Today was a sad day. Saying goodbye to co-workers who are now out of work. It is much harder to be left behind, I think, than to be the one leaving (I've been the one leaving before). They left early, this afternnoon, and I realized -- though I knew in my head that I'd be the only one left in our department -- how very alone I was going to be for a while. I'm used to bantering with them throughout the day, sharing funny or awful calls. More radio and Pandora I guess to fill in the vacuum.
I took the boys for a run after work. Just waiting now for Steve to get home, have dinner, watch The First 48 and then hopefully finish the Tremayne book.
Hagel's Disastrous Hearing Ought to Make 'No' Vote a No-Brainer
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has vindicated his critics thus far
today in his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Service
Committee for the post of Secretary of Defense. He has stumbled in
attempting to explain his positions on Iran, nuclear disarmament,
Israel, the Iraq "surge," and the "Jewish lobby." He has failed to
explain contradictions between his voting record and his past statements
on the one hand, and the positions he professes today on the other.
Even liberals and supporters of Hagel are openly lamenting his poor performance.
It is clear that Hagel's success is critically important to the Obama
administration, which seems to have guided his pre-hearing visits with
Senate critics and Jewish organizations, and used the Pentagon to lobby
hard for his confirmation. The opening statement by two former Senate
Armed Services Committee chairs, the bipartisan duo of Sam Nunn (D-GA)
and John Warner (R-VA), was well orchestrated--though Warner's
prediction that Hagel's own opening statement would answer every
objection may have set expectations he could not possibly meet.
It is precisely because this nomination is so important to the White
House, and the radical foreign policy it wishes to assert, that Hagel is
still likely to win confirmation. The vote will not be about Hagel; it
will be about Obama, and the current crop of Democrats has shown little
will to dissent from the presidential line. But there is no way,
partisan loyalty aside, that any reasonable person could watch Hagel's
performance and still vote "yes." His past service may qualify him for
many high government positions. Secretary of Defense--clearly--is not
one of them.
The Chicago teen who was killed days after performing in President Obama's inauguration may have simply been in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Chicago's superintend says, calling the shooting a matter of "mistaken identity." The shooting, police believe, was part of a turf war among gangs, but Hadiya Pendleton had no gang links--nor, it appears, did any of those with her that day. The gunman, however, seemed to confuse the group with gang members.
This tragic story just got worse. But it's a story that can't be used
to score political points by the gun-control fanatics in Congress and
in the national press. So, the mainstream media that has virtually
ignored the daily carnage in the city of Chicago can now go back to
looking the other way. http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/01/31/Hey-Media-Chicago-Teen-s-Shooting-Called-Gang-War-Mistake
PK'S NOTE: This isn't a "glitch". Trust me, this is intentional; they want everyone on the government's "plan." Hey, why don't we repeal Obamacare and do it right - not the everyone-must-be-covered plan but the competitive-across-state-lines-insurance-that lowers-prices idea?
Some families to be priced out of health overhaul
Some families could get priced out of health
insurance due to what's being called a glitch in President Barack
Obama's overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the
problem as liberal backers of the president's plan had hoped.
As a result, some families that can't afford the employer coverage
that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial
assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their
own. How many people will be affected is unclear.
The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress
wrote the law. Officials said the administration tried to mitigate the
impact. Families that can't get coverage because of the glitch will not
face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured, the IRS rules said.
"This is a very significant problem, and we have urged that it be
fixed," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an
advocacy group that supported the overhaul from its early days. "It is
clear that the only way this can be fixed is through legislation and not
the regulatory process."
But there's not much hope for an immediate fix from Congress, since
the House is controlled by Republicans who would still like to see the
whole law repealed.
The affordability glitch is one of a series of problems coming into sharper focus as the law moves to full implementation.
Starting Oct. 1, many middle-class uninsured will be able to sign up
for government-subsidized private coverage through new health care
marketplaces known as exchanges. Coverage will be effective Jan. 1.
Low-income people will be steered to expanded safety-net programs. At
the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry health
insurance, either through an employer, a government program, or by
buying their own plan.
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, an advocacy group for
children, cited estimates that close to 500,000 children could remain
uninsured because of the glitch. "The children's community is
disappointed by the administration's decision to deny access to coverage
for children based on a bogus definition of affordability," Lesley said
in a statement.
The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable.
Congress said affordable coverage can't cost more than 9.5 percent of
family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot
get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that
restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.
Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to
the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his
or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an
individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times
higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
So if the employer isn't willing to chip in for family premiums _ as
most big companies already do _ some families will be out of luck. They
may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they'd be
locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law.
Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn't try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.
"They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the
law provides," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National
Retail Federation.
You've probably heard the old joke about how the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a federal agency,
but the latest ATF screw up in Wisconsin proves they aren't even
capable of doing that properly. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on
an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee's Riverwest neighborhood,
offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug
paraphernalia. Those working behind the counter, however, weren't interested in selling anything. They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting
criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from
felons. But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a
gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures,
including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the
streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen
from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found. When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents
and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out
the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents. And the agency remains locked in a battle with the building's owner,
who says he is owed about $15,000 because of utility bills, holes in the
walls, broken doors and damage from an overflowing toilet. The sting resulted in charges being filed against about 30 people,
most for low-level drug sales and gun possession counts. But agents had
the wrong person in at least three cases. In one, they charged a man who
was in prison - as a result of an earlier ATF case - at the time agents
said he was selling drugs to them. Other cases reveal that the agency's operation was paying such high
prices that some defendants bought guns from stores such as Gander
Mountain and sold them to the agents for a quick profit. The mistakes by
agents are troubling and suggest a lack of planning and oversight,
according to veterans of the ATF, who learned about the operation from
the Journal Sentinel. The newspaper combed through police reports, court
documents, social media and materials left behind by the ATF, all of
which provide a rare view inside an undercover federal operation.
No wonder the Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. is telling people to learn how to protect themselves, after all, ATF just lost track of
an automatic machine gun which ended up in the hands of criminals in a
city where crime is a huge problem. It should be noted that for a
regular citizen to own any type of automatic firearm lawfully, they must
go through extensive background checks, pay a ton of fees, give up
their Fourth Amendment rights so ATF can come to their home or business
at any point to do an inspection and if they get approved (which many people do not), they must keep their registration papers for the firearm with them at all times. ATF is the agency in charge of enforcing President Obama's 23 new
executive actions and the people who will enforce any new gun control
measures passed through Congress. What could go wrong? Oh just about everything. After Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice and ATF
have zero credibility when it comes to enforcing gun laws and this
situation just further proves that point. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/31/atf-royally-screws-up-again-n1502004
Complaint: Sebelius’ illegal campaign trip for Obama worse than we thought
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated
federal law by campaigning for President Obama on the taxpayers’ dime,
but now that initial violation has the Democratic National Committee and
an HHS aide in the spotlight for related alleged infractions.
A nonprofit government watchdog filed a complaint alleging that
the DNC violated campaign finance law by misreporting the money it spent
to reimburse HHS for Sebelius’ trip in a way that masked the fact that
the Hatch Act, a ban on political campaigning by government employees
working in their official capacity, had been violated.
“The DNC described the purpose of the expenditure as simply as
‘travel,’ thereby avoiding any acknowledgement that the purpose of the
expenditure was to reimburse the federal government for Secretary
Sebelius’ Hatch Act violation,” Cause of Action explained in a complaint
to the Federal Elections Commission.
If the DNC had described properly the expenditures, which were paid
out in April and August of 2012, it would have implicitly admitted that
the law had been broken even before the Office of Special Counsel
concluded its investigation into Sebelius’ trip to North Carolina, where
she spoke at the Human Rights Campaign Gala. Sebelius attended the gala
on official business, but added extemporaneous remarks in support of
President Obama and a Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
“Not only is it that the DNC is not being transparent about what it’s
using its funds for reimbursement of, but it’s also violating the
intent and letter of the Federal Elections Campaign Act,” Cause of
Action’s Dan Epstein said in a phone interview with The Washington Examiner.
“Whether it’s to cover up the Hatch Act violation or to just not
properly report it, it’s very clear that it’s not properly reported —
[for] the reason why, one would have to look into the minds of the
lawyers at the DNC.”
Epstein floated the idea that the DNC reimbursed HHS (rather than the
Treasury Department) and classified it as travel, rather than as a
reimbursement for an independent expenditure in order to avoid the
appearance that the Treasury Department had effectively loaned money to
the Obama campaign for the trip (which would be another violation of
federal law, he said).
Cause of Action also noted another wrinkle: HHS’ reclassification of
the trip as a campaign trip means that A.J. Pearlman, the adviser who
traveled to the event with Sebelius, also violated the Hatch Act.
“That assistant’s participation in the event in North Carolina would
in fact be a Hatch Act violation,” Cause of Action said in another
complaint to the Office of Special Counsel.
Cause of Action blamed Obama and Sebelius for compromising Pearlman.
“The consequence here is that A.J. Pearlman is thrown under the bus by
Sebelius. Sebelius asked the DNC to reimburse HHS for A.J. Pearlman’s
activities, which basically [means] A.J. Pearlman violated the Hatch
Act, which means A.J. Pearlman needs to be disciplined, most likely
fired,” Epstein explained. “Even though she didn’t intend to engage in
any political activity, she was just doing what she was told.”
An OSC spokesperson said it could not comment on the Hatch Act complaint, due to privacy laws. http://washingtonexaminer.com/complaint-sebelius-illegal-campaign-trip-for-obama-worse-than-we-thought/article/2520096
PK'S NOTE: This is why the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and needs to be removed:
Bernanke's cattle drives
Ben
Bernanke is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He controls
the cost of money. When you control the cost of money, i.e. interest
rates, you control the evaluation of all assets measured by that
currency.
He
has furthered his powers ala the emergency in the crisis of 2008. He
has ignored portions of the Federal Reserve mandate and created his own,
all without concern or oversight from the elected representatives of
the country.
#1 pursuit of maximum employment, #2 stable prices, and #3 moderate long-term interest rates
Mr.
Bernanke has chosen to ignore the third mandate of moderate interest
rates. That mandate was included in the mission statement for specific
purposes. The wisdom of this guidance seems to have been ignored.
Moderate interest rates give value to the currency thus defending its
stature. Moderate interest rates encourage savings and thus buffer
against bad times. A nation is not healthy when the majority of citizens
are two pay checks away from broke.
Moderate rates also deter irresponsible borrowing and in the case of government, irresponsible spending. His
new self-authored mandate is to encourage inflation. 2.5% is the
target. Nowhere in the Federal Reserve mission statement is there a
mention of inflation as a goal of the Federal Reserve.
Ronald
Reagan once said " there is nothing more permanent than a temporary
government program." Well Bernanke has added some weight to that
observation. Apparently there is nothing so permanent as a temporary
monetary emergency action. Ask the Japanese. That which was first seen
by the Fed as an emergency response to a financial crisis in '08 has now
somehow become the fountain of wealth for the Wall Street crowd and a
necessity. They have the nod and the wink from the Fed that the punch
bowl will stay full.
Bernanke's
fake rates have created fake evaluations and misallocations of capital.
The cattle drive of the previous decade into real estate is vaguely
similar to this stock market
rise. The new cattle drive is to run to the market and secure that 2%
dividend in lieu of lending money to the government at .015% short term
and 2% for ten years. The folly here is that people and trading models
will risk $100 in capital to secure $2 a year in return.
We now have computer models throwing money at the stock market
to capture that modicum of dividend income. Bernanke has inadvertently
set the trap. With interest rate artificially set via Fed support of
weekly auctions and by monthly purchases of unwanted mortgage paper,
interest rate levels are arguably 2.5% below historically market driven
levels.
Record low interest rates. Record high stock prices
"All asset evaluations are false when the cost of money is false." (Anonymous)
If rates revert back to reality, the dividend players will pay dearly.
Bernanke
seems to intentionally disregard his mandate of moderate interest
rates. Zero and record lows are not moderate by any definition. He is
mandated, just as he is to maximize employment, to also maintain moderate (read fair) return on money.
When
the cost of money is artificial, all that is measured by that money is
also artificial. A few more down ticks in the dollar and Bernanke will
be seen in a different light.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/bernankes_cattle_drives.html Obama Operatives Training Media How to Sell Obamacare
The Old Media is getting a little help from team Obama on how to report about Obamacare the "correct" way.
To achieve that goal, Obama operatives are setting up propaganda
symposiums for journalists and giving large cash donations to journalism
associations to help spread Obama's word.
This Obamacare propaganda campaign seriously blurs the line between
government and "journalism" and seems to be a blatant attempt by team
Obama to write the media's Obamacare stories for them.
Rusty Weiss recently discusseda series of large donations made to the Society of American Business
Editors and Writers (SABEW), the latest of which was donated expressly
for the purpose of relaying the left-wing agenda on Obamacare.
The Commonwealth Fund has long been a backer of Obamacare and is staffed by Obama operatives. The organization has been cited
for repeatedly downplaying any ills that Obama's healthcare proposals
might cause and playing up only the positive aspects of the law.
Despite its complete obeisance to Obama's policies, we see a
"journalist" organization taking money from the group in order to push
the group's Obamacare propaganda.
Not all journalists are so taken with the whole effort, though. When earlier donations From Commonwealth Fund to the SABEW came to light
in 2010, one journalist expressed his shock, saying, "I may be wrong,
but this sounds like a program to teach reporters to write supportive
stories about the health care reform law."
Pursuant to satisfying the latest Obamacare-pushing grant, the SABEW
sponsored a symposium meant to "help" journalists "understand" how
Obamacare should be written about for public consumption.
The symposium was targeted to a select group of journalists from
such news outlets as Reuters, Money Magazine, MarketWatch, the Dallas
Morning News, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
The event began with an address by former Obama administration member
Sherry Glied. Completely erasing any pretense that the event was
impartial, the SABEW also stocked its discussion panels with members of
Commonwealth Fund and other Obama operatives.
The symposium had such helpful presentations
as one that helped reporters with "targeting messages." Then there was
Rachel Klein's PowerPoint presentation that told reporters that
uninsured Americans "don't know the health reform law will help them."
She went on to inform reporters on how great Obamacare was for
Americans.
Klein is the executive director of a left-wing group called Enroll America, a group whose main purpose is to "enroll" people in Obamacare. Klein's group also proudly counts as its close advisers the National Council of La Raza, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and others.
The symposium was all so blatant that even former SABEW president Rob
Reuteman was forced to admit that it was all a bit too cosy, if not
entirely unethical, to have Obama's operatives instructing the media on
how they should "report" on Obamacare.
President Obama has
gone around Congress in as many ways as he can find. One way is by abusing the
presidential power to make appointments to government positions during a Senate
recess—to avoid having the Senate confirm the nominees.
Last week, a
three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt quite a blow: It
ruled that a number of President Obama’s “recess appointments” were
invalid.
As Todd Gaziano, director of Heritage’s Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies, said: “Our unilateral president must take his unilateral
medicine.”
To sidestep opposition in the Senate, the President declared these
to be “recess” appointments, invoking his prerogative to fill vacancies without
Senate confirmation when that body is not in session. The action was roundly
criticized on the grounds that although the Senate was not actively conducting
legislative business, it was formally still in session.
The
judges said that President Obama made the appointments during an invalid
“recess,” and that recess appointments cannot be made unless the position
becomes vacant during the Senate’s valid recess. This brings up huge questions
for all the appointees who have now been declared invalid—and the regulations
they have created during their time in office.
There’s the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), which had two members appointed in this way. Gaziano notes that “13 months’ worth of rulings, regulations, and
other actions by the NLRB are now in question, because without the illegal
recess appointments the NLRB lacked a quorum to act during all that
time.”
And then there’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),
whose director, Richard Cordray, was another of these invalid appointments. The
bureau has been regulating away for the past year, but Gattuso writes that “the
new rules adopted by the CFPB under Cordray will likely be
invalidated.”
Gattuso describes the CFPB as “perhaps the least
accountable entity in the federal government”—so this is good news.
The odds are that this imbroglio will stall the CFPB’s regulatory
agenda for some time. That, however, is no bad thing for consumers. The rules
adopted by the CFPB, by limiting lender activity, decrease options for consumers
and increase costs for mortgages and other loans. Reining them in could actually
be a boon for consumer welfare.
There’s a reason the Senate is
supposed to confirm these nominees—and in the case of the CFPB, the agency
itself merits closer scrutiny. The judges’ decision is a welcome check on
Obama’s abuses of power.
Here’s a list of rules for the GOP to consider if it wants to
win another presidency in the 21st century, according to S.E. Cupp.
Republicans still reeling from the November elections and fiscal cliff
negotiations that left them with a bruising 43:1 ratio of revenue to the
cuts they sought might be in the mood for some payback.
But before they prepare to go to the mattresses, it might behoove GOP
leadership to take a moment to look inward. There’s a reason President
Obama won re-election despite a sputtering economy and a failed record
of broken promises. And, there’s a reason the Republican brand has
suffered. It has little if nothing to do with our ideas: conservative
values—like limited government, gun rights and life—are still very
popular. But if we want to win another presidency in the 21st century, I suggest we consider the following new rules going forward:
Democrats aren’t the Visigoths. We won’t attract voters by convincing
them liberals are terrible people. Conservatism has an uplifting message
that we need to articulate, explain and promote at every opportunity.
And smile more often—voters will be far less terrified of us if we don’t
look like we want to eat their children.
Banish the “O” word. Conservatives must stop explaining conservatism
based on everything Obama is not. Our policies exist apart from the
president and apart from Democrats. Let’s try to explain them without
referencing the Left.
Disregard the shiny object. Celebrities are fun, sure. But they’re
also, for the most part, morons. Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight and whomever
else offers to help our cause will not be foisted on the American
people as spokespeople for the movement. Except in very rare cases,
they’re reckless, they’re unserious, and they’re bad communicators.
Don’t endorse stupid. The Todd Akins of the party cannot be coddled,
excused or funded. Strong opinions on abortion, gay marriage and other
social issues are welcome, but junk science is not.
Vet like we mean it. You don’t get to run for office (with the full
support of the party) just because you exist. The party needs to vet
candidates more thoroughly and with the express understanding that even
small state campaigns are national opportunities.
Populate the airwaves. All of them. Conservatives can’t keep talking in
a vacuum on Fox News and right-wing radio. We need fresh, new voices to
articulate our messages on MSNBC, CNN, “The Daily Show,” Bill Maher,
“The View” and everywhere else. Young, diverse thought leaders who are
media savvy and watchable should be booked on unorthodox outlets, not
just the ones deemed safe and friendly. Get a new ruler. The question isn’t do we move further to the Right or
toward the center. We need to represent both ends of the conservative
spectrum and everything in between. We will not leave social
conservatives without a party, nor will we kick the moderates and
libertarians out. At every opportunity, we will gleefully boast to
voters that we are an intellectually diverse coalition.
Show and Tell. (But mostly Show). It isn’t enough to merely tell people
that conservative policies are better. We have to show them. We need to
look for microcosmic examples of conservatism in action—a successful
charter school; an entrepreneur with private-sector solutions to
public-sector problems; a philanthropic group solving a community
concern. These are our success stories. Make them famous.
Get out of the Beltway. The same tired, old establishment voices have
been crafting party messaging for decades, and what worked 30 years ago
may not work today. Step outside once in a while, leave D.C., invite
younger thought leaders to the table and consider unorthodox ideas.
(Unless they are Newt Gingrich’s.)
Do not malign aggrieved parties. Minorities, women, gays, immigrants
and anyone else who didn’t vote for us this year aren’t the enemy.
They’re opportunities. Calling them ignorant and lazy won’t endear them
to us. Show them how conservative ideas can make their lives better, not
how they are making our lives worse.
Unicorns aren’t real, but bipartisanship is. Treating agreement like
it’s a mythical creature is an opportunity squandered. We should look
for bipartisan solutions to poverty, education and immigration, and
remember that solving problems is the point of politics. Political
argument is not an end in itself.
These new rules might be painful to read, and they will be hard to
implement, but our party made some serious missteps over the past four
years. Let’s not repeat them.
Few are the men and women in American public life who haven't heard Mr. Dooley's famous aphorism: "Politics ain't beanbag." John Boehner,
currently serving out his community service as speaker of the House,
appears to have been meditating on Mr. Dooley's cautionary wisdom. At
the Ripon Society last week he said the Obama administration was trying "to annihilate the Republican Party."
Better late than never, Speaker Boehner
now sees that Barack Obama's notion of political competition is Mad Max
inside the Thunderdome: "Two men enter, one man leaves.
"Last week during the president's second
inaugural address, if one can employ that hallowed phrase to describe
this speech, Mr. Obama used the occasion to defend entitlement programs
by whacking his defeated presidential opponent: "They do not make us a
nation of takers."
This was
the second time Mr. Obama used a traditionally elevated forum to take
down his opposition. His 2010 State of the Union speech will be
remembered in history for nothing other than an attack on members of the
Supreme Court seated before him. Justice Samuel Alito's whispered "Not
true" would prove a prophetic comment on the Obama modus operandi.
Subsequent targets of the president's
contempt have included the members of Congress's deficit-reduction
supercommittee, the Ryan budget ("antithetical to our entire history"),
repeated attacks on the "well off" and bankers, and famously a $100
million dump-truck of vilification on Mitt Romney.
When he won, the rationalization was
that it was all a shrewd if brutal campaign strategy. But it kept
coming. What is striking about the Obama technique is that it's not so
much criticism as something closer to political obliteration, driving
his opposition out of the political arena altogether.
After the inaugural speech, Obama
communications director Dan Pfeiffer said that Democrats don't have "an
opposition party worthy of the opportunity." Even among the president's
supporters, one is hard put now to find anyone who doesn't recognize
that Mr. Obama's original appeal to hope and change has given way to
search and destroy.
Conventional wisdom holds that these
unorthodox tactics are a mistake, that he's going to need GOP support on
immigration and such. And by now it's conventional wisdom that when our
smiling president transforms into Mr. Hyde he is merely channeling Saul
Alinsky, deploying the tactics of community-organizing campaigns, the
only operational world he knew before this.
The real pedigree, though, is a lot heavier than community organizing in Chicago.
Speaking last Saturday, Rep. Paul Ryan
said that for Barack Obama to achieve his goals, "he needs to
delegitimize the Republican Party." Annihilate, delegitimize—it's the
same thing. The good news is that John Boehner and Paul Ryan recognize
that their relationship with this White House is not as partners in
anything. They are prey.
Back in 1965, when American politics
watched the emergence of the New Left movement—rebranded today as
"progressives"—a famous movement philosopher said the political left
should be "liberated" from tolerating the opinions of the
opposition:"Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against
movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."
That efficient strategy was the work of
Herbert Marcuse, the political theorist whose ideas are generally
credited with creating the basis for campus speech codes. Marcuse said,
"Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed,
certain policies cannot be proposed." Marcuse created political
correctness.
But let's talk about Marcuse in the
here and now. He also proposed the withdrawal of toleration "from groups
and movements . . . which oppose the extension of public services,
social security, medical care, etc." Barack Obama in his "gloves-off" news
conference Jan. 14: "They have suspicions about Social Security. They
have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in
poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money
on medical research."
Marcuse called this "the systematic
withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions."
That, clearly, is what President Obama—across his first term, the
presidential campaign and now—has been doing to anyone who won't line up
behind his progressivism. Delegitimize their ideas and opinions.
A Marcusian world of political
intolerance became a reality on U.S. campuses. With relentless pushing
from the president, why couldn't it happen in American political life?
Welcome to the Thunderdome.
The original argument for the Obama
presidency was that this was a new, open-minded and liberal man intent
on elevating the common good. No one believes that now. This will be a
second term of imposition. As he said in the inaugural: "Preserving our
individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action." That is
Marcusian.
If the opposition is looking for one word to shape its role now, it would be this: Dissent.
Earlier this month, Geraldo Rivera asked a caller: "How could you not trust your own government?"
Putting aside big and little episodes of untrustworthy government in the history of this country like the Trail of
Tears, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, Kent State,
Waco, Fast and Furious, and the Benghazi Coverup, Rivera implies the
burden of proof lies with the skeptical citizen when it comes to trust.
But his question only diverts our attention. The issue isn't the
relative peace in the body politic at this instant. The question Geraldo
asks really goes to the heart of the very nature of our government.
History
is full of governments that ran sufficiently amok that they become a
mortal danger to their own citizens. Such governments did not last.
Indeed, the last century was so full of episodes of different
governments murdering their own citizens by deliberate official policy
that it spawned a new word: democide. Many
in the media and academia who largely reject American Exceptionalism
want us to believe instead that our government is exceptional in light
of the history of governments. In how easily they dismiss the Second
Amendment as being obsolete, they are telling us that there are no
circumstances whatsoever in which some future American government would
ever turn feral. They are willing to stake the lives of their children
and grandchildren on that assertion.
Certainly people want a trustworthy and competent government. But it concerns me that more than one member of the president's inner circle has
publicly praised China's Mao, a man responsible for the brutal deaths
of over 40 million Chinese citizens. I am shocked that a close advisor to
the president has favorably quoted Mao's warning that [political] power
comes from the barrel of a gun. It is chilling to see a Mao-themed ornament on a White House Christmas tree, or the number of supporters of this administration who also voice approval of the murderous Che Guevara. It is incongruous that a man who was a leader of a group of radical socialists who contemplated murdering 25 million Americans should they reject postrevolutionary ideological reeducation is now a frequent visitor to the White House.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is busy stockpiling two billion rounds of
hollow point pistol ammunition. The very government that Geraldo
implies we must trust is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a
contingency plan that cannot be explained by any current trends. The
shocking implied question is not only who does DHS intent to shoot, but
under what circumstances? Even if this plan devoted 100 rounds to each
anticipated target, two billion rounds implies violent action by
government against 20 million of its 310 million citizens. Is this the
same 20 or so million the Weather Underground leader who now visits the
White House anticipated needing to eliminate?
How
should we rationally evaluate these facts? As disconnected random
coincidences or as a glimpse of the plans of those in power and those
who cheer them on? As long as the relationship between public servants
and the public they serve is healthy, then we all can enjoy the
blessings of liberty, which was the core reason the federal government
was formed over 200 years ago.
But what happens when the public servant starts to think he is the public master instead?
Nobody
can predict how a future government might endanger our own descendants
by running amok. For example, what social, political, or legal forces
exist today that would stop another Trail of Tears that were not
sufficient to stop it the first time? Certainly firearms aren't the
answer to every outrage, or even most. Even though we are all civilized
and strive to be peaceful and polite to everyone, we cannot allow the
precious right to keep and bear arms to be crippled with my generation,
any more than we could allow the right of free speech to be crippled.
Our future grandchildren might curse us for neglecting to preserve the
very tools they might need most during some urgent crisis in their
lives, even though no learned member of the news media could possibly
envision such a thing at this moment.
"...the
use of violence is justified only under a tyranny which makes reforms
without violence impossible, and it should have only one aim, that is,
to bring about a state of affairs which make reforms without violence
possible."
Can a
government whose bureaucracy carefully hoards 2 billion rounds of
ammunition in a country of some 310 million citizens be trusted to plan
to implement "reforms" without violence? Only oppressive socialist
governments attempt such agendas. It is more commonly called
"reeducation." How does Geraldo's question relate to such a plan, indeed
to a government potentially with this manner of plan? Because it is not
the duty of any democratic government to reform citizens, is the
rational "contingency" being planned for that too many citizens will
refuse to comply with government edicts that are yet to be made public?
Americans
reached this point at one time in the history of the land they settled
when the edicts of the government of England became too injurious and
offensive at too many levels. Are we, who always put on our seat belts
lest we have a crash, and avoid trans-fats lest we get clogged arteries,
who always brush and floss, and who always do so many other things to
avoid all the little and rare risks of life, are we not going to think
for one moment that the government we depend upon to do its job competently, will never acquire a different attitude about what its job
is and who is in charge? That government could never have an
authoritarian seizure, or tell us one thing when its leaders intend on
something entirely different, or even decide that it had the power to
sterilize or assassinate its own citizens, or just take their children
away for flimsy reasons or think it actually needed to use some of
those rounds it is stockpiling -- that this could never, ever happen in
all history to come?
I
find it ironic that a British subject, in the form of a smug CNN
anchor, is artfully scolding and lecturing American guests on his show
about their support for the right to keep and bear arms. I recall a time
when the finest award-winning journalists of their time, like the New York Time's
own Walter Duranty, could not bring themselves to report that Stalin
was deliberately starving millions of Ukrainian farmers to death as an
act of government policy. Did Duranty and the Times choose to
dissemble because they believed they were serving a higher cause at the
time? Do members of the media lie about firearms because they are
serving a higher cause today? And when some future government they
support runs wild and thousands (or millions) die, how will the media
report it? The same way they glowingly talk about the exploits of Che
Guevara or Bill Ayers, whom they tell us is just a neighbor of the
current president?
In related news, the UK Telegraph carried a story on January 25, 2013 concerning Google Earth satellite
photos of North Korea's vast system of political prison camps and
prison cities. The paper reports, "Inmates -- who can be imprisoned for
life, along with three generations of their families, for anything
deemed to be critical of the regime -- are forced to survive by eating
rats and picking corn kernels out of animal waste..." And Israel National News reports that
a new exhibit opened at Yad Vashem to mark 2013 Holocaust Memorial Day:
"...the exhibit represents only an example of more than 71,000 items
donated by thousands of people over the last two years as a way of
perpetuating the memory of relatives who perished during the
Holocaust...."
"The idea that enforcing the law is
racist has become a pervasive pattern in liberal America. The most
obvious example is the left’s bullying take on illegal immigration, in
which they label anyone who wants to police the southern border a bigot.
Now, obviously there’s nothing racist about opposing illegal
immigration. For the love of God, it’s illegal immigration. You
can have a ton of sympathy for the poor unfortunates who risk their
lives to cross the American border—I fully understand and sympathize
with people who simply want to escape the current drug cartel regime
cesspool in favor of the beacon of hope that is America. But that
doesn’t mean that the United States can afford to continue to usher
across its borders people who don’t pay into the system yet do reap the
benefits of our generous social services."
'At approximately 12:15 p.m. today, the Senate will vote on Sen. Rand
Paul's (R-Ky) amendment stopping the "sale, lease, transfer,
re-transfer, or delivery of F-16 aircraft, M1 tanks, and similar
military equipment to the Egyptian government."'
"Our
nation is in crisis. The Obama administration is centralizing power at a
level unmatched in American history with grave consequences for our
future liberty and freedom. Of that there is not much debate among
conservatives. Conservatives, however, are always waiting for the next
Ronald Reagan, wondering if Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan or someone will win
in 2016 and save the country from Obama. This is a fool's errand. Rubio
and Ryan are fine men, good leaders and very important for our cause.
But they can't save our Republic. There is no "one" and we need to stop
looking to the next federal election to solve our problems."
"Congresswoman
Ros-Lehtinen is hopeful that the American people will demand
accountability by this administration and force them to find those
responsible. Unfortunately, as Clinton showed during her Congressional
testimony, this administration appears to be getting away with
murder. The bottom line is that Benghazi represented gross negligence, a
lack of leadership within the State Department, and the denial of
available resources. Why? Because they chose to tout their narrative
that terrorism is under control, misleading the American people who have
pivoted from this incident."
My first call of the day was returning a voice mail from probably last evening. I called shortly after 8 and asked for the patient .... and was informed she had died this morning. Only in her 40s. That put a wonk on the day.
I had a dermatology appointment for my psoriasis outbreak. New goop to use. Oh boy. Have a checkup in two weeks.
It started snowing this afternoon ... it is slicker than snot out there. I wish Steve didn't have to be at the gun range tonight. But it is supposed to be in the 40s on Friday.
I'm having a cuppa tea right now and will head in soon to read in bed. Tomorrow is the last day for over 30 employees at work. I'm sure it will be a little weird.
Yesterday, Breitbart News reported that consumer confidence had dropped to its lowest level
in almost two years. Much of the media spun the number as the result of
a payroll tax increase that hit millions who were repeatedly told by
Obama that only the rich would see their taxes increase. Surprise! But
the spin didn't explain why consumer confidence had steadily dropped
during the months prior. Well, now we know: The American economy has taken a nosedive.
For the first time in over three years,
the U.S. Gross Domestic Product shrank. Between October and December of
2012, the GDP had a negative growth of 0.1. And let's remember that
this is the same quarter where we saw the media go into hyper-drive to
spin Obama's anemic job and GDP growth into a repeat of the Roaring
Twenties.
The problem with the American economy
is that Obama and his media can't fool it. Happy talk and spin and
distractions about contraception don’t create jobs or growth. You might
be able to fool legions of people into voting a certain way, but you
can't fool them into spending and hiring and investing.
Apparently, though, the media and Obama have managed to fool themselves. Even the Wall Street Journal calls today's news "unexpected."
And anyone who watched Obama's Inauguration speech knows that his
failed economy and the millions suffering in it are either not on his
radar or of no concern whatsoever. Obama spoke of many things, but not
the economy. He's in a war to win the culture, not to win anyone a job
to lift them out of poverty.
The media is just as bad. The biggest
story in our country today should be the increase in poverty and an
unemployment crisis so dire our labor force has shrunk to thirty-year
lows. But neither will speak of it. We do, however, know all about some
idiot and his phony girlfriend. We know all about a "heckle'' that didn’t happen. One wonders which is the bread and which is the circus.
The pickle both Obama and the media
have put themselves in, though, is this: If either makes the economy a
priority, that's an admission Obama's economy is in trouble. And so we
find ourselves in a situation we've seen in other countries where the
state and media have aligned -- a situation where we're told a bad
economy is a good economy, and the victims of this propaganda are those
suffering in a bad economy no one wants to admit exists.
Already the media's spinning this GDP
report in a way that says our economy tanked because the government
didn’t spend enough. That's right, annual trillion dollar deficits for
as far as the eye can see, but the media push to protect the State from
blame and to use this terrible news as a way to further grow the State,
is already on.
NBC's Chief White House
Correspondent, Chuck Todd, just assured America this was a one-time
economic anomaly and that prosperity is right around the corner. If a
job had been created every time a member of Obama's media said this,
we'd have full employment today.
With the election now over, it is once again safe to talk
about the economy and jobs. Now that it is not a campaign issue, it’s
back to reality.
Still in Democrat-supportive campaign mode, Williams then introduced a report
by correspondent Harry Smith about how “the idea that manufacturing in
America is dead … is an outright falsehood.” Mary Andringa, president
and CEO of Iowa manufacturer Vermeer Corporation and then-board chair at the National Association of Manufacturers, told Smith:
What’s really outstanding is the fact that in 2010, the
U.S. had an output of $4.8 trillion of manufactured goods. That was up
from $4.1 (trillion) in 2000 — and we’ve been through two recessions in
the past decade.
That is undoubtedly an impressive achievement which should not be discounted. But then Smith delivered the kicker:
Five million manufacturing jobs were lost in the U.S. in
the last decade. But new jobs have been created too, and believe it or
not, many manufacturers in the U.S. are looking for help.
This highlights two problems. The first, which is that our
educational system and culture are not preparing enough people for the
jobs which need to be filled, is self-evident to anyone with open eyes.
The second, despite the unfilled positions just noted, is even more
important: unlike what occurred after every other post-World War II
downturn, not enough new jobs are currently being created to make up for
the ones being lost. The new companies and entire industries which have
always emerged and generated enough new jobs to replace those lost as a
result of increased productivity in existing industries aren’t
appearing at a rate necessary to reduce unemployment to an acceptable
level.
Why not?
At the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press,
the post-election search for an explanation clearly had two important
constraints. First: do not blame the Obama administration or the federal
government for anything. Second: find something to blame which appears
to be plausible and can’t be immediately refuted.
Surprised? U.S. Economy Shrinks — and See What the White House Blames
For its part, the White House says the
downturn is because of — wait for it — Hurricane Sandy, because
apparently that’s still an excuse.
“Both international trade flows and
inventory accumulation could have been affected by disruptions caused by
Hurricane Sandy, although a precise estimate of the effect of the
hurricane on GDP is not available,” said Alan B. Krueger, the Chairman
of the Council of Economic Advisers in a statement.
“Nonetheless, the BEA reported that
Hurricane Sandy destroyed $44 billion worth of fixed capital, which
indicates one of the storm’s significant economic effects,” he adds.
He said spending cuts are also to blame for the decrease.
“A likely explanation for the sharp
decline in Federal defense spending is uncertainty concerning the
automatic spending cuts that were scheduled to take effect in January,
and are currently scheduled to take effect on March 1st,” he said.
“The decline in government spending across all levels reduced real GDP by 1.33 percentage points in the quarter,” he adds.
Final Thought (via AEI’s James Pethokoukis):
As recently as its 2011 econ forecast, WH predicted 4.0% GDP growth in 2012, 4.5% in 2013, 4.2% in 2014.
PK'S NOTE: But wait, there's more. Ok, WHO'S been the president for the last FOUR YEARS? They NEVER take responsibility for a blessed thing.
White House: GOP responsible for economic slowdown
White House press secretary Jay Carney laid the blame for a surprise
economic contraction squarely at the feet of congressional Republicans
Wednesday, saying economic threats during the "fiscal cliff"
negotiations had prevented important defense spending.
"Our economy is facing a major headwinds, and that's Republicans in Congress," Carney said.The
Commerce Department projected Wednesday the nation's gross domestic
product (GDP) shrank by 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Carney said that was partially attributable to the threat of
sequestration, which would implement across-the-board spending cuts if a
long-term deficit deal is not reached.
"This is political
brinksmanship that results in one primary victim. That's American
taxpayers and the American middle class," Carney said.
Carney said
economic observers were "rightly appalled" by the threat of
sequestration or default to drive a debt deal, and charged that
Republicans were harming the economy to the benefit of the wealthiest
Americans.
"It can't be we'll let sequester kick in because we insist tax loopholes remain in place for corporate jet-owners," Carney said.
Republicans
have argued that dire threats are necessary to force Democrats to agree
to entitlement reforms and spending cuts. The Republican National
Committee on Wednesday circulated a document labeling Obama "President
-0.1%" and argued the GDP numbers were evidence the president's stimulus
plan had not worked.
The unexpected dip was the first time the
economy shrank since the 2009 economic depression, and came as a
surprise to economists, who had projected modest growth.
In a
statement posted Wednesday morning, Alan Krueger, Chairman of the White
House's Council of Economic Advisers said that reduced government
spending from the sequester and economic uncertainty stemming from the
"fiscal cliff" negotiations was likely to blame. Krueger also said
Hurricane Sandy likely disrupted significant economic activity.
"Although
GDP is the broadest measure of economic activity, other indicators of
economic performance suggest that the economy continued to recover in
the fourth quarter, despite the impact of Hurricane Sandy and
uncertainty surrounding fiscal issues," Krueger said.
Krueger and
other economic advisers pointed to a boost in personal income,
disposable income, and worker-hours to argue that the economy was likely
outperforming the initial estimate and would be revised upward.
"Moreover,
as the Administration stresses with each economic report, indicators of
economic performance can be volatile and are subject to substantial
revision," Krueger said. "The average absolute revision from the
'advance' estimate of real GDP growth to the most current data is 1.3
percentage points."
The decline also drew new questions about the
decision to delay, rather than eliminate, sequestration in the "fiscal
cliff" deal struck earlier this month. But despite that delay, defense
spending was cut to its lowest level in 40 years — evidence that
uncertainty over an eventual deal was preventing spending on new
projects. With the sequester delayed just two months, that drag
threatens to bleed into a second consecutive fiscal quarter.
The
White House has maintained that it wants to avoid the sequester. But
when asked Monday on whether the president was planning specific
meetings or events to address the topic, Carney said said he did not
have "any specifics" to provide.
"We believe that the right course
of action is to take steps to make sure that sequester doesn’t happen
because it’s bad for the economy and bad overall for the effort to
reduce our deficits in a reasonable way," Carney said Monday.
Judge: Immigration Agents Suing Obama Can Move Forward
A federal judge ruled that nearly a dozen federal immigration agents
can move forward with their lawsuit against their own bosses and even
President Obama over change in enforcement policy that the agents argue
prevent them from doing their jobs.
Federal Judge Reed O'Conner ruled on Friday Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents' case has legal merit. They argue their bosses
essentially have forced them to look the other way and not enforce the
law -- thus overstepping Congress by changing laws through directives
rather than legislation.
The state of Mississippi joined the lawsuit against the
administration but judge O'Conner dismissed the state from the lawsuit
on Friday in the 35-page opinion.
The agents filed the lawsuit in October against the head of the
Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, and ICE Director John
Morton, to ask the courts to overturn last year's directive by Obama to
suspend deportation proceedings and offer temporary work authorization
to some immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.
“We are very pleased with this ruling," said Kris Kobach, Kansas
Secretary of State who's representing the agents and is also widely
known as the author of strict immigration laws in Arizona and Kansas.
"It appears that the Obama Administration had hoped that no court
would ever review the legality of its executive amnesty," Kobach said.
Chris Crane, the president of ICE agents' union that initiated the
legal fight, accused the Obama administration of not even consulting
with agents when he made his policy change.
“We’ve repeatedly tried to work with the administration and they’ve
just excluded us from everything since day one,” Crane said on a
conference call with reporters announcing the lawsuit.
Crane went on to say that the new guidelines left agents powerless to
enforce immigration law because they had no way to distinguish who
qualifies for deferred deportation.
“The alien has no burden of proof to establish that claim,” Crane
said. “So we’re not enforcing the law anymore, we’re not enforcing the
policy. It’s pretty much just let everyone go.”
It seems those Occupy Wall Streeters were a lot closer to the 1 percent than they would like to admit. A
new study of the OWS movement in New York found that many of the
protesters were highly educated and not nearly as down on their luck as
they portrayed.
A third of protesters in the Occupy Wall Street
movement in New York lived in households earning more than $100,000 and
more than two- thirds were employed professionals, according to the
study from CUNY’s Joseph A. Murphy Institute for Worker Education and
Labor Studies.
The study also showed the movement was mostly
organized by experienced political operatives and nearly all of those
involved — 76 percent — were college educated.
Of those, half had graduate degrees and among those with bachelor’s degrees, and 28 percent had attended elite universities.
“Occupy
Wall Street was not a spontaneous eruption but rather an action
carefully planned by committed activists,” the study concluded.
Additionally, the study found that the protesters were also disproportionately men — 55 percent — and many were white.
“It’s
a pretty affluent demographic and highly educated,” said Professor Ruth
Milkman, one of the study’s authors. “Many were the children of the
elite, if you will.”
While they weren’t all homeless, many of the
under-30 crowd who participated in the movement were recently laid off
or underemployed, with nearly a quarter saying they work fewer than 35
hours a week.
“Most OWS activists and supporters were deeply
skeptical of the mainstream political system as an effective vehicle for
social change,” the study found.
About 750 protesters were surveyed for the study, which took about six months. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ows_is_exposed_YNtIaMcv6cToWt448kLQYO
A123 Sale Approved
Chinese firm buys bankrupt DOE-grant recipient, reportedly looking at Fisker
The sale of bankrupt electric-car battery maker A123 Systems to
Chinese firm Wanxiang America has been approved by the necessary
interagency panel. The Hill reports:
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) approved Wanxiang America’s purchase of A123 Systems’
automotive, energy storage, commercial and government operations for
$256.6 million. “The future is bright for A123. It is a company with exceptional
talent and potential, and Wanxiang America is committed to its long-term
success and the continuance of its U.S. operations,” Pin Ni, president
of Wanxiang America, said in a statement. CFIUS, an interagency panel led by the Treasury Department, has the
power to negate deals with foreign firms if they harm national security.
Some GOP lawmakers worried that was the case with the bid for Waltham,
Mass.-based A123, and they lobbied CFIUS to block the transaction.
Long troubled, A123 filed for bankruptcy in October 2012. The company had received $133 million of a $249 million grant from the Department of Energy, and received $1 million from the federal government the day it filed for bankruptcy. After security concerns arose among some Republicans about the sale, A123 sought a lobbying firm earlier this month while securing the sale to Wanxiang.
The effects of A123′s bankruptcy and sale are not isolated.
The company’s bankruptcy disrupted the production of DOE loan recipient and battery-powered carmaker Fisker Automotive, which used A123′s batteries. Fisker received $193 million in DOE loans; the original package was for $529 million, but was frozen by DOE in 2011.
Fisker leadership is reportedly considering a sale of the company,
and is seeking investors to either improve the prospects of that sale or
continue operation. Wanxiang is currently in talks with Fisker to
become an investor, the Wall Street Journal reported this week.
http://freebeacon.com/a123-sale-approved/
Fmr. Tester Staffer Heads to Pro-Tester Consultancy
A secretive Democratic consultancy is hiring one of Sen. Jon Tester’s
(D., Mont.) top campaign staffers after using a web of affiliated
groups to attack Tester’s 2012 challenger.
Hilltop Public Solutions, which has refused to answer questions about its ties to a number of liberal political groups,
will hire Aaron Murphy, a long-time Tester staffer and his 2012
campaign’s communications director, according to an emailed statement
from Hilltop partner Barrett Kaiser.
“Murphy was a top adviser to Tester for nearly seven years as the
senator’s communications director, chief spokesman and speechwriter,”
Kaiser’s email said. “In 2011 and 2012, Murphy oversaw communications,
press and social media on Tester’s successful and highly regarded U.S.
Senate campaign.”
Kaiser is Hilltop’s director of western operations, and works out of
the firm’s Billings, Mont., office. He is a former staffer for Sen. Max
Baucus (D., Mont.), and consulted for Tester’s 2006 campaign.
The move deepens the consultancy’s ties to the sitting Montana
senator. Hilltop actively engaged in Tester’s reelection fight through a
handful of AstroTurf groups. Kaiser himself filed Federal Election Commission paperwork for Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, the activist arm of a group credited with tipping the race in Tester’s favor by backing a spoiler Libertarian candidate.
Montana Hunters and Anglers, the group’s affiliated political action committee, listed Hilltop associate Joe Splinter as its treasurer.
The group ran at least two televisionads
hitting Rep. Denny Rehberg, Tester’s 2012 opponent, for supporting
legislation that would give the Department of Homeland Security some
authority over public land in the state.
Hilltop partner Jeremy Van Ess is listed
as an officer of another group that was active in the Montana Senate
race: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund. That group ran at
least three television ads and two radio ads attacking Rehberg.
Tester’s campaign echoed many of the attacks
from both the Hunters and Anglers and Citizens for Strength and
Security Fund ads, including charges that Rehberg violated a pledge to
refuse pay raises, voted to give the Department of Homeland Security
control over Montana land, and voted for the Patriot Act and Real ID
immigration legislation.
"A society of sheep begets a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel
In his short but profound work, The Ethics of Redistribution,
the 20th Century French Philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel uncovered the
ontological core of collectivism's ideological precepts. In the process,
he succeeded in ripping off the mask of altruism that accompanies all economic
structures that ultimately infringe upon human initiative and freedom
in service to a "benevolent and promethean" reordering of human affairs.
On the surface, it appears that confiscatory taxation and the
distribution of its proceeds are consistent with a theory of justice
that elevates "fairness" and demonizes the inequalities that arise from
unfettered markets. Yet Jouvenel, with stunning clarity, draws our
attention to the true locus of intent that a systematic revolution of economics portends for societies that place their faith in collectivist schemes. Thus, he writes:
The
more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that
redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income
from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of
power from the individual to the State.
It
then becomes apparent that the state worshipping eye, occupied with the
misdirection of trumpeted social justice platitudes and the
self-interested anticipatory largesse secured through brigandage of the
wealthier nodes of society, does not apprehend the subterranean
institutions that a regime must set into motion for the mechanics of
redistribution to occur. Nor does it readily comprehend that a society's
understanding of liberty, along with its attendant theory of property, necessarily dissolves as the regime accrues power in its own name's sake.
The
expansionist state methodically grows in scope and power into
unanticipated nooks and crannies of the private sphere and ultimately
metastasizes into a structure where equality not only eclipses negative
freedom, but government assumes the gravitas of an avenging angel that
rewrites the codes of morality and eventually becomes the arbiter of
both success and failure by virtue of its laws, regulatory schemes, and
patronage. As
republics inexorably begin their death swoons into full democracies,
that great magnetic pull towards equality in all of its forms becomes
culturally irresistible, and this degraded form of regime, warned of by
Plato and Aristotle, eventually acts as a leveling agent for society. It
is but a few small steps from egalitarian collectivist economics to
ideological homogeneity. This is not to say that humanity will assume a
common face, but that as the incrementally empowered regime reaches its
full bloom and ascendency, it by necessity becomes the sole arbiter of
moral questions. Since philosophy and the search for transcendent truths
are both relegated to a defunct history, the state will countenance and
tolerate various modes of being as long as these do not either question
the sovereign authority of the regime or declare that their own
political expression is categorically superior to the others. It is
there that its tolerance bluntly terminates. Jouvenel characterizes the
full blown character of the democratic descent:
Democracy,
then, in the centralizing, pattern-making, absolutist shape which we
have given to it is, it is clear, the time of tyranny's incubation.
It
matters not if the tyranny is of the character of Stalin or of a
softened rule of technocrats and managers. Once the rights and liberties
of a people fall into disuse or are traded for the pledge of economic
security, the people's envy of all distinctions becomes an internal
leveler that the regime gives full moral sanction to. This effectively
sounds the death knell for individuation, entrepreneurship, and the
classical virtues -- in effect, the traditional mores of the American
dream that are founded in self-sacrifice, industriousness, and self
sufficiency apart from the cloying arms of the collective. The
transition from citizen to subject proceeds apace as the quality of a
Socialist-defined existence grows meager and life itself loses its
enchantment and luster while men and women grow smaller.
When
the decrepit Twentieth Century dinosaurs of Marxism met their
inglorious ends, it was left to the Progressives and Keynesians to
soften the gaze of the collectives' Stalinist façade; and by jettisoning
sound fiscal and monetary policy, a clever political elite could spend
profligately while postponing the Day of Reckoning. That day is perhaps
at hand for the West, and all we have to show for our labors is a
gargantuan debt and an edifice of government institutionally entrenched
in nearly every aspect of our lives. In retrospect, Jouvenel was
prescient in that he foresaw redistribution as the velvet manacles that
ushered in an irresistible state power -- but he left out one detail. We
have not merely sold our own birthrights for boiled cabbage, but we
have passed on this crushing debt to our sons and daughters as we have
become profligates of the lowest order. And long after we are dead,
should America survive so long, those same children will be tied to the
burden we ourselves could not face on our own, having lived so lavishly
at their expense.
Is
there any doubt that our heirs will be facing a bleak and impoverished
future as we pass on our very own special incarnation of the Lupine
American Dream: having taken every lamb for our own ravenous appetites,
while spitting out the bones and scraps for our young cubs to fight
over?
