High price of emotionalism

Tiger Woods was asked about the election on CNBC. He said emotionally that if his dad had lived to see it, “he would have cried.” Certainly, no one will be hit harder than Tiger Woods with the forthcoming redistributive tax policies. But it doesn’t seem to matter. The Presidential election of 2008 has been racist. A “person of color” elected to the White House will somehow expunge “white guilt”, a guilt upon which civil rights groups have capitalized for the last 50 years. Possibly, the country now will “get over it” and will make the Jesse Jackson’s of the world irrelevant. But we will see.

The expectations upon the President Elect are extraordinarily high:

* Hard left groups that worked so hard to get him elected are demanding payback in the form of destroying the groups they are convinced are preventing the establishment of their vision of a Socialist “heaven on earth”. But refuting obsolescent Socialist Theology is out of place here.

* Minorities are demanding the fulfillment of the promise of “Equality” in the form of a substantial redistribution of wealth. The figure bantered about is the $845 billion over 10 years for “Reparations for Slavery”. If we estimate that black people constitute 12% of a 360 million population, this would amount to $1950 a year for 10 years for every black person in the country. Whether such an amount would lift inner city spend thrifts out of poverty or merely trigger an annual flurry of consumer spending is debatable.

* The Leftist elite believe the struggle with Islam is a creation of George Bush. They expect the “War on Terror” to go away after negotiations with the various Rogue states and Terrorist Organizations, and want to cut back the DHS and the DOD. Yet anyone familiar with Foundational Islamic Theology would understand why a cessation of hostilities is unlikely.

We can only pray that as the disappointments come, we don’t pay a price in millions of lives.

Bush fatigue

I noted yesterday in a post on my blog entitled "The Morning After" that I believe Obama's victory on Tuesday was as much a product of the public's "Bush fatigue"as it was any ringing affirmation of the liberal policies that Obama will pursue as president. I argue this because Obama ran primarily as a centrist, coopting the Republican tax-cut mantra by promising his tax reduction for "95% of working Americans" and talking up his desire in general for middle class tax relief. It was a great strategy and proved extremely effective -- particularly given McCain's ineptness in arguing that the Obama plan amounts to another entitlement program. In the end, of course, we all know that with the Democratic robber barons in Congress leading the way, tax increases are coming for everyone -- and not just the "rich" folks making in excess of $250k per year. In my view there is no fundamental "realignment" in this election -- the country remains a center-right nation that wants small government and low taxes. In today's Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey makes a very compelling argument to this effect:

"A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

This is exactly the point I've been making: the 2008 election -- like in 2006 -- was a referendum on George W. Bush and the Republican "bums" that the public associates with failure. It was not a ringing endorsement of "spreading the wealth around" and doesn't amount to an affirmation that wanting to keep more of your hard earned money is "selfish". This was not a realignment toward socialism. It was a rejection of Bush, pure and simple.

The poll results cited by Toomey clearly back up this position:

"Consider the most salient aspects of Mr. Obama's economic agenda: the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners; the revival of the death tax; raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income; increased government spending; increased government involvement in the housing crisis; a restriction on offshore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and "card check" legislation stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot in union elections.

On each of these issues, swing voters stand starkly against Mr. Obama. According to the Club's poll, 73% of voters prefer the federal government to focus on "creating economic conditions that give all people opportunities to create wealth through their own efforts" over "spreading wealth from higher income people to middle and lower income people." Two-thirds of respondents prefer to see the permanent elimination of the death tax, and 65% prefer to keep capital gains and dividend tax rates at their current lows."

These results read like a Conservatives dream: a focus on individual effort to create wealth, elimination of the death tax and low tax rates. Unfortunately, the voters -- in rejecting McCain as another vestige of the Bush Administration -- elected someone who stands in opposition to all of these positions. Obama is on record as supporting increases in the death tax, capital gains and dividend taxes, income taxes on the highest tax bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and many other tax increases. One of the poll results that shocked me from Tuesday was that Obama won among tax payers in the $200,000 and above income category -- the very category that he was openly targeting for a tax increase. Voters seem to be against tax increases -- but they didn't vote that way on Tuesday.

This seeming contradiction is tough to explain. It is a given, of course, that many voters don't pay attention to the details, and vote on the basis of emotion and personality. On that score Obama won hands down. Many of the voters in swing states ended up voting against their stated interests and desires, by electing Obama and increasing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The emotional wave of "change" -- coupled by an incoherent Republican opposition and a total failure of leadership -- created a Democratic wave. Caveat emptor: they just bought something that was both defective and dangerous.

How long will it take before massive "buyer's remorse" sets in? That depends on how well Obama is able to manage the massive liberal forces that will now be pushing him hard to the left. Whether it be the far-left interest groups that poured massive money into his campaign, or the Democratic leadership in Congress that wants socialism on a grand scale, Obama faces some powerful groups that want precisely what most Americans do not. Whether he can (or will) resist this and govern more to the center is unclear. Nothing in Obama's past indicates a courage of conviction or a willingness to buck his party's power brokers. If Obama is unable (or unwilling) to control these forces, he will quickly find himself with a groundswell of opposition among those who decided (against logic) to vote for him. It won't be pretty.

In the end, this election amounted to a clear signal to conservatives that the issues that fueled the Reagan Revolution -- smaller government, less regulation and low taxes -- still resonate broadly with the American people. George W. Bush was never a leader of this movement, and his prolifigate spending and lack of fiscal discipline helped to ruin the Republican brand. Now, Conservatives need new leadership and new ideas that will take the Reagan-era philosophies and update them for a new generation of Americans. Barack Obama won the presidency but he hasn't changed America.

America needs civility, not uniformity

Barack Obama has pulled off one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of Presidential elections. Starting from a stirring rhetorical triumph at the Democratic National Convention four years ago, this relatively young U.S. Senator has reversed eight years of Republican control of the White House and led a Democratic sweep of all three elective branches. Naturally, his victory has generated immense joy among millions of people, won over by a combination of political savvy, boyish charm and a reassuring manner. Millions of others are not at all pleased at this result.

I am not concerned that Republicans will not accept it. I am more concerned about the Democrats, who have behaved as if they were entitled to this victory and have shown disquieting signs that they will take full advantage of it, not only by ramming through new laws to increase taxes and spending, micro manage the economy and privilege labor unions, but by demonizing their opposition as fascists and worse, bringing back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" in radio broadcasting (the "Hush Rush" campaign) and bringing criminal charges against Bush Administration officials for carrying out policies Democrats disapproved of.

This odious Democrat specter threatens not only to make life miserable for Republicans but to generate a hateful and vindictive spirit across the land. For now comes the hard part, the troublesome question of what to do after victory had been achieved.

Over the last two years the nation has seen two Obamas, Mr. Outside and Mr. Inside. The first is full of platitudes, trite phrases, endless repetition of focus group themes and what Obama’s running mate, Joseph Biden, referred to earlier this year when he was competing for the same office,  as his "clean" image.

This exterior image has won the day. Given the massive public rejection of both President Bush and his party, it was just what the doctor ordered, in what by all indications was going to be a Democratic year. Obama knew what role he had to play and he played it as well as any man could have.

If Bill Clinton gave us the "permanent campaign," that is, a governing style that makes no distinction between running for office and executing the office of President, he could not avoid the constitutional requirement that he set forth his goals for the country in an Inaugural Address, his more specific objectives in a State of the Union Address, and his priorities and their price tag in the proposed budget for 2010.

These tasks now face President-elect Obama. He cannot perpetually play the role of the nonthreatening alternative to the dread Mr. Bush. Mr. Inside will have to emerge. He will have to risk the unity he has emphasized by spelling out what the "transformation" of America is about. Those who paid attention to Mr. Inside will more likely to be helpful on this score.

Unless Obama was living in a fog for all of his adult life, his common cause with black nationalist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, terrorist William Ayers and crooked Chicago pol Tony Rezko were indications of his character and his views. While he may not have exhibited the disreputable dispositions and predilections of those men, he evidently did not feel uncomfortable spending many hours and days with them.

It is possible that Obama voted merely "present" in the Illinois legislature and U.S. Senate many times because he is man of weak convictions, but more likely it was because his reputation was more important to him than his voting record. Even so, nonpartisan journals report that his was the most liberal.

Liberals today prefer to be called "progressive," ever since Ronald Reagan won by a landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984. But this is merely old wine in much older bottles, for progressivism was founded more than a century ago by academics and politicians who rejected the U.S. Constitution as outmoded and the Declaration of Independence as a "salad of illusions." The "progress" they seek is toward more government control of commerce and trade, and worse, a loosening the family bonds by removing all restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.

Those who object to such socialistic policies as universal health care, redistribution of income and subsidizing "soft" energy will be vilified as selfish, unpatriotic and mean spirited. This will come as a surprise only to those who somehow failed to notice that that is precisely how conservatives have been vilified for years with those epithets.

The Constitution that established our form of government has survived many shocks, and there is reason to believe that it will survive Democratic party governance. But no Constitution is self enforcing. Good men must uphold the law, outside the government as well as in it.

A vote for victimization

I have spent much proverbial ink making the case against Barack Obama, something that hasn't been difficult for me given the clear and compelling character deficiencies he has-- not to mention the horrific policies he will pursue as president. For anyone who has been paying attention and who really understands what Obama represents, opposing the Democrat in this election is a no brainer. Of course, brains are hard to come by in our electorate -- even among the so-called intellectual class among the left, who live in a world of idealism and good intentions. For them, Obama is a "righteous wind" of soaring rhetoric that fulfills their fondest ideals of an America of perfect equality. But these "intellectuals" live in their own world of privilege and money; for them, "equality" is a concept that they preach but don't live. It's easy to be a leftist in a limousine. Just ask anyone in Hollywood. For them, a vote for Obama absolves all manner of guilt and enables them to go on making millions without feeling so badly about it. Wow. Isn't America a great country?   For those of us who don't make millions but run businesses in the real world -- who strive to make enough to retire early and enjoy the fruits of our labor -- John McCain is the only choice in this election. McCain is a man of principle and courage, who understands that America is an exceptional country built on hard work and the promise of reward. It is not a nation of economic redistribution and social welfare, but one of individual liberty. McCain will not forsake those in need for greed; but neither will be forsake those who prosper in favor of those who choose not to make something of their life. Note I use the word "choose" here, because I believe that many in our society have chosen to succumb to the narrative that they are victims, that opportunity doesn't exist, and that they must depend on government to help them.   This is nonsense. Opportunity exists for everyone in this country -- from the poorest whites in West Virginia to the poorest blacks in South Los Angeles. Education is free -- including community colleges, which provide an excellent two-year degree for virtually nothing. It only takes an understanding that as an individual you have only ONE life to live; you can sit and sulk at the injustice of it all, or you can take advantage of the opportunities available and make something of yourself. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? Absolutely.   My father grew up dirt poor during the Great Depression with little material wealth. But he had guts and determination, and decided that he would not let his circumstances control his destiny. He studied hard in school -- while working odd jobs to help his family pay the bills -- and won a national merit scholarship to the University of Chicago at the age of 16. At an age when most kids today are playing video games in their basement, my dad went off to college to study Latin and the humanities. He struggled mightily. But he didn't give up, eventually earning his Ph.D. from UCLA. My dad's odds were long but he knew that no one would help him if he didn't help himself.

That is the promise of America. It is not a story of dependence, but one of courage and determination. It is a story of self reliance and personal responsibility. And it is a story that is being slowly but inexorably lost today. We are fast becoming a nation of children who want to be coddled and excused when we make mistakes. Its always someone else's fault -- from poverty to crime to the housing mess. We are now in the age of victimization.   And a vote for Obama will be a vote for victimization, for this is a man who has spent his entire life working to reinforce the idea that race and class are the prime obstacles in people's lives. He is all about cultivating inequality and using it as a cudgel with which to remake society in the image of his deepest fears of an oppressive white establishment with an exploitative economic system. His view of our country is based on the politics of black and white -- regardless of how he has spun his "hope filled" campaign. Barack Obama has cast himself as a mainstream candidate, but his past and his proclivities are decidedly on the fringe of the Democratic Party.   The impact of an Obama victory will be to dramatically increase the divide in this country on virtually every level. Rather than bringing "hope" and a "stronger America" to the nation, Barack Obama will bring racial and political polarization.

Obama is a man who believes America to be a deeply flawed nation. He is not the man to lead this great country.   Vote John McCain on Tuesday. Our future as a great nation depends on it.

Obama vs. the Constitution

A recently revealed 2001 Chicago radio interview is very telling as to the intent and political philosophy of Barack Obama. The dissimulation of some in the Main Stream Media would have Americans focus on the semantics of “redistributive change” in this interview. They would also have us think that Obama’s detractors have taken his words out of context.

So take Obama’s words in full context. It is clear that Obama does not think much of the US Constitution.

Although the Warren Court did not, Obama certainly would like to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” He just thinks there are better ways to do it than through the courts. Even so, Obama thinks “Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.” But he admits that to do so would be problematic.

To “order changes that cost money” runs into “separation of powers issues” between the Judicial and Legislative Branches. That’s the least of the constitutional impediments for Obama.

Rather than respect America’s deliberate constitutional barriers to Socialism, Obama doesn’t have any problem with using “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” Communist thugs everywhere would be proud. What Obama proposes would shred the Constitution and is clearly in violation of his US Senate Oath, as it surely is with regards to the Presidential Oath of Office. It is also an act of tyranny and violence.

Cutting through Obama’s rhetoric, he feels that with sufficient socialist legislators and executives (“politic”) who don’t mind violating their oath of office (“break free … the Constitution”) and with an adequate Marxist mob (“community organizing and activities on the ground”) you can unconstitutionally “bring about redistributive change.”

America’s Constitution was deliberately designed to LIMIT what the Federal government can “do to” the American people. It is an anti-Socialism and anti-Marxism restriction upon the Federal government. But it isn’t worth the paper it is written on if dishonest people occupy all three branches of government.

The Declaration of Independence, which founded the United States of America, requires such a Constitution, as well as a republican form of government (not a democracy) whose sole purpose is to secure (not give or take) individual rights. Government’s purpose is to protect the smallest minority there is, the individual, from government tyranny.

In America, these individual rights are inalienably bestowed by the Creator, not government. This is not an opinion. The Organic Legal Documents of America, enumerated in US Code, clearly state this.

That the Left, in both the Democratic and Republican parties, through ignorance or willful disdain, ignores these facts should alarm all Americans. To be sure, both Republicans and Democrats have violated their Oath of Office in not insignificant ways these last 75 years, as is evidenced by the unconstitutional growth of the Administrative State.

In the context of Obama, though, this isn’t politics as usual; but rather a quantum leap in the subversion of the Constitution.

It is understandable that Obama/Biden take exception to their Marxist tag because of the growing awareness it reflects:

• Obama’s childhood mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, Communist enemy of America;

• Obama wrote in his memoir of his college days that "I chose my friends carefully ... The Marxist professors;”

• Obama’s ally Ayers proclaimed in 2002 "I am a Marxist;"

• Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who hand-picked Obama as her successor, was an official of one of the KGB-funded Communist Party USA’s front groups, the U.S. Peace Council. I t is no coincidence that many key years of Obama’s life, with the complicity of the MSM, have been kept undisclosed; that the Marxists whom Obama has spent a lifetime allying himself with have been kept out of the spotlight. Together they seek to “break” the Constitution in a spectacular way.

Like Salvador Allende, Hugo Chavez and many other Marxists, the chosen strategy of Obama and his cohorts is to use a presidential electoral run to subvert a nation. Perpetrators of such subversion do not want to call attention to their intentions.

The fact that in contemporary presidential elections the Communist Party USA does not field a candidate but backs the Democratic Party candidate should speak volumes as to the convergence of the principles of these two parties. It also begs the question as to what happened to the Democratic Party.

It is to the shame of the MSM that the American public has such a meager record on Obama and his cohorts with which to assess his candidacy. That shame is compounded by the fact that it took a children’s book illustrator to dig up this 2001 interview.