They Hate You

Friday, 08 June 2012, The White House

Priest-King: “The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local governments.”

Sunday, 13 July 2012, Roanoke, Virginia

Priest-King: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen…Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Wednesday, 21 September 2011, Andover, Massachusetts

Elizabeth Warren: “I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own – nobody…Now look, you built a factory and turned it into something terrific, or a great idea – God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Thursday, 18 September 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America

The Boob: “It’s time to be patriotic. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.  And the way to do that is – they’re still going to be paying less taxes than they did under Reagan.”

Where do you start? With so much inane blather to choose from, how do you begin to address it? Like the unfortunate worker at a waste management plant sorting through the garbage for recyclables, we have to rummage through a pile of smelly refuse to find something we can use.

The overarching theme running through these foolish remarks – maybe we’ll start at the top and work our way down – is a seething resentment at the concept of individualism. Personal drive and commitment, motivation, sacrifice, risk-taking and keeping the rewards of those risks are bitterly despised but only for some people and not for all, since Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, the Clintons and the Kennedys and the Obamas can make and keep as much of their fortunes as they like with perfect impunity because they’re liberal.  A conservative entrepreneur who wants to keep what he’s earned, who distrusts government bureaucrats and politicians to make good decisions with his tax dollars, who believes government should be restricted to its core functions and live within its means will face the brunt of liberal fury.  “How dare you think you succeeded on your own? How dare you deny that government is the engine of your prosperity? How dare you deprive your neighbors, who are just as smart and who work just as hard as you, of their just portion of your profits, you greedy, selfish right-wing bastard?” Or sentiments to that effect. There is a righteous indignation in Priest-King’s voice and Elizabeth Warren’s, though not so much in Joe Biden’s – I compare him to a North Korean propaganda poster, something too ridiculous to be taken seriously.  They fume at the notion that their model of prosperity (success is only possible as part of a group, regulated and controlled by a liberal-dominated government that manages everything, favors some people over others and that bestows some rights and withholds others) is not universally shared. They viciously attack individualism, they see it as a threat and a betrayal and try to crush it, try to stamp out the drive to excel because if some people cannot or choose not to achieve excellence, then no-one can.

A patriotic duty to pay higher taxes to a government $15 trillion in debt that is hopelessly inept at managing money is a patently stupid assertion, as is to assert that people get rich because of public roads.  Consider that according to the Small Business Administration, 565,000 new businesses are started in the United States every month and 90% of those businesses will fail within the first year.  Consider also that the top ten percent of wage earners paid 71% of all Federal income taxes in 2009, compared to the bottom fifty percent of wage earners who paid only 2%, such that if someone starts a business and succeeds against the odds, they will pay a heavy price for their success, their hard work and intelligence will be scorned and insulted by their elected leaders who will then demand even higher taxes from them, to be distributed as the politicians see fit.  Given such a hostile environment, it’s a wonder that anyone would open a business these days and clearly such hostility from the Left is hurting our economy.

“…paying less taxes than they did under Reagan.” When Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the top individual rate was lowered from 50% to 28%.  The rate has since risen to 35% and Priest-King wants to raise it to 39%, and double the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 30%.  Besides the punitive effects of raising taxes in a sluggish economy, Biden’s statement underscores for the umpteenth time that we have a total nincompoop for a Vice President.  Thirty-nine is more than 28 and thirty is more than fifteen and to state otherwise is to display an intellectual vacancy that insults us and his office. The people of Delaware owe the rest of us an apology.

Similarly, to deny the reality of class warfare and then wage it furiously is just dishonest.  Elizabeth Warren’s audience may have been brainwashed with Leftist dogma such that they didn’t notice or care what she said, but some of us listen carefully and can reason for ourselves.  How much is “a big hunk” and who gets to decide what we keep and what we must give up?  No, Cherokee squaw speak heap-big nonsense.

The Internet was developed for national security purposes and was the result of a wide-ranging effort that included not only government agencies like NASA and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) but MIT, UCLA, Stanford Research Institute, the University of Utah and other university researchers.  It was not created by the Federal government solely and Priest-King knows that, but his instinct to take credit for the Federal government for everything blurs his judgment and drives him forward, and for us, it gives us insight into what he really thinks.  This man (and dopes like Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden) wants government to dominate our lives and that is absolutely antithetical to the Constitution and the intent of the men who wrote it.  He holds you in contempt, my friends, and frankly, I return the favor. His concern is not with the millions he’s thrown out of work but with the governments we support with his heavy taxes.  My fellow citizens, it’s time to rekindle hope and change and that means throwing this bum out in November, and all his sorry crew.

The Statesman

He was punked by Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas.

The Chinese refused to support tougher sanctions against Iran and Syria and refused to allow greater Internet access and freedom of expression for their citizens.  They also undertook aggressive action to control the oil-rich Spratly Islands while we failed to support Japan and the Philippines, two key allies in his new Pacific strategy.

The Russians also refused to support stricter sanctions against Iran and Syria and insisted on the removal of missile defense radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, to which he readily agreed, exposing our NATO allies to political criticism and the very Russian missiles the radars were intended to deter.  He followed that up by confiding to then-President Medvedev (publicly, as it turned out) that he would be “more flexible” concerning nuclear arms cuts after the November election, confirming that he assumes an attitude of submissive inferiority to the Russians.

His overture to Iran “without preconditions” was a failure.  Iran not only refused to stop its nuclear program but increased the number of gas centrifuges required to enrich uranium to weapons grade.  Now Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz in the face of international sanctions and he says nothing.

He refused to support the pro-democracy demonstrators in Teheran in 2009 when strong U.S. involvement could have led to the regime change he says he wants.  He was confused by the Arab spring of 2011, paralyzed with indecision by the choice in front of him: Do I support the demonstrators who are chanting for democracy but who are led by jihadists or do I stand with the Arab strongmen who jail and torture their political opponents?  Unable to answer his own question, he did and said nothing until France took the lead in bombing Libya and he suddenly found his courage, then lost it again when faced with Bashar Assad.

His answer to the financial crisis that threatens to bankrupt Europe is to raise taxes and spending in America.

He leaked national security information to the press (the double agent in Yemen, the Flame virus that has infected and disabled much of Iran’s information systems, the extent of the Predator strike program) in an attempt to raise his foreign policy prestige in an election year.

His answer to the bloodbath in Mexico was to allow Mexican drug traffickers to buy more American guns.

After his inauguration, he cancelled a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, presented him and his family with cheap gifts and removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.  He also criticized British colonial policy in Kenya (his grandfather was arrested during the Mau Mau uprising in 1953) and endorsed negotiations over the Falkland Islands which the British consider sovereign territory and over which they fought Argentina in 1982.  He then invited British Prime Minister David Cameron to a State Dinner at the White House when it was politically expedient.

He took eight months to approve a troop surge in Afghanistan, “the war we have to win” in his parlance, then sent fewer than were requested, then announced that we would retreat.

At a time when China and Russia are pursuing aggressive policies, when a war between Israel and Iran seems imminent and when we are still faced with global Islamic terror, he cuts the Defense Department by $500 billion.

He promised to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and signed an Executive Order to that effect, then reneged.

His foreign policy is marked not by the bumbling naiveté of Jimmy Carter but by the tense frustration of an Ivy League professor whose meticulous theories begin to fail when put into practice, then consistently fail, then fail utterly; like an aficionado of chess who has studied the game for decades, studied and memorized the strategies of the great masters of the past and is sure he can beat any player in the world, but when playing the game for real, finds himself trapped and stares at the board unblinkingly, frozen by the certainty of defeat.  All his supposed brilliance and eloquence, all his gifts for diplomacy and nuance, his magnetic personality, have slammed into reality and fallen lifeless to the ground, and we are left to wonder, “Is this the best you got?”  America, the world’s lone superpower and the undisputed leader of the Free World for seventy years, is itself leaderless, a papier mache figure set in the White House for display, inanimate, idle, obsolete.  But can we do better than a well-dressed mannequin?  Can we regain the respect of our allies and enemies alike?  Can we demonstrate the firm resolve and powerful action that is our hallmark?  Yes, of course we can, if we simply put our minds to it.  Barack Obama has failed: It is time for him to step aside and let a steadier hand take the wheel.