Obama's Consistent Hypocrisy

Obama, and the Left in general, love to brag about how it eschews "ideology" in favor of "pragmatism," by which we're to understand that it attends to fact, applies logic, and isn't blinded by "pre-conceived ideas" in order to pursue "fairness." In consequence, they assert that it's "the Right" who are a bunch of dogmatists, disconnected from reality. Set aside for the moment that no one can interpret events without some kind of philosophical framework, however loosely congealed and that pragmatism is inherently incoherent. Examine instead, just now, just how consistently he can even cling to this policy of expedience.

It certainly seems Obama is a pragmatist, given how he careens from crisis to crisis. Yet, there is an internal consistency to his positions — all of them hard Left — that suggests there is indeed a driving "ideology" behind them.

In foreign policy, it's simply Obama trying to be "a realist," an extremely unrealistic position and a form of pragmatism that the Left always invokes whenever it wants to rationalize not taking a principled stand for justice.
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post eviscerates this claim to "realism" with ease. She shows just how often Obama in fact ignores reality to pursue his foreign policy ideology, just as he does domestically.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is unarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in *The Wall Street Journal*, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

That ideology also leads inevitably to hypocrisy. Here's more evidence, if any were needed that, despite his claims, Obama is not at all interested in remaining neutral in order not to be seen meddling in the internal affairs of "sovereign states."

Here, Andy McCarthy (the man who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik and others for the '93 World Trade Center bombing) rips the facade cleanly off the Potemkin President.

Now that the president has decided it's okay to meddle in Honduras (where they are fighting to keep preserve their democracy against the Chávez-style thug who Obama wants to re-install) but not Iran (where thousands of Iranians who seek democracy are being killed, maimed and jailed by a regime which has been at war with the United States for 30 years), the president's tack is to say that Honduras's action in removing Zelaya is "not legal."

What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation's highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation's Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I'd bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez.

Secondly, as IBD notes, the Obama administration is now "threatening to halt its $200 million in U.S. aid, immigration accords and a free-trade treaty if it doesn't put the criminal Zelaya back into office." Can someone explain to me how it is that Obama is willingly giving $900M to Hamastan (i.e., the jihadist-controlled Gaza strip) but would pull back a comparative pittance of aid in order to penalize a poor country in our own hemisphere for trying to preserve its democracy against a would-be left-wing dictator?

This episode has a parallel with the Sotomayer-Ricci case, in showing the continuing hypocrisy of the Left, starting at the top. If a 'right-wing' judge were to show the kind of racial bias that Sotomayer brags about he/she would be dismissed in an instant as disqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Instead, we have Jesse Jackson and his ilk proclaiming that the Court "ignores the greater good."

None of this should be surprising by now. As a Progressive, it's inevitable that Obama and crew will be inconsistent on details because no form of Fascism can be consistently applied. As a political philosophy at odds with human nature, at odds with the need of individuals for liberty, the Progressive has to distort or ignore facts in the pursuit of some immediate goal, one that will only result in more destruction down the road. Yet, because that 'ideology' is as rigidly held by Obama as any other radical Leftist, he will always come down on the wrong side of reality, reason, and justice.

Obama on Iran's Digestive Discomfort

The actions of a Jimmy Carter Jr. is too mild an epithet to describe the disgraceful performance of Barack Obama in the face of events taking place in Iran. For the first time in 30 years the United States has an opportunity to positively influence the outcome — and without firing a single shot — and the heir to the Great Pretender goes beyond fumbling the ball by refusing even to admit the game is on.

Initially he said virtually nothing in order not to be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. Chamberlain would be proud, having taken a similar stance even before pre-WWII Munich. Events of the period in Germany prompted the great humorist James Thurber to write "The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble." In the short story the narrator relates how, having now been eaten by the wolves with whom they lived side by side, the matter was "strictly an internal affair."

One would hope that Obama would be on the side of the rabbits. One would, if one believed that he had any real disdain for the wolves, that is. But if he's indifferent to freedom and the individual rights to live, create, and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts — as he's demonstrated repeatedly in America these past dreary months — one would know better than to hope for any such thing.

To those who argue that strong words on his part would only inflame the situation, or actually provide aide to the mullahs in power — yes, there are such people — it's enough to point out that this is exactly what we should want. The more inflamed that situation the better for the citizens of the United States, and not coincidentally for the brave souls currently protesting and dying for even a few crumbs of freedom.

Jimmy Carter Jr., very junior (which, considering the small stature of that former occupant of the Oval Office, is approaching microscopic height), has declared:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mousavi may well be evil. He is said to have been a founder of Hezbollah and was vetted as one of four acceptable candidates out of dozens proving he was not perceived as a threat to the mullahs' rule. All that is irrelevant. Millions are not protesting and being arrested or slaughtered in the streets of Iran's cities in order to support another dictator. They are shouting "Death to the Dictator." They are asking for freedom. To fail to support that wish wholeheartedly — when it costs him nothing is a moral failure of the most serious kind.

There are those, often the same "those" referred to above, i.e. ever dependable leftist apologists for the smiling Fascist, who claim he would lose something: a bargaining advantage with the mullahs. Even a realpolitik 'realist' of the Kissinger sort should be embarrassed by this argument. Reagan called the Soviets out many times for their oppressions and yet continued to 'bargain' with them for years.

To the contrary, his excoriations were good for both the oppressed and the citizens of the United States. Making authoritarians nervous by openly noting their evil in no uncertain terms is always advantageous. Evil flourishes when good men stand idly by.

Obama is emphasizing his desire to continue bargaining with them in ways large and small, such as not rescinding an invitation to a July 4 discussion. That it is set to take place on July 4 of all days should be a clear indicator to anyone on the fence just how much contempt for the American system and its history Obama really has.

That he's willing to engage representatives of some of the world's worst dictators of the past 30 years at all is bad enough. To spit in the face of the American people by doing it on July 4 in the face of current events in Iran is grotesque amorality, that is to say, classic Obama.

That behavior shouldn't be too surprising, however, even if one knew nothing else about the mouse in the White House but that he's willing to assert that the Iranian regime has "caused some problems in the neighborhood." I don't believe even Obama is as ignorant as that, but he is that politically correct.

Supplying weapons, training, funding, intelligence, organization, and base camps in Iran in order to fight U.S. military in Iraq is bad enough. But even the State Department still recognizes — if Obama is unwilling to — that Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism as it attempts to export Islamic jihad everywhere it can.

The list of calumnies of the past 30 years can't have fully escaped even the willfully-ignorant-of-history Obama's tiny brain. He was, after all, already a teen when the Islamic revolutionaries kidnapped dozens of American officials and held them for over a year.

To describe this history as causing "problems in the neighborhood" is to cloak one's self Ribbentrop's shade of gray and concede that the frantic struggle of the Iranian rabbits is nothing but an internal matter, and only to hope that one doesn't get vomit on a new pair of Italian loafers.

Mousavi's Letter to Obama

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi

To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind," we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.

Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept.

By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime's murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours.

[Hat tip: Powerline]

Obama on Iran's Digestive Discomfort

The actions of a Jimmy Carter Jr. is too mild an epithet to describe the disgraceful performance of Barack Obama in the face of events taking place in Iran. For the first time in 30 years the United States has an opportunity to positively influence the outcome — and without firing a single shot — and the heir to the Great Pretender goes beyond fumbling the ball by refusing even to admit the game is on.

Initially he said virtually nothing in order not to be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. Chamberlain would be proud, having taken a similar stance even before pre-WWII Munich. Events of the period in Germany prompted the great humorist James Thurber to write "The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble." In the short story the narrator relates how, having now been eaten by the wolves with whom they lived side by side, the matter was "strictly an internal affair."

One would hope that Obama would be on the side of the rabbits. One would, if one believed that he had any real disdain for the wolves, that is. But if he's indifferent to freedom and the individual rights to live, create, and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts — as he's demonstrated repeatedly in America these past dreary months — one would know better than to hope for any such thing.

To those who argue that strong words on his part would only inflame the situation, or actually provide aide to the mullahs in power — yes, there are such people — it's enough to point out that this is exactly what we should want. The more inflamed that situation the better for the citizens of the United States, and not coincidentally for the brave souls currently protesting and dying for even a few crumbs of freedom.

Jimmy Carter Jr., very junior (which, considering the small stature of that former occupant of the Oval Office, is approaching microscopic height), has declared:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mousavi may well be evil. He is said to have been a founder of Hezbollah and was vetted as one of four acceptable candidates out of dozens proving he was not perceived as a threat to the mullahs' rule. All that is irrelevant. Millions are not protesting and being arrested or slaughtered in the streets of Iran's cities in order to support another dictator. They are shouting "Death to the Dictator." They are asking for freedom. To fail to support that wish wholeheartedly — when it costs him nothing is a moral failure of the most serious kind.

There are those, often the same "those" referred to above, i.e. ever dependable leftist apologists for the smiling Fascist, who claim he would lose something, a bargaining advantage with the mullahs. Even a realpolitik 'realist' of the Kissinger sort should be embarrassed by this argument. Reagan called the Soviets out many times for their oppressions and yet continued to 'bargain' with them for years.

To the contrary, his excoriations were good for both the oppressed and the citizens of the United States. Making authoritarians nervous by openly noting their evil in no uncertain terms is always advantageous. Evil flourishes when good men stand idly by.

Obama is emphasizing his desire to continue bargaining with them in ways large and small, such as not rescinding an invitation to a July 4 discussion. That it is set to take place on July 4 of all days should be a clear indicator to anyone on the fence just how much contempt for the American system and its history Obama really has.

That he's willing to engage representatives of some of the world's worst dictators of the past 30 years at all is bad enough. To spit in the face of the American people by doing it on July 4 in the face of current events in Iran is grotesque amorality, that is to say, classic Obama.

That behavior shouldn't be too surprising, however, even if one knew nothing else about the mouse in the White House but that he's willing to assert that the Iranian regime has "caused some problems in the neighborhood." I don't believe even Obama is as ignorant as that, but he is that politically correct.

Supplying weapons, training, funding, intelligence, organization, and base camps in Iran in order to fight U.S. military in Iraq is bad enough. But even the State Department still recognizes — if Obama is unwilling to — that Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism as it attempts to export Islamic jihad everywhere it can.

The list of calumnies of the past 30 years can't have fully escaped even the willfully-ignorant-of-history Obama's tiny brain. He was, after all, already a teen when the Islamic revolutionaries kidnapped dozens of American officials and held them for over a year.

To describe this history as causing "problems in the neighborhood" is to cloak one's self Ribbentrop's shade of gray and concede that the frantic struggle of the Iranian rabbits is nothing but an internal matter, and only to hope that one doesn't get vomit on a new pair of Italian loafers.

Hans Gude, Oban Bay (1889)

Landscapes aren't for everyone, but for those who enjoy them this one is an outstanding example.

In this 1889 work the artist depicts an area not far from the island of Staffa, holding Fingal's Cave, the inspiration for Mendelssohn's The Hebrides, Op 26.

The artist has an extraordinary skill with all the necessary elements. His colors are a lovely contrast between attention getting bright (the orange and yellows of the boats to the left) and the more subdued greens and blues of the grass and sky. There's another delightful contrast between the sharpness of the boats and stone wall in the foreground and the mist on the mountains in the upper right. Not least of its delights is the superb composition.

But all that is talk. Just look, and enter this painter's peaceful world for a moment.

Obama Goes For The Big Lie

It becomes ever clearer that Obama has adopted the technique of the Big Lie. According to a man who learned most of what he knew from Mussolini, the man Obama is also emulating:

“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” Adolf Hitler

An exaggeration? From a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, quoting Barack Obama:

"I think the irony … is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government," he said Tuesday in a White House interview.

That statement shows that Barack Obama is now officially the biggest liar in the history of the U.S. Federal Government. Either that, or he is literally psychotic and has no clue what the hell he is saying.

It's inconceivable that even the most rabid post-modern subjectivist, for whom facts are whatever he believes at any given moment, could act in every way like a Fascist — semi-nationalizing the auto industry, strong-arming the largest banks, threatening the country with socialized health care, and on and on — and still believe he was using a "light touch."

His excuse for all this heavy-handed socialism?

"And so it's puzzling to me sometimes to hear the standard conservative critique of what we're doing, when essentially every step we're taking involves cleaning up the mess that we found when we arrived here at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

So, not only is he the biggest liar around, he's also a coward who has to continue to excuse every coercive act as necessary to counteract what Bush allegedly did.

How in hell is it necessary to resolve a financial crisis the Feds created by spending four times what the previous set of thugs spent? How did Bush create the current high cost of health care? (Admittedly, he helped by the idiocy of signing the Prescription Benefit bill.) How did he make us "dependent on foreign oil?" And how is putting ever more subsidies into impractical technologies necessary to 'solve' that 'problem' while refusing to ease the constraints on nuclear power? Lies, more lies, and damned lies, not even backed up by statistics.

Well, as the 18th century statesman William Pitt put it, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves."

At least the socialist scum Chavez, Mao, and others had the balls to openly confess their goals and their operating philosophy. When you're morally lower than sundry dictators it's time to re-think your fundamental premises. That, of course, is the last thing one can expect from Obama the Zero, since it would require at minimum acknowledging them to himself.

Impeachment would be too good for this charlatan.

There's one and only one hopeful aspect to this shameful charade. That he feels the need to pander not only to jihadists but to freedom loving critics in America means he knows his proposals are on shaky ground, even with a majority Democratic Congress. Let's hope the ground opens up and swallows him whole soon.

De-Worming 'Public' Health Care

I'm torn on the recent Federal advocacy of mandatory socialized medicine alternative government health insurance.

I've been wondering lately if maybe I've been wrong about everything all along. If you strip the parasites of power in Washington, they'll just move to state governments to carry on their mischief. (Not that there aren't plenty of the power hungry already there.) Repeat at the state level and they'll become local busybodies. Strip even local government of the power to harm you and, who knows, they might become the intrusive, "we need a committee" type at your company.

Hmmm...

As Spencer Tracy's Clarence Darrow-like character in Inherit the Wind famously said (paraphrasing): "Fanaticism and ignorance are ever busy." What he didn't mention was that the smaller their scope, the better chance you have to escape them. Leaving a company or your town is one thing. Even leaving your state is not an insuperable problem. Leaving the country is dicey at best.

Is this human nature? I don't think so; it's not that widespread. But there are enough who choose this path to make their impact far out of proportion to their numbers. The solution? Shun them. Literally. Don't trade with them; don't even feed them. Don't support parasites and, without a host, they have to die off or change their ways, at least to the extent of being more subterranean about it, which is appropriate for the black-plague fleas carried by sewer rats.

The lust to control the choices of others is at the base not only of this latest attempt to socialize medicine (their patently false concern over controlling costs to the contrary), but of every single social evil in the world today. It accounts for the amazing consistency - across a wide spectrum of seemingly unrelated issues, everything from global warming to food preferences - of 'liberals' of all stripes. Socialists, Progressives, Pragmatists, or outright Fascists, you name it they are all brothers under that very thin skin.

Whether that lust is a goal pursued for its own sake, or as a means to the end of social engineering, or whether social engineering is just a cover for seeking power as the ultimate end, we can leave to psychology (if it ever develops to to the point of being able to answer such questions). But whether cart or horse, the results are the same and it's far past time to break the axle on the transport that is taking us all to hell at rocket speed.

A Basic Error or, How NOT To Argue Against Cap and Trade

Progressives in the White House and elsewhere are making a lot of noise about regulating greenhouse gases to combat global warming. It isn't only their views that are wrong, but their entire viewpoint.

A White House memo recently released discusses how regulating businesses that produce carbon dioxide, et al will raise costs. Republicans, in response, argue they have a plan that will be cheaper. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) argues in the WSJ, for example, that nuclear power would be a much better idea.

This is not the way to go. Instead, House Republicans this week unveiled legislation that will lead to lower prices, more jobs, a cleaner environment, and greater energy independence. The centerpiece of our American Energy Act is a commitment to increase the production of our abundant domestic natural resources, and not to punish traditional energy producers and consumers.

True, but beside the point, the big point.

The debate on this issue tends to revolve around whether the cost is justified. That's the wrong debate.

That we're even having a public debate about regulating greenhouse gases represents a fundamental error in not just American politics but American culture. It implies that the government has a right to make laws not only to protect individual rights - which are not threatened by global warming - but to achieve allegedly desirable social outcomes.

This error is behind every major problem the U.S. is facing and every public debate about them. Whether the subject is energy alternatives, health care legislation, economic fixes, or any of the rest of the passing parade of hot topics, this point of view is almost universally shared by all popular points on the political compass.

And what is behind that error? In a word: collectivism, essentially the view that your life and choices belong to 'society' to do with as 'it' - in the form, today, of an elected representative, tomorrow of a dictator - thinks best. The collective decides what is best, not you.

Economic debates on the 'net display this error starkly. They inevitably involve, for example, Progressives claiming that such and such didn't cause the Great Depression or that FDR's policies did in fact help, with the opposition claiming the opposite. The debate continues with each side claiming its historical interpretation shows that a particular piece of legislation should or shouldn't be adopted now.

That's a worthwhile debate, not only because maximizing wealth is important to a whole lot of people, but because the issue is intimately tied up with which basic political philosophy — socialism or capitalism or some hybrid — actually delivers the goods. But it's too easy to get bogged down in endless examinations of statistics, historical events, and speculative projections about the future.

Virtually no one comes out and declares that, in the end, it's not overwhelmingly important whether Keynesian or Monetarist or Austrian economics leads to better economic outcomes. The fundamental political issue is whether freedom is or is not a right, period, even when it might lead to worse economic results in a particular case or in general.

By the same token the decisive question is not whether or not human generated CO2 leads to a rise of a few degrees in the average global temperature. If it doesn't, there's no problem to solve. If it does humans can adapt, if left free to do so. The fundamental question is whether individuals have an inalienable right to that freedom.

On that question, Progressives would very much prefer to remain silent. Unfortunately, so do too many Republicans.

De Tocqueville on 'Soft' Despotism

In a New Criterion article discussion of a book by Professor Paul Rahe, Mark Steyn quotes de Tocqueville on 'soft' despotism:

Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…

The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Sound familiar?

Prof. Rahe goes on to say, "Human dignity is bound up with taking responsibility for conducting one's own affairs.
...
“We can be what once we were, or we can settle for a gradual, gentle descent into servitude."

What can one add but "Bravo, Dr. Rahe." Well, perhaps one could add this:

'Soft' despotism is perhaps the hardest kind because it's the hardest kind to stop and eradicate. When people are treated with extreme harshness, ala the Soviet Union, rebellion will constantly bubble beneath the surface because it's obvious that one could do no worse. When despotism comes with the smiling face of the gently scolding nanny, it's too easy to delude oneself into thinking that little is to be gained by rebellion.

The fear of loss of small comforts keeps many a man glued to his couch. But even apart from the fact that a lightly smothering slavery invariably evolves into the harsher kind before long, the fact is that the loss of liberty leads immediately to a loss of every other value, the material ones being only the first and least important to go.

The Great Pretender At His Lying Best

A quote in an LA Times story has the Great Pretender pretending stronger than ever.

"We've done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibly than ever, to get the gears of the economy moving again," Obama said, and "we're in a position to really accelerate."

Whew... hold onto your wallets. You'll need them to escape to someplace better because your freedom is going down the tube if Obama has anything to say about it.

Still, there's hope, to use a word nearly destroyed by his Progressive Majesty's debauchery of language.

According to the header on the story:

His assertions -- that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created already, and that the summer goal is 600,000 more -- appear to be elastic and are hard to verify.

When even the left-wing LA Times is willing to consider that he's making it up as he goes along, you know the Pretender is losing his grip on the adoring media.

About Time: Supreme Court Stays Chrysler Deal

Finally! The Supreme Court has stepped in to (at least temporarily) halt the unConstitutional Chrysler deal. With luck, the GM deal won't be far behind.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted an emergency appeal asking it to halt the impending government-backed sale of Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat.

The order stops for now Chrysler's sale, which the company claims could scuttle the deal.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed the order, but it may be only temporary.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until 4 p.m. ET Monday to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Ginsburg issued her order just before 4 p.m.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock said the ruling was a small victory for Indiana pensioners, who brought the request for an injunction for fear of losing their stake.

"The ... thing I hear is, 'Oh, if this doesn't happen, the sale won't take place.' Let's not forget Fiat is not paying one penny for 20 percent of this deal. If I am going to receive $400 million worth of assets on day one and I don't have to make an investment, I don't care so much if it happen Monday, Tuesday or next week, I am going to be there in the end."

As HotAir (hat tip) points out, if Ginsburg is unhappy with this deal, it has to be a real stinker. (Which is obvious anyway from this one line alone: "Fiat is not paying one penny for 20 percent".)

Going beyond any past Administration, Obama has chosen not only to rob the public Treasury but to give private citizens assets away for free to Fiat's investors for the purpose of social engineering. Not for nothing is the Pretender also known as the Anti-American. In my eyes, he's just an Anti, period, but that's a discussion of another day.

Today, I celebrate the best news I've read in over a year. Now if the Justices will just do their job, the one performed by their counterparts 75 years ago (ala FDR and the NRA, and again in 1952 against Truman's nationalization of the steel businesses), and start striking down one after the next of the long line of anti-Constitutional acts performed by the Feds over the past year, this country might return to some semblance of normalcy.

There are many reasons the auto manufacturers crisis has reached this stage, of course, not least because of the way the story has been (non)reported by the major news outlets. But the American people have to take a share of the blame as well, since they've been largely indifferent to the Bush and Obama administrations' thievery of the public Treasury (now over $50 billion) for the sake of the UAW and some politically connective executives.

On the whole, most people don't see it as affecting them — since they don't see the impact of the precedent being set. They should remember the famous phrase coined after WWII "first they came for the Jews." Well, first the Feds came for the trains in the 19th century. The only surprise is that it's taken this long for them to come for the automakers. (Not that they haven't been busy hobbling them in the meantime, which has created the current crisis.)

In the defense of the average person, they might simply have become numb under the neverending fascist blows the Feds have been striking the past year. Fair enough. But, apart from the enormous injustice enacted in this case, such things are always used by the tyrants in Washington and their cheerleaders to justify other, usually larger, acts of malfeasance. Long past time to say enough is enough.

Fortunately, at least for now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand. One can only hope they'll get out the bulldozer and start pushing back the Progressive dune, preferably over a cliff.


Update:

[Also: here]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the deal after delaying the sale pending review of a case brought by Indiana state pension funds challenging Chrysler's bankruptcy. Those funds argued that they and other lenders deserved better treatment by the bankruptcy court.

Well, that was a brief Shangri-La. What do you want to bet Obama called a few Supreme Court Justices...

Obama Promises Jobs With Stolen Money

Repeating the mistakes of the FDR Administration verbatim, the completely-clueless-about-history Pretender continues merrily on his way to deepening the economic crisis.

From the LA Times

[Obama] will promise hundreds of thousands of new jobs with increased spending on maintenance projects at military bases, about 1,600 road and airport projects, the hiring of some 135,000 teachers and other school staffers and 125,000 summer jobs for youth under the supervision of the Department of Labor.

Apart from everything else that is wrong with this (the implicit lie about shovel-ready projects, the lack of short-term economic benefit from hiring teachers, the creation of a Hitler Jugend, etc), who in hell selected Mussolini Obama as the CEO of Amerika?

Where the 'Stimulus' Money Is Going

From the Las Vegas Journal

"Most of the roughly $300 billion coming directly to the states is being funneled through existing government programs for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services," The Associated Press reported this week.

Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care. Not hiring new doctors or nurses, mind you. Just paying medical bills for poor people -- and the salaries of those who handle this redistribution of your hard-earned cash.

By comparison, about 15 percent of the stimulus money will end up going for transportation -- including airports, highways and rail projects -- according to Federal Funds Information for States, a service of the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Overall, two-thirds of the stimulus funds will go to subsidize state budgets and unemployment compensation -- paying people not to work. Much smaller pieces of the pie will be allocated for weatherization, affordable housing and other projects designed to create jobs, The AP reports.

No one has a right to be surprised at any of this. It goes without saying that this will all go without being said by Obama and his Congressional cronies. Thieving "more equal than some" pigs.

FDR, Obama, and Congress - Fascism Then and Now

Despite the continual calls from Progressives for fundamentally changing American culture, there's nothing new about the type of Fascism they're trying to bring to America.

If you watch enough WWII-era films on DVD you'll soon become exposed to a great many film shorts that played in the theaters at the time. Many of them are inspiring. Hollywood could considerably raise its dreadful reputation by emulating a few with regard to America's current military efforts. But some of them are instructional in another way.

A percentage of those documentaries and mini-dramas are decidedly Fascist in nature, showing how the FDR administration tried mightily to urge citizens to "sacrifice for the nation." It sounds scarier in the original German ("Du bist nicht! Dein Volk ist alles!") but the meaning is the same in any language. ("You are nothing. Your people is all!")

Shorts on the WWII: Homefront DVD and others like them did much more than ask Americans to work hard and support the war effort morally and materially. They tried, with obtuse economic explanations and blatant collectivist propaganda, to get individuals to surrender their own well being for the sake of the group.

One particularly egregious example, Skirmish on the Home Front, has Alan Ladd and Susan Hayward arguing over whether they should buy a better house. Ladd puts his foot down and refuses, arguing that the war effort will be better served by them continuing to live in what the man and wife agree is a dump.

His argument is too silly to bother repeating, a complete line of non-sequiturs, ending with a post-war fantasy of the couple living in a 1950s version of a high-tech dream house because they held their war bonds to maturity.

Another, almost as bad, is Letter From Bataan, in which the ghost of a recently dead soldier writes home to his wife and family, unaware at that point of his demise. He declares "no other young soldier should die because the folks at home don't want to do without."

He then goes on to demonstrate how not screeching the family auto's tires (a sin performed in the opening by the teen son) saves rubber that can be used to build a battleship, along with other, equally myopic assertions. He makes no mention, no surprise, of how it was coercive war-time rationing (not to mention a decade of prior Progressive-inspired economic controls) that led to the need to make such trade-offs in the first place.

Both these moral and logical absurdities are closely paralleled in the arguments of today's Green fascists. They assert that if we all collectively sacrifice — use less gasoline, pay over-free-market prices for solar panels and hybrid cars, destroy dams for the sake of salmon, hobble coal-consuming power plants, convert useful agricultural land to producing material for ethanol, etc., etc. (the list of hectoring is endless) — we will in the future all be better off.

All this should sound very familiar, and depressingly so. Good people are as individual as there are individuals. Evil people are all the same. That is, after all, why the villain in romanticized dramas always has to be given a few heroic virtues, like extreme cleverness and flair. Otherwise, he would be as dull as dishwater, like all real-life villains. Not for nothing have several journalists, even those in love with Obama, candidly reported, "He's very boring." Henry Waxman is worse.

It could hardly be otherwise. A dictator is hardly the sort of man who develops his creativity. It he did, he would run from being a dictator as fast as the bullet trains we might actually have if we lived in a free country. That's a lesson it's worthwhile to keep in mind as Congress debates the Waxman-Malarky Cap and Trade (otherwise known as Hobble and Dictate) legislation, along with the panoply of fascist regulation Obama and his fellow thugs are pushing.

Auto Deal Shows True Nature of Obama Administration

Investors Business Daily has penned another spot on editorial exposing — though they don't use the word — the Fascism of the Obama administration.

First, they outline some of the unjust financial aspects:

GM's bankruptcy pushes bondholders aside in favor of the U.S. government and the UAW. Though bondholders hold $27 billion in debt, they'll get just 10% of stock.

How's that compare with the other "stakeholders?" For spending $50 billion to bail out GM, the government will get 60% of the equity in the new GM; the UAW, which along with other unions gave millions to Democrats, will be repaid for its loyalty with 17.5% of the stock for $10 billion of unsecured debts.

So the government, with roughly two times what private bondholders have on the table, gets a stake five times bigger. And the union, with about a third as much "invested," gets a 70% bigger stake. Even the Canadian government, with its $9.5 billion "invested," ends up with 12%.

They call it "restructuring." We call it theft. Never in our memory has there been a more thorough, systematic effort to disenfranchise the shareholders and bondholders of a major American firm.

Then they move to the more important issue:

But our real issue with this isn't that people will lose money. It's that we don't believe the government's actions are even legal.

The White House has basically been manipulating GM into bankruptcy since early this year, putting 31-year-old Brian Deese, a Yale law student, in charge of GM's restructuring. "It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism," the New York Times said with tongue in cheek (we think).

It used to be that the "rules of American capitalism" came from 200 years of U.S. case law, the Constitution and legitimate federal regulation. But no more. Instead, the job's been given to someone not yet out of law school. This shows shocking contempt for GM, once the world's pre-eminent industrial company, for American capitalism and the rule of law. [emphasis added]

Exactly so. Obama and his administration are well down the road of moving from a nicer version of the Mussolini government of Fascist Italy of the 1920s to being an exact duplicate.