President Obama

The other night I heard Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a “socialist who wants to surrender.”  What’s funny about a statement like that is a great many of Obama’s supporters and political allies probably wouldn’t disagree!  (Imagine that, Obama supporters agreeing with Ann Coulter.)  I mean, he surrounds himself with America-hating, Marxist-leaning scumbags like “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and some of the people in groups like Acorn.  He’s comfortable with George Soros, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos.  Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah have voiced their support for him.

Let’s look at the two charges in Ms. Coulter’s statement.  First, Obama wants to surrender (in Iraq).  What would have happened, had we listened to Obama’s plan a couple years ago and pulled out Iraq in defeat and humiliation?  What would have happened to Iraq if we’d listened to Obama and decided that the Surge wasn’t going to work?  Maybe Obama doesn’t consider this “surrender,” but I guarantee that al Qaeda would have.  How would Obama like to see thousands of Muslim extremists cheering in the streets that they “defeated America?”  Christ, he still can’t even admit that the Surge was the right plan!  And where was his vote to condemn the “General Betray Us” ad created by his political pals?

I’m inclined to agree with Obama that going into Iraq was probably the wrong move overall.  If we could do it all over again, we wouldn’t take that route.  But that doesn’t make Ms. Coulter’s statement any less true.  Surrender is still surrender.  The point here is not whether we were wrong about Iraq in the first place; the point is whether pulling out (surrendering) would be yet another mistake.

Then we have the term “socialist.”  Okay, we all know that Obama isn’t a socialist in the strictest sense.  But certainly it’s fair to say that he subscribes to some socialist tenets.  We’re talking about a guy who wants nearly a trillion dollars in spending entitlement programs.  A guy who continuously spouts a populist message of class warfare and wealth redistribution.  I read The Audacity of Hope:  Obama supports salary caps for CEOs!  He had the audacity to claim that wealthy Americans have too much by giving a list of what he sees as extraneous luxuries!

Then we have his vice president on TV saying that it’s “patriotic” for the wealthy to pay more taxes.  Biden even shamelessly used the word “take” when talking about taxing the rich.  So now you’re unpatriotic if you disagree with non-producing politicians deciding how much of your money they should take and where it should go.  I find that absolutely amazing.

If left-wing guys like Alan Colmes want people to stop referring to Obama as a socialist, maybe he should tell him to stop preaching a message of taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Obama shrouds it thusly: “There are things we must do, and the only way to pay for these things is by taxing those who are doing well.”  He makes it sound like he’s only doing what’s necessary, like making the best of a wave that’s crashing over us by surfing it.

Of course, the operative word here is “must.”  Things we “must” do.  What a crock.  What Obama really means is, “There are things I think we should do to remake America in my very left-wing vision.”

Touchy-Feely Economic Policy

I literally can’t understand why the American people think George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.  Say what you want about Bush, but the economy has been absolutely wonderful for the last seven years, almost the entirety of his time in office.  It’s only the last couple months that things have turned sour.

What exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years about the economy?  I hear all sorts of Johnny-come-lately politicians claiming to have warned about the economic crisis, but not one of them did anything.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Democratic social engineering programs, and the government-backed groups like Fannie and Freddie all shoulder most of the blame here.  And yet, for some reason people are hooting like monkeys, saying: “This is George Bush’s fault.  This is because of Republican deregulation.”

That’s garbage.  Regulation and social engineering is at least mostlyto blame for this mess, and that’s indisputable.  Government intervention is now making it worse.  If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for backing (along with Obama, McCain, and all the rest) that sickening bailout bill and these other economic “stimulus” packages.

Still, government’s just not that important in the long run.  The economy will recover, and not because McCain backs a new bill or Obama signs a new entitlement program.  The economy will recover because it’s made up of millions of people engaging in free trade and enterprise.  I wish the government would just stand aside and let them get on with it.

What’s scary to me is that the government is beginning to do the one thing – the only thing – it possibly can that will actually, seriously screw things up forever.  What’s scary is that every Marxist-leaning Chicken Little is coming out and saying “Capitalism is broken.”  They’re growing emboldened.  They see a borderline socialist like Obama about to become president with a borderline socialist Congress to give him whatever he wants, and they’re secretly clapping their little rat claws with glee.  This is the first step towards their version of what’s “right” and “moral” for society.  And it’s inevitable: With this election cycle, we have a choice between Big Government and Bigger Government.  With the economy as bad as it is, people are willing to vote for anyone who promises relief and a check in the mail.  They’ll give the looters a lot of leeway, they’ll nod along to social programs and stimulus bills and more regulation for those “greedy” rich people.

After all, it sounds so lovely on paper doesn’t it?  It’s all about being nice and giving back to the country that’s done so much for you.  You’ve done so well; shouldn’t the government require that you pay a little more – just a little – to help those who simply want a good home for their kids?  What could be more decent than that?  Doesn’t it sound so unfair and mean-spirited that McCain wants to give all those rich corporations tax cuts?  What do those greedy bastards need with more money?

We could say that those “greedy bastards” are the ones doing all the investing in America and creating all the jobs.  We could say that all McCain wants to do is leave them alone and stop punishing them as if they’re criminals who need to be fined.  We could say that someone has a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn.  We could say that it’s stunningly immoral to take what others earn at the point of a gun and give it to those who “deserve” it.

None of that ever seems to matter.  It’s as if all people want to hear is: “We’ll make it all better.  We’re going to reward you with an allowance and lots of rules to protect you from your own decisions because we care.”  This is what they seem to want, and this is what they’re going to get.

Predatory Lenders

I hear a lot about “predatory” lenders nowadays, institutions that apparently give loans that are too expensive for people to afford.  I guess the argument is that these financial institutions know very well that the people they’re loaning money to couldn’t pay back the loans, so their behavior becomes “predatory.”  They’re preying on people.  Right.

First of all, many of these “predatory” lenders have been pressured or encouraged to give loans to poor people by social engineering politics and groups like Acorn.  Some politicians and community organizations seem to think that giving people homes they can’t afford is a sound policy.  This is a Democratic problem.  Chris Dodd and Obama are the biggest recipients of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Obama gave $800 grand to Acorn.  It’s amazing, but the Democrats are the ones in bed (literally in Barney Frank’s case) with these faulty financial social programs that are mostly to blame for the economy – and yet Americans are equating the Republicans with a bad economy.

Actually, I guess this isn’t so amazing when the entire Democratic economic “plan” is: Vote for us and we’ll give you money.  I hate to say this about the American people, but it seems many would rather cheer for a plan promising handouts than a plan that will create jobs.

But back to the point.  I would love to see how many documented cases we have of people who are now in trouble and can’t pay their mortgage, who were deceived by their lender.  I would love to see the numbers on this.  How many of them were actually lied to or tricked?  If they were, then those lenders should be prosecuted.  But as we all know, this isn’t a case of the lenders doing anything illegal; it’s overwhelmingly a case of people taking out loans they couldn’t afford.

I hate to be a cold-hearted bastard, but here it is: Deal with it.  Life isn’t fair.  As adults, we live with our bad decisions; we don’t demand that the government steal other people’s money to pay for them.  It’s not as if these lenders put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to take out a loan they couldn’t afford.  If you didn’t read the fine print, if you didn’t pay enough attention to interest rates, if you assumed that the housing market would keep going up, that’s YOUR fault.

Let’s say a man goes to Las Vegas and gambles away his savings, his house, his kids’ college fund, and gets his family thrown out on the street.  Should the government help him out?  Granted, it’s a sad fact that his family lost their home, but the should the government force others to pay for this man’s bad decisions? 

How about the casinos?  After all, they’re willingly and knowingly rigging a game in which they always win.  People go there and lose vast amounts of money all the time.  Should we crack down on these “predatory” Las Vegas casinos?  Or should we say, “Hopefully you learned your lesson” to the poor guy?

Life isn’t fair.  It definitely isn’t easy and without risk.  Giving poor people homes they can’t afford – while certainly a sweet gesture – isn’t doing them a favor.  And there’s nothing moral about taking the money other people have earned and redistributing it to those who possibly, arguably deserve it.  This is the real world, not some idealistic socialist fantasy-realm that certain politicians would have us believe.

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.

Social Welfare Gone Crazy

I got into an argument with a guy in here who has some rather socialist views.  (Not surprisingly, he’s originally from Europe.)  The question was:  Should a government force its citizens to pay for the welfare of others?  But the twist here was that these hypothetical welfare recipients refuse to work.  They’re perfectly able to go get jobs and support themselves, but they choose not to for whatever reason.  Should we be forced to pay for their basic needs (food, housing, health care, etc.)?

It quickly became a matter of morality, because this guy claimed that we should in fact be forced to pay.  He said that otherwise, it would be like standing there while someone starved to death.  No matter how many times we said, “But it’s his choice – he could go out and get a job and feed himself,” he didn’t budge.  Nope, we’re immoral greedy people because we don’t think we should have to pay for it.

In situations like this, it’s impossible not to quote Ayn Rand: “Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?  And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?  If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?  Does virtue consist of serving vice?”

If course this situation is obviously absurd.  But let’s look closer.  Should we pay for drug addicts?  By choosing to use drugs, aren’t they virtually the same as someone who chooses not to work?  What about people who are simply lazy?  John Stossel has interviewed homeless people who admit flat-out that there arejobs to be had – they just won’t take them.  They’d rather live on the streets and demand compensation from the government than work flipping burgers.

When I was a teenager, I worked jobs flipping burgers and making minimum wage.  I had a roommate who did the same, and between the two of us, we managed to afford an apartment in a complex that had a free gym.  It was right across the street from a community college.  We had cars, video games, and money for food, and we also had enough spare cash to get stoned or drunk several nights a week.  We could have gotten by on a lot less.  We could have walked to work, not smoked cigarettes and not partied every other night.

Admittedly, I squandered my life, but the opportunity was never, ever denied to me.  The opportunity was the easy part.  The hard part was my thick skull and lack of goals and responsibility.  I could have worked two jobs and went to night school, earned a degree, or learned a trade.  I could have studied the stock market and invested.

Yes, there are plenty of Americans who have it much worse than I did.  You might even make the argument that the economy was still good when I was a teenager (in the late nineties).  But this doesn’t wash completely.  There are still people out there making it today, sacrificing and busting their asses.  People working two jobs and going to night school, single parents earning degrees, poor kids earning scholarships, etc.  People who have no problem flipping burgers to pay their way toward something better.

Of course there are Americans in need of help, and I’m not saying we should deny them.  But is the opportunity really the major problem here?  Is the playing field really as uneven as pandering politicians would have us believe?  If we’re going to hold those who do well to the high moral standard of helping others, shouldn’t we hold those who do poorly to the high moral standard of helping themselves?