. Giving cash to bums only enables them to hurt themselves and my neighborhood. These softies are really giving money to their misguided sense of guilt in exchange for a quick fix of ill-deserved self-esteem.

I judge those who think it is OK to force the young to subsidize the old. Obamacare is the latest example of stealing from the young to give to the old. It is now illegal to buy health coverage based on one’s own needs and risk profile (i.e. age group). It is illegal to take care of one’s self and one’s family. It is illegal to be responsible for one’s traditional responsibilities. Those who think everyone should take care of everyone else (or face fines or prison), have a moral deficiency. When they are able, most families exist to help their young prepare and succeed. How telling that the government largely exists to steal from the young to give to the old (in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare)

I judge public sector union leaders and their minions who think they earn their ridiculously cushy lives. They are thieves who appropriate more earnings than their private sector equivalents command while working lazy hours with no fear of layoffs. They give a portion of their earnings to politicians who then grant them more earnings to then give to politicians. This is not a matter of policy; it is common graft.

I judge hypocrites who live off the work of people like Gov. Romney. To be sure, Romney had a good start in life, but he also worked tremendously hard to turn a privileged upbringing into amazing wealth for himself and thousands others. I never supported Romney, but when politicians who never created a dollar in their lives criticize him for doing what every business must – lay off workers to save companies, invest where the profit is, and make the unpopular decisions – my head spins. When politicians like Pres. Obama who got their money largely by influence peddling claim businessmen like Romney did not earn their money, I can hardly stand it. Politicians who live off the fat of the economy should thank the Romneys prostrate for enabling their soft-handed mealy-mouth lives. There is a clear moral hierarchy, and populist politicians generally fall at the bottom.

I judge educators who shove nonsense and debt onto students who really need to learn a trade, and I judge the politicians who lie to young people and say everyone should go to college. I judge the Old Media that still clings to a wisp of credibility with the people while lying to their faces. I judge Hollywood leftist phonies who nag regular people into choices they never have to make themselves. I probably judge too much, but it is worth asking how the leftists that surround me judge back – probably harshly and in ways I can not imagine.

Nuclear Revolution

Revolutions are breaks from the norm; like a hand grenade in a room, their results are unpredictable. The ordinary coup in a third world nation is not a revolution, but rather the norm in power transfers. In a coup, the base rules of thuggary are unchanged, whereas a revolution requires a rewrite of the rules, usually with unintended results. This week, the US Senate opened the door to revolution by suspending decades of tradition regarding Presidential Advise and Consent. While the immediate results are clear – left-wing courts and agencies – nobody who voted to abolish Cloture likely understands the full possibilities.

After blocking Pres. Bush’s judicial and executive nominees for most of his second term, Democrats found turnabout unpalatable. After all, while the GOP does not see regulators as particularly useful, Dems and especially Obama see them as essential. Washington’s bureaucrat army invents new laws to stymie capitalism and industry in ways Congress never could. Coronating radical leftists like the EPA’s Lisa Jackson and the NLRB’s Richard Cordray is as critical to the Dem agenda as any Congressional seat.

Perhaps this asymmetric value in Senate confirmations is why the GOP never lifted the 60 vote cloture rule and were shocked when the Dems did. In any event, at least for the next several months the flood gates of leftist Presidential appointments are open. Pres. Obama will start by stacking the DC Circuit with anti-capitalist ideologues, followed by seeding the lower courts with the next generation of progressives.

Maybe the Dems think they can transform and perfect the US quickly and permanently, but eventually they will not be in power. When that day comes, the GOP will have free reign to dismantle the Dem’s power base of welfare, unions, and phony Hollywood environmentalists.

The best a modern GOP president has ever done is slow the pace of the US’s transformation from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy. The US is on a sort of ratchet wherein every new program, even if unpopular or unworkable, can never be repealed. Few regulations are abandoned either, so the nation’s direction is only left, either fast or slow.

On reason the nation almost never turns toward individualism and free markets is the populace’s dependence and acceptance of free money – boiling the frog slowly. Another is the Senate’s former safeguard against rash action. Only once in a generation, as with FDR’s Social Security, JBL’s Medicare, and Obama’s socialized medicine, do the leftist stars align for great change. Once passed, enough time lapses before a GOP ascendance so that the free money becomes baked into families’ budgets and thereby sacred.

No more. Sen. Reid has torpedoed the cloture rule that impedes leftist progress, but opens the door for the GOP to eliminate the remaining rule that ratchets the nation ever further left – cloture on legislation. The GOP would be fools not to repeal the 60 vote cloture rule for new laws. Once gone, any manner of leftist milestones would become fair game.

The Davis Bacon act, which essentially funnels government contract money into unions and Dem coffers – gone. The NLRB, which has become a union organizing body – gone. Obamacare, which promises to empower tens of thousands of busybodies over individuals’ lives – gone. The Clear Air act, which allows the EPA to regulate carbon – gone or severely modified. Every one of Obama’s laws – gone. All of this is possible with a simple majority in the Senate. The Democrats have won the battle of turning the US into a European-style socialist democracy, but Reid’s latest maneuver has opened their biggest flank ever. It is as if he thinks he is playing the end game without concern for a reversal in the war for the soul of the US.

Lovers of liberty and observers of Washington rightly worried over Reid’s massive, generational power grab. However, his greed is sauce for his goose, and with Obamacare’s ever developing failure, it may not be too long before decades of progressivism are on the chopping block. True, the same approach might enable Dems to pass more of their agenda, but they have already won; the only direction remaining is back to center. Reid and his cronies have engineered a revolution that is likely to escape their control.


Media in general do not report things that are not happening; perhaps an artifact of human nature, but important non-events simply are not news. The fact that nobody in the US starves to death for lack of food is a non-event, as is the decreasing rate of cancer or the absence of polio infections. These non-events are actually bigger news than the latest warehouse fire or shark attack, but such is the news business. Another non-event worthy of reporting is the complete death of Occupy Wall Street. Once billed as the future of political discourse, and heralded by many left-wing politicians, OWS will not even merit a footnote in the history books. Indeed, the only one who still stirs OWS’s turgid hate-speech is Pres. Obama.

OWS, for those who easily forget nightmares, was a top-down series of protests conceived by a few Canadian communists. OWS created a straw-man of wealth and capitalism corrupting society and oppressing ‘the 99%.’ Things just were not fair in the eyes of OWS protesters, and their lack of hygiene was meant to be the cure. However, once stories of drug overdose deaths, rapes, and even scabies spread, most people saw OWS as confirmation that normal society actually offered many benefits despite its flaws. Even the leftist panderers who endorsed OWS, such as Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, eventually imposed order through police power.

OWS grew to the population density limit of those without plumbing, then it dispersed and slowly faded away. Having achieved nothing but property damage and proof that college is not as worthwhile as once thought, the public’s focus has gone back to paying the bills as before. The US retains its rightful skepticism of promises of free lunches. OWS promised free housing for those ‘victimized’ by banks that lent them money, but most people know that loans must be repaid. OWS promised free college educations, food, and healthcare, but most people know that such things cannot exist without paying their providers for their services. In short, while most Americans support some sort of social safety net for the elderly or infirm, they instinctively know that OWS’s communist paradise is a lie. That is why OWS is cold dead.

In contrast to OWS, the Tea Party movement, despite its Old Media vilification is achieving great things. The Tea Party’s visibility has decreased, but they have elected supporters in Congress. Without Tea Party influence, Beltway savvy Republicans would already have given in on Obamacare. Instead, the GOP is debating whether to fall on its sword to defund socialized medicine. Tea Party Congressmen are the backbone of fiscal sanity. Contrary to the OM’s characterization of the Tea Party as hicks and racists, the movement is largely focused on fiscal sanity. The Tea Party sees Washington as too big and too corrupt, but it does not seek to deny the black vote or throw invalid grandparents off cliffs. The Tea Party represents the instinctive American skepticism toward promises of a free lunch.

The one politician who continues to preach the OWS mantra of division and wealth redistribution is Obama. In the face of scandals such as Benghazi and the IRS, Obama toured the world, and when that did not work, he rediscovered the sorry economy. As if OWS protesters were still in the street, Obama’s prescription is more stimulus and wealth redistribution. Like OWS, Obama claims that only a few are getting ahead while also holding back everyone else. The problem is that this is Obama’s America, and his expansion of welfare, stimulus, and Obamacare have yielded the weakest recovery since the Great Depression.

Everything Obama now requests, he has already tried, and his heightened class-war rhetoric sounds like the burnt-out OWS message that the US rejected. The siren call of socialism periodically tempts people, but usually in connection with some recent disaster. That was 2008, but now the US is climbing out of its mess and generally realizes the government is not helping. Obama is a progressive socialist, raised by, influenced by, and surrounded by radical leftists, so his views will never change. Obama may not realize the voters have already moved on. With any luck, Obama’s latest leftist offensive will solidify his irrelevance in the mind of US voters.