It’s Because OBAMA Didn’t Build Anything


Powerful politician Percy Sutton admitted to helping Obama get into Harvard. Harvard’s own publication describes the Affirmative Action system in place when Obama was promoted to president of the Law Review.

Obama made the headlines last week, giving a speech from which a quote has been plucked and repeated, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

This is yet another example of a quote missing the context of the speech around it. We need that context, in order to understand where Obama was coming from:

“I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

What this shows, that people need to understand about him, is that Obama never built anything, in his own life. He never really accomplished anything, himself. There really was always someone giving him a hand up, a back door to sneak through, et cetera.

Even more than most of the Political Class, he has just been socially promoted throughout life, and has no idea what it is like to create wealth for society with your own hands, his own risk, his own ideas, or any other genuine effort.

Remember, Obama has bragged that he wouldn’t be where he is without Affirmative Action:

“As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

He had to worry about being stigmatized, because he didn’t accomplish entry into Harvard or Law Review. Affirmative Action gives people things they haven’t yet earned, robbing them of any opportunity to do so in the first place. So he feels impostor syndrome, but projects it on the rest of us.

Likewise, he didn’t fight his way to the presidency after a hard career, like some politicians. Even the better-informed among his supporters know he was the beneficiary of King-makers in the Chicago Machine and the national Democratic Party. So, even aside from the greater productivity of life in outside of government, he has no experience with creating his own success within government. Powerful men decided to make him their guy…and he want from unknown, to headline speech-giver at a presidential convention already touted as a future president, in one day. And it’s hard to imagine that his Senate seat wasn’t bought for him, the way it was to be sold to his successor.

And he projects that on you and me, on every productive-class American in the private sector.

Not only has he never created a business on his own, Barack Obama never even struggled to land a tough job he had to work hard to keep. Remember that job you hated, but still did well in order to make a living or gain experience? The one you tried so hard to land, based on your own merits? He doesn’t.

He has been socially promoted through life, and that’s all he can imagine for the rest of us. He knows his own intelligence had nothing to do with his success, and he never had a chance to work hard and see what came of that…so how could he imagine that these things matter?

I have accomplished things when I made smart decisions. I’ve failed when I made dumb mistakes. I’ve built things because I worked harder than anyone else, and lost things because I didn’t work hard enough. All of you who have lived outside the political class have, at some point in your life, done these things. Hell, many people in government have, at some point, in a lesser way.

But even the official Obama life story is one of being handed everything by a paternalistic collective.

So how can you expect him to understand anything else?

How Government Stimulus Caused the Great Depression


All through the Roaring Twenties, government spending declined, letting the economy grow. Immediately upon entering office, Hoover began increasing spending and regulation, stagnating the US economy, a pattern followed by the next two presidents. The economy did not truly recover until that behavior ended, with the revolt against Truman in 1946.

Egypt: Told You So


The people of Egypt are revolting against their brutal, repressive dictator, Hosni Mubarak. We Americans are glad. We hate tyranny, and oppose it whenever we can.

If only the political class of the Federal government felt the same.

This dictator is same one in the five photographs at the right…one of each president since 1980.

The one that the US has helped keep in power for over thirty years, handing out $2,000,000,000 to their tyrant each year. If you adjust for inflation, this feeble country’s tiny economy has benefited from over one hundred billion dollars in American taxpayer dollars, plus military aid, technology, et cetera. How much interest in the National Debt has accumulated because of this?

Each time I’m listing the evil tyrannies the Federal government has supported in our name abroad, I mention Hosni Mubarak. And the neocon types carefully ignore it. But now we see why.

When Mubarak is, hopefully, overthrown by the people of Egypt, will they forget that we’re one of the main reasons they suffered under this evil regime for all these years?

The Iranians didn’t forget. They were forced to turn to the Soviet-funded Islamic Revolution, because we supported the Shah of Iran, their own tyrant. They then, rightfully, saw the US government as having made itself their enemy, by having supported their dictator.

Now the Egyptians may well turn to Islamic Fundamentalist movements of their own, against their own US Government-supported tyrant.  Should the next Egyptian government feel any different than the Iranians?

Sure, real Americans have never actually supported this kind of promotion of tyranny…but we’ve stood by and allowed our government to do it in our name, in violation of everything American.

How long are corrupt Federal bureaucrats going to keep supporting evil around the world, while we real Americans reap the blowback when people finally find a way to strike back against it?

We just gave more military aid to the tyrants ruling Saudi Arabia, for example. They are hated not only by their own people, but by almost all Muslims around the world, who see them (correctly) as a foreign-supported monstrosity, occupying their holiest city. How long before this chain reaction of revolution against American-supported dictators reaches Saudi Arabia? If their next regime hates us, who could blame them?

We need, as an increasing number of Americans are beginning to say aloud, to stop violating other countries in ways that we would not want other countries to do to us, like supporting tyranny abroad.

Political Experience is a Liability


People complained, of both Obama and Palin, that they lacked experience.

Now if that meant actual experience of being a manager or executive, a leader, it’s a reasonable discussion to have.

But when they mean lack of political experience, they are mistakenly attacking the BEST qualification of any candidate.

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, as Lord Acton pointed out. And he noted that this includes power through influence, and “corruption by authority”, meaning the way that an institution corrupts its members.

And there is no more corrupting institution than government, which is set apart from all the rest of human society by the ability to legally initiate force…aka “power”.

There are few things more harmful in our society than career politicians. They know less about the real world, and find the evils of government coercion more normal. They are generally against responsibility, anywhere it should be expected.

They, and government employees, including government contractors, and their ilk, form what is now recognized as a separate class of people, the Political Class, that has the most harmful views of any segment of society.

They come to office and are indoctrinated in a culture that devours society and the economy for its own dubious benefit, becoming less aware of the real world every year they are there.

What we need is for our politicians to have less political experience, not more.

Even if we simply replaced every single politician, each year, with someone chosen from the general populace by random lottery, America would be far better off.

REPLACE the Bush Tax Cuts


The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

Black Racism Proves the Problem is Government


The Obama administration's racist abuses show that the problem isn't the race or sex of the abusers, but that government authority always gets abused.

I have long said that the main problem with, say, black rappers and militant black activists against The White Man is simply that they are confusing “white” with “government”. This is illustrated by the fact that the Obama administration is committing abuses against whites, now, and then the black racist rants of the people they’re shielding from prosecution.

If you simply remove the word “white” from  “The White Man”, suddenly angry black men become part of a much larger movement, and their objections/complaints become perfectly valid, if not some of their “solutions”:

“The White Man is keeping you down!”

No, The Man [government] is keeping you down…it’s just that in your time and place, it happens to be “white”.

  • The problem with the laws that keep you dependent, or make becoming successful illegal, is the law, not the color of the skin of the fools passing it.
  • The problem with the drug war isn’t the White Man using it to keep down the Black Man, but that corrupt or foolish government officials are using it to oppress society in general, especially poorer people.
  • The problem with police brutality isn’t White Cops, it’s power-abusing cops, the culture of cowardice (shoot first, ask questions and get paid leave for being wrong later, for Police Safety), and entitlement/privilege (“we are paid to enforce the law, not obey it” and how dare you exercise your rights instead of complying abjectly) that is the problem.

Of course the solutions proposed, whether anarchist or black activist, can include foolishness like “kill the police“. But only among the most foolish or crazy, and it’s easier to fall into that animalistic reaction when it’s racial, as well. Racism is tribalism, which is always bad.

We can see this with Malcom X, who was reportedly outgrowing the violent racial nonsense, apparently that’s WHY Louis Farrakhan and friends had him killed.

As it’s revealed that the Obama administration ordered black crimes against whites to not be prosecuted, and that black government officials specifically neglected helping white people, we can see that the problem is that authoritarian government ALWAYS gets abused, not the race or sex of the people who happen to be abusing it at any given moment in time.

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

Keynes is Dead, Long Live…Keynes?


Each time a government has tried to spend its way out of a depression, the result has been ongoing economic failure

John Maynard Keynes was an economist…or at least a political activist who used economic-sounding arguments to justify government intervention.

In the 1930s, he was THE economist, if you believed in that government intervention.

But, as we all know, his Theory proved to be a complete failure. It failed to produce results during the Great Depression, but staggered on until the 1970s, when it failed so spectacularly, causing staflation, that it was pronounced dead, even by Liberals in the US and open socialists around the world.

But, unfortunately, George Bush came along in 2001, and after having run as a free marketer, governed as a Keynesian. He infected the political scene with the premise that you could stimulate an economy out of a downturn, by having the government spend massively, even as it increased regulation (in part, by putting strings on the spending). When the economy fell into trouble because of his bad foreign and domestic policies, he responded with Stimulus and Bailout™ packages. That trademark, of course, means that he must pay the Keynes estate a royalty for each mention.

Obama, having run as the Anti-Bush, has committed the perplexing political suicide of simply building on every Bush precedent…most of which really are more Liberal Democrat in tenor, anyway…and one of the symptoms is that he continued the Stimulus and Bailout™ packages.

The problem, as we predicted and is now proving true, is that stimulus spending and bailouts don’t help the economy: They hurt it.

This pattern of behavior has caused what people denying the word Depression call a “double dip recession”, which we’re entering (again) right now.

The only way out, is to end the Keynesian meddling, and let the economy grow on its own. Japan and Sweden learned this the hard way, after each suffering a “lost decade” in the nineties. Now it’s our turn.

The Anti-Jobs Bill: Tax Breaks for Welfare Jobs


If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

Drug mega-giant Pfizer recently dealt with its bloated payroll in St Louis, Missouri, by laying off over 600 employees.

It had hired them in order to gain reduced tax punishment from the local government. It was given a “break” of almost seven million dollars on the massive property tax, in return for hiring over one thousand employees…apparently more than it would otherwise have chosen to hire, or else the “break” would have been a meaningless loss of revenue for a money-strapped government.

Maintaining make-work welfare jobs, of course, was just a needless burden on the company. Eventually, such government coercion contributed enough to its woes that Pfizer actually found it necessary to lay off over half of its staff. In all likelihood, this backlash resulted in fewer jobs left-over than if it hadn’t over-hired to begin with.

When the government “encourages” hiring, it creates an employment bubble, just like when it encouraged home ownership, it created a housing bubble. When the bubble bursts, the net result is more harm than good, just as with housing.

Government “stimulating jobs” causes even more job loss, in the long run.

And yet Congress is about to pass a “jobs bill” that involves tax breaks for make-work hiring. Companies will be pushed to employ people they wouldn’t have otherwise chosen to do, essentially being forced to live beyond their means. In the long run, as with the housing boom and with Pfizer, this will backfire and cause MORE unemployment.

When the government “creates” a job, it’s just engaging in another form of welfare. A job “created” where one wasn’t actually needed has no honor, and causes harm. It is a burden on society…one that will come back to haunt, just the way the stimulus spending, bailouts, and other government busybody behavior will do.

The way to create jobs is not to “create” them directly, any more than you make sickly person healthy by giving him cocaine to create energy. Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They work because people work to create more wealth than their job pays, justifying its existence. What we need is more wealth creation, and then the jobs will come naturally. And what is stifling job creation, already, is massive government regulation and interference, including the “stimulus” spending that out-competes healthy private ventures.

Bunning (Almost) Fights Unemployment


When you subsidize anything, you get more of that thing. Including unemployment.
I have a friend who got fed up with his job, and gave it up because he felt collecting unemployment was a better option. This, alone, is evidence of how unemployment benefits increase unemployment…but it gets worse:

He eventually got tired of not working at all, and got a job one day a week, just low enough not to cut into his unemployment benefit.

Here comes the “worse” part.

His employer liked him, and kept begging him to work full time…but he planned to kick back and relax until unemployment ran out. That’s right, benefits not only caused him to CHOOSE to be unemployed, but to refuse to take a full-time job, keeping him on the unemployment roles. But at least it would eventually run out…right?

  • Then Bush and Congress decided to extend it.
  • Then, when it was about to run out (again), Obama and Congress extended it once more. My friend has ended up living off the taxpayers, indefinitely, while his employer dreams of GIVING him full time work.
  • Then Jim Bunning decided my friend must go back to work. His employer must have been thrilled.

Not that Bunning is a principled Conservative, who believes in not subsidizing unemployment. No, he is just a partisan RiNO grandstanding against unfunded government spending…now that Bush isn’t the one spearheading it.

Which may be why he caved in, just a short time later. My friend gets to remain a burden on society, unemployment gets to remain artificially high.

Ever wonder how much of the 10% unemployment is simply people who CHOOSE not to work, because the government subsidizes not working?

What we need is more people in Congress who are actually like Jim Bunning was pretending, for a few hours, to be.

Obama Has a Mandate AGAINST Big Government



Bush didn't understand why people didn't like his Big Brotherment style, and Obama doesn't understand why people hate him copying it.

Obama fanatics are all confused and muddled by this anti-government backlash.

They keep saying “but a majority voted for Obama, they must WANT socialized health care”, or Cap and Trade, or Tax the Rich, or whatever.

We had an election, THEY won. This was proof of a mandate for a growing, interventionist government. Obama ran on socialized medicine, redistribution of taxes, environmentalist control of the economy, and he’s trying to do just what he always said he believed in, so:

Everyone should be happy…right?

Well, no.

See:

People were not voting for Obama

Aside from the absolute idiots who voted for or against him because he is half black, or on blind party lines, most people were specifically voting against Bush and McCain. Obama won because he ran on “change”.

And, regardless of any Democratic spin to the contrary, Bush had a Big Government administration. The change people wanted was less government intervention.

Expanding socialized medicine is not Change, it’s Business as Usual. The largest expansion of socialized medicine in US history was Bush’s prescription drug plan.

People voted not for a Che Guevara Wannabe, but against someone who governed like a Hugo Chavez-Wannabe, and his philosophical heir, who promised to be an even bigger advocate of government intervention.

  • They were not saying “we like Obama’s stimulus plan” but “we hate Bush’s stimulus plan, that McCain supports”.
  • Not “we like Obama’s plan to expand war in Afghanistan” but “we hate Bush’s war in Iraq, that McCain wants to extend”.
  • Instead of “we want Obama’s cap and trade proposal” they were saying “we hate McCain’s cap and trade proposal”.
  • People were voting against the Bush/McCain bank bailout, not for Obama’s bank takeover.

What we have gotten, under Obama, is not Change, but four more years of Bush’s philosophy of Big Brotherment.

The people striking out against Obama now are the same people who got Obama elected, voting against Bush by doing something other than voting for McCain, whether by abstaining, voting third party, or actually voting for Obama.

If he wants to save his presidency, Obama needs to realize the TEA Party and town hall speakers are the Obama mandate.

Tiger Woods: Who Gives a Rat’s Ass?


I Don't Give a Rat's Ass

This is what I'd give for more information on Tiger Woods' personal life.

That’s right, I said it.

Too bad those celebrity-obsessed neocon talk show hosts don’t agree.

As always, they care about everything else more than the real issues.

Just as they spent far more time blathering over anything about Obama EXCEPT his actual platform, during the election campaign last year, now they’re going on about this nonsense in Tiger Woods’ absolutely unimportant personal life.

Even if Tiger Woods were an important celebrity, not the former great of a non-sport, I wouldn’t care. Whatever Tiger, or any other non-authority, does with his personal life is no more important to me than what my next-door neighbor does. Less, really, since I actually know my neighbor, and anyway if he’s dating someone cute, he may leave the curtains open.

This sudden obsession me wonder if someone was pointing out the similarity of Bush administration policy and Obama policy too loudly, recently. When the fact that the neocons are actually Liberals who just talk Conservative comes up, these guys always obsess with non-issues. And, of course, this eager schadenfraude over Tiger Woods just helps the Liberal Democrats deflect any valid criticisms against Obama as being neocon hatred of half-white people.

They ARE Whores…and Real Republicans Know That


n637688546_475677_861All this hue and cry about Alan Grayson calling some Enron lobbyist a K-Street Whore just helps separate the neocons from the true Conservatives.

If anything, an actual believer in limited government would find whore to be too kind a term, or the comparison degrading to actual prostitutes.

As usual, the neocons must depend on personal hatemongering, not issues, because they are actually as corrupt and fond of big government as any other kind of Liberal. So while Conservatives can take apart Grayson on the issues, neocons and other RiNOs just act offended that he dared criticize a lobbyist.

This is their standard mode of operation. While honest people criticize Obama on being a socialist, the neocons are more likely to attack him as stupid, or being a smoker, or the birth certificate nonsense…anything but actual issues, where in fact they are as Liberal as he is.

Here, we see another version of the same thing. We should not tolerate or repeat such nonsense, but separate ourselves from the politicians and talk show hosts who perpetrate it.

CEO Salaries: More Bailout Failure


I am opposed to socialism. It always does more harm than good. But I will not defend the executives of the companies that stole three hundred billion dollars from the US taxpayer. They opened the door to the nationalization of their companies, and the socialist Obama administration is simply following up on the precedent, just as they are following up on Bush’s socialist precedents.

Yes, the CEO compensation plan WILL cripple those companies, making them less likely to survive. But that’s what they get, for their robber baron status. The problem is the original socialist violation of the marketplace, not the cascade-effect it sets off.

We need to ban any more unconstitutional bailouts, not waste our breath objecting to its inevitable destruction of the companies who already bribed our government to get it.

Pakistan is Our Enemy


I’m watching the neocons and other Liberals on a pundit shouting show talk about how important Pakistan’s national security is to the US. This is like saying that the good-feeling properties of smoking tobacco are vital to the health of someone suffering from emphysema.

Pakistan’s government, and especially its military, is a mortal enemy of the US. They are one of the top state sponsors of terrorism, behind only Saudi Arabia. They put the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan, years ago. They overthrew their own democratically elected government. They ARE “Islamic extremists”.

And yet, all along, the idiots running US foreign policy have done nothing but facilitate this evil. We have sent them millions of dollars per year, becoming billions of dollars per year after the 9-11 attacks which, apparently, the Taliban government installed by Pakistan helped accomplish.

It was not terribly surprising for the Bush administration to continue the neocon policy of supporting our enemies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, rewarding them for funding and teaching the terrorists who attack us…but it’s disappointing to see that the Obama administration is doing the same.

%d bloggers like this: