Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans

I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.

Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.

On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.

What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.

Two Person Poll

I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.

Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.

Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.

An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.

See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)

More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"

This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)

As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.

Woodstock Generation and Tea Party Principles

Do you want to be a cog is something turning? Part of a vast machine with Axlerod, Soros, and Pelosi pulling the levers? If so, vote for Democrats, or don't vote at all. Obama? He's just Big Brother, a symbol of the all powerful state, an image to put on the boob screen. The real Masters are the Progressives, who believe that we need to be directed by them for our own good (and for their profit).

The 60's hippies, Woodstock generation wanted to be free of control. Mistrust of the perceived bonds of moral standards resulted in misdirection of the energies of youth. To gain perceived freedom we threw in with the progressives without knowing who they were, as they had planned. Now the progressives are exposed as the real slave masters. The traditions of society, against which we rebelled, were no more that the workings of the marketplace. For a person to be productive, supporting him or herself and family, a certain degree of self restraint is beneficial. That's all that was asked, along with some preparation for an uncertain future. The progressives seemed to promise freedom from want in a world that is necessarily harsh because of limited resources. The progressives lied by promising what they could never deliver. Once in power, they would not even try to provide for the needs of society, only for themselves.

They have now made a miscalculation by blatantly advancing their 'New World' agenda at breakneck speed. By government fiat, they are openly bending the fabric of our society to their plans. Their 4,000 page laws are the blueprints for vastly powerful government agencies, whose bureaucratic decrees will have the force of law. Not only will economic life be immensely more complicated under their regime, but their laws will turn into criminals anyone who tries to escape those decrees. Who could possibly wish for the establishment of that type of servitude? We have seen it. It has been discuss and it has been tried. Ultimately, with the informed debate of a free press, it has been dismissed as immature foolishness. When attempted, at the point of a gun, it has failed. We must renounce the Progressives and their empty promises.

What does the Tea Party offer instead? Only freedom. We have tried everything else, why not try freedom? Big government may be good or bad, it may be many things, but it is not freedom. Freedom is the only condition that allows economic advancement and that can satisfy the spirit of man.

The Great Mystery

In spite of the monumental events of these turbulent times, this blog has not featured many posts of late. Blogger in chief, actually the only blogger, Jean-Baptiste, has been busy with other matters. It is not because he has been overwhelmed by the onslaught of the popular press, such as the incessant frivolities from the trivial triumvirate of syndicate columnists, David Brooks, E.J. Dionne Jr., and David Sirota. It is true that untwisting the truth from their daily barrages against conservatism and their progressive propaganda would be a full-time job. Lately, they have repeated the big lie that BHO is actually moderate. Glen, Mark, Laura, Sean, and Rush along with their guests have gone to enormous lengths to show that he is our most radically leftist president in history. (Jean-Baptiste suspected this all along.) Also see David Limbaugh's book, Crimes Against Liberty, for a rundown of the evidence against BHO.

Actually, Jean-Baptiste has been meditating on the 'gods of the copybook headings.' Who are they? Kipling's poem says that they are not the market place. That leaves the Progressives as the primary suspect. Anyway, read the past blogs on The Overton Window, or Glen Beck's book itself for an explanation of what all that is about. Kipling's poem gives some insight into the motives of these 'god-like' progressives, delving into the 'Great Mystery.' The Great Mystery is: why do they keep doing it, why can't they just leave us alone? Is it their depraved greed and lust or some mental defect?

Anyway, Jean-Baptiste also had a garden and berry bushes to cultivate and harvest during the Summer. He had cats, birds, and raccoons to take care of. He had a lot of work to do outside. He had his stamp collection to work on. He even had to get away a little. Lately,he was also reading the Koran. The part where God says, 'remember me, I will remember you,' seems to fathom some unknowable depth. The first words of every chapter are, 'In the name of God, the beneficent, the merciful.' Beneficent means He gives us more that we deserve, merciful means that He punishes us less that we deserve. Christian mystics have said they pray incessantly, by saying the Jesus prayer with every breath: 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.' The Islamic mystics repeat: 'There is no God but God." For the less theistic: 'There is no Reality but the Ultimate Reality.'

It can be a little tough to stay focused on the current convoluted progressive schemes of Axelrod, Emanuel, BHO, and their masters.

The Overton Window continuing reveiw: Quo Bono Libertas?

It could be argued that I, as a fan and a reader of about half the 150 odd books in the Destroyer series, know nothing of literature. Be that as it may, the more I read The Overton Window, the more I like it. The protagonist is something like the Remo Williams character of Destroyer fame. Between moments of action there is his ruminations and his awakening sense of responsibility and a tinge of guilt. He ends his first such session of soul searching by admitting to himself that questions arise in his public relations assignments that he would be wise not to find the answers to. I am only to page 49 but I believe that the moralizing inner dialogs of Noah, the principal protagonist, will come up again. They are a good vehicle for filling the reader in on details that occurred before the narrative began and for showing changes in Noah's outlook.

The book cover seems perfect to me also. What appears to be the statue of liberty is viewed from behind. The cobalt blue duo tone is a dusk scene with a flock of birds passing in front of a cloudy sky and a NY city scape. The statue seems to gaze over the forboding scene as the sun sets (or is it rising?) However, it is not the Statue of liberty. It is a male figure whose right hand holds aloft liberty's torch, the symbol of her wisdom. His left hand does not hold Liberty's book but holds a spear. I and other book purchasers, of course, do not know the significance of these things. We want to read on and find out. Could the statue be the embodiment of the Gods of the Copybook Heading? Could it be Noah, who eventually will turn away from the heartless pursuits of power of his father and of his progressive clients? Could it be Glenn himself?

For what it's worth, isn't there a quotation regarding an earlier French statue depicting Liberty. Something about, "Oh what crimes are committed in your name!"

Glenn's grinning visage on the back cover is also perfect.