The current spin on American democracy has the ring of collectivism in its tones.  This philosophy suggests that as free Americans we must collectively demand rights and privileges from the federal government.  It says that as a group, we must collectively seek from the government certain ways of doing things and organize with other groups who also seek privilege from those in power.  This isn't a new idea.  In fact, it is an idea resurrected from the philosophy of the feudal past.  The American experiment was a charter designed to limit government interference in our lives and society.  But, the collectivists in charge have actually persuaded many of those in power that we must kneel and beg for rights we already have.

Our most recent examination of this phenomenon is the apparent capitulation of some Republican leaders to the ideals of identity politics.  Jeff Sessions, GOP senator from Alabama, is terrified that 'latinos' or 'Hispanics' will become disillusioned with the right if we question the Latina nominee for the Supreme Court.  He actually believes in the Democratic Party far left wing spin machine's argument that groups will collectively support or oppose one of their own.  Other Republican leaders are acting accordingly trusting the collectivist hype that argues Spanish-speaking or Latin American originating people will collectively rise up in protest over this bigoted nominee.  They have fallen for the premise that a group of people who originate from the Straits of Magellan to Tijuana are so monolithic in belief, will somehow coalesce around someone whose ORIGINS were from people who speak a variant of the same language and toss out Republicans for criticizing 'one of their own.' 

Actually speaking with so-called 'latinos' belies this ideal.  People from Guatemaula consider themselves Guatemaulan.  People from Puerto Rico consider themselves American.  People from Argentina consider themselves South American.  The variance of belief about their 'group' is so widespread and not monolithic at all is staggering.  Yet, some of the 'kingmakers' in Washington are wide-eyed in fear that these groups will become angry and 'throw the suckers out' over this Bronx nightmare with Spanish-speaking relatives. 

They are falling prey to this collectivist notion of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and now language groups as being real categories of thought.  Relying on this false premise, they are scurrying to curry favor with these imaginary groups and cover their political derriers.  Once you accept the premise that identity politics runs the country, you must submit to these faux group leaders and beg for favors.  But, this false political arrangement only leads to bigotry and contradiction.  People believe and vote for what is best for them.  Bowing to this ideal will only begin to make it seem more real.  Political realities are shaped by faith.  This faulty premise must be stopped dead in its tracks.

We are not supplicants groveling at the feet of those in power.  We are the ones in power.  We hold the cards.  Until we make that case to those who may not understand that, we are lost in the wilderness.  If we allow this artificially created identity to take hold, we will lose our individual freedoms and rights.  Once we kneel and accept the 'overlords' protection, we have acquiesced to their sovereignty.  Like the feudal lords in the Medieval period, they will take our submission and demand tribute and fealty to their deeds.  We will not be free to act as we should.  We will act only according to the collectivist group will.  That is the price of seeking the 'protection' of these leaders. 

We are not supplicants begging for privileges at the table of the masters.  We are free agents.  That is the American dream.  A dream that seeks to allow individuals to freely decide what path their lives may take.  A dream that shouts down the collectivists in power and demands action for the greater good and not just the 'overlord's' supporters.  It is a shared dream that our country will look out for all and not some of its citizens.  If leaders betray that ideal, we will throw them out and get other, more humble and faithful, leaders to keep that dream going. 

The Democratic Party doesn't accept this vision any longer.  They believe in the success of some groups at the expense of other groups.  They believe that by pitting the have and havenots against one another they can win.  But, the American Dream has always been that by freeing and  empowering the havenots you can give them a path to success.  The Democrats zero-sum game is based on a pie which doesn't get bigger.  They seem to believe the pie can only be so big and that for each person to get his fair share you must steal some from another. 

That is not America.  That is the befuddled, shared delusion of old discredited economic thought.  We believe the pie is only as small as we make it.  We believe the pie can be bigger so more people can have more.  We need to make the case to the citizenry of this country, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, or any other artificial category imagined, that they can make the pie bigger and as a result get a bigger slice.  They can succeed if the rules apply equally to us all.  They can prosper as long as someone is not putting their finger on the scales of justice in order to make it 'fairer'.  They can make it as Americans and not a subset of some manufactured identity. 

Most of all, we need to educate and persuade our fellow citizens that we are not supplicants.  We are Americans and as a result the ones in charge.  The illusions of these people in power are fleeting and a chimera of hope.  We are the hope of the nation and not the wanna-be overlords.  They need to be cowed.  We should speak truth to power.

Earlier this week, Congress had to audacity to question the Obama Gitmo plan and refused to fund shutting down the detainee facility. Obama, who is closing the prison as a payoff to MSDNC and the Daily Communist crowd, was obviously furious that Congress would dare question his plan. Angry at the Democrats who sided with the GOP in blocking the funding, he went before cameras this morning to confront his rivals. Instead of explaining in detail his plans for the detainees, he simply blamed the Bush administration and came off appearing like a petulant child.

Standing before the cameras, Obama tried to look stern but instead he looked peevish and whiny. While still trying to use the campaign tactic of blaming Bush, he came across as immature and unpresidential. His pursed lips reminded one more of a school marm haranguing her pupils than a commander-in-chief. Never describing his proposed process, he instead seemed to dictate his terms like a tyrant in a fit of pique. It is his way or the highway, was the argument.

It appears that being president when things don’t go his way isn’t fun. Obama is getting his first taste of actual leadership instead of autocracy. When his will is thwarted, he doesn’t look gracious but dictatorial throwing a tantrum in front of the nation. Looking down his nose at us, he looked childish instead of a foremost leader in the world. Such is the reaction of this citizen watching his hissy fit. He is no longer cool and confident but pouty and threatening. He’d better starttaking his punches more calmly because there are surely more to come down the pike. His argument, ‘because I said so’ will only work so long before the nation as a whole shrugs its collective shoulders and says ‘there he goes again.’ We didn’t hire a frustrated teenager, we hired a president. Obama better start acting like one. 

Since President Obama has said ‘everyone needs to have skin in the game,’ we should take him at his word. The Democrats plan to tax corporation at a higher rate and limit loopholes that allow businesses to protect some of their assets offshore, it would only seem fair that we begin looker for other revenue streams as well. There are many revenue sources that have, until now, seemed untouchable. But, with Obama’s plan to limit charitable donations, or eliminate them, tax higher incomes at a greater rate, and limit the ability of capital to be accumulated, we need a fairer system. Some organizations are not being utilized for the riches they have accumulated. We need to look at those sources.

Labor unions are not taxed. It seems brutally unfair that this revenue source should be exempt from the tax collectors’ purse. It would seem the labor unions, a rich source of money, should welcome the opportunity to contribute to our nation during this difficult time. They should be thrilled with this idea to be tapped at the same rate and level corporations are taxed. It would be ridiculous to ignore this revenue source and would bring in many millions in tax dollars. Businesses don’t really pay taxes, consumers pay the taxes in the form of higher prices. Businesses factor in the taxes when they are figuring the price of their goods. Unions can do the same thing with their dues. They can raise the rate and level of their union dues to make up the difference. That way, union workers can feel the pinch every bit as much as consumers.

Further revenue streams could be tapped by levying the same tax rates on non-profit organizations. We could exempt charitable organizations and still collect millions from the myriad of non-profits that are out there collecting money but not paying their fair share. They can pass on the cost in the same way as unions and businesses must. Since most of these non-profit organizations are Democratic Party affiliates, they should jump at the chance to help the president out. How can they say no to their fearless leader, Barack Obama? How can they not advocate this very fair proposition? We should offer them all the opportunity to help the country out since they are so eager to make everyone else pay the bill. We should let them pay part of the humungous costs associated with this administration’s plans. 

This is really a great time for these organizations to ‘step up to the plate’ and pay their fair share. Our own vice president has stated on numerous occasions that it is patriotic to pay taxes. Let’s get them to put their money where their mouth is. This would collect billions of dollars in revenue and educate the non-taxed sectors of the economy just how burdensome taxes are. They apparently don’t understand the concept as of yet.

  Bigot – ‘one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices’

In one fell swoop, the Democratic Party has managed to pull off one of the biggest robberies in American history, right beneath our noses. GM, Ford, and Chrysler, going through a serious downturn in car sales and strangled by contractual commitments, needed help. First they flew into Washington D.C. to beg for a bailout from the federal government. They were sent home red-faced after a public scolding by the debutantes in Congress because of the corporate jets. Then, congressional Democrats summoned them to Congress, hat in hand, to grovel before committee for money. Ford, perhaps realizing the position they’d put themselves in, didn’t take the money. But, GM and Chrysler both did. Then they asked for more. The whole time this was happening, their stock prices were plummeting leaving investors and creditors with nothing to show for their efforts. This was precisely the kind of crisis Rahm Emmanuel had in mind when he said it provided opportunity for change. They took that opportunity and this is what it accomplished.

Though the best thing that could have happened was for the Big Three to go through bankruptcy to fix their contractual problems, they didn’t want to do that. The Obama administration smelled blood in the water. They provided bailout money to GM and Chrysler bathed in glue and strings that the administration could use to manipulate the crisis. First, Democrats began ordering changes in their practices. Then, they ordered a plan be laid. Finally, they managed a ‘quick’ bankruptcy scheme to their liking. Since they held the cards, they could make the rules. So, even though the American taxpayers will ultimately pay the cost, the winners are not us.

The bankruptcy scheme for Chrysler gives the United Auto Workers with a 55% share in the company with a much lower share for the government. Fiat is buying a 20% share and will likely share its technology to create supposedly ‘green’ cars and other vehicles. But, why would the administration hand over a majority share to the union? Why would the American government keep the control since we are the ones ponying up the money? There is, of course, an explanation. The negotiators are arguing that this stake given to the union, not the workers, the union, is for part of the pension fund. Huh? If a company’s broke, all the contractual obligations are under scrutiny. There should be losses throughout the stakeholders in this company. But, that wouldn’t facilitate the change the Obama administration wants. This deal would.

This deal allows for three important things. First, it robs the investors and creditors of Chrysler and hands it over to the union. Second, it robs the American people of treasure and hands that over to the union. Finally, the Democrats will have a steady fund straight out of the Chrysler profits via the UAW. This is a dramatic shift in American business practices and power. It will give the union a giant slush fund in which to both call and finance the Democratic Party. In essence, buying a Chrysler vehicle is a contribution to the Democratic Party. Simple.

This Obama deal takes the means of production out of the bourgeois private sector and hands it to the proletarian union. Now, think about this, there is nothing wrong with workers having a stake in a company.  For all of our economic history, workers have been awarded a stake in their employing enterprise. But, this is not a stake by the employees. This is a stake held by the union and the union leaders. The shares will be held in common and administered by these union officials. Therefore, the proceeds of the company will be administered and directed by these officials, not by the rank and file. That is a sea change. It will mean these unionists will run the company and decide where the money will go. Where does the money go when unions are involved? It goes to Democrats. 

Obama managed to affect this change almost without challenge. Chrysler is the first example of Obama’s socialistic tendencies and he’s doing it with the cooperation of the private sector. They are trusting that this deal will become profitable when it is almost surely bound to fail. Fail, unless the government exclusively buys its vehicles from Chrysler, which it is sure to do. Does Fiat really think this socialist administration and its unionist allies will allow it to employ the best business practices? They do, but it won’t happen. Orders for vehicle standards will pour out of the Transportation Department, Energy Department, EPA, and the White House. They will be required to build cars that defy the laws of physics and when that doesn’t happen, they will renege on the deal and thrust Fiat out. Obama, as he so loves to say, won. He pulled a hat trick that has rearranged wealth and placed it into the hands of his allies and this is only the beginning.

Krugman believes that government is everything. It is the be all and end all of existence. Therefore, he cannot believe there could possibly be people who don’t want government dictating the terms of their existence. Krugman believes he is the smartest person in the room and his colleagues and he can tell us how to live our lives. Our lives are so empty and shallow, we need their guidance. Because of this basic philosophic belief, he misses the point. 

Businesses are contracting their jobs and wages to workers because the economy slowed. That we all understand. Businesses pay their workers from their sales. If sales slow, they need to layoff workers and/or request lower wages. That is fine. But what Krugman misses is this is going on throughout the country and even in industries that are doing fine. The contractions are occurring even in sectors that are seeing growth. Not all businesses are hurting. Some are actually excelling in this economy. Any yet, they are also shrinking their workforce and costs. Some of this is opportunism because of a surplus of workers. But most of it lies deep within the Obama agenda for America. Businesses are getting ready for the apocalypse. 

The apocalypse will occur when the federal deficits shrink the credit markets, the cap-and-trade taxes come into play, the requirement for health care is enacted, and the inflation from an inflated money supply begins to increase. They have been listening and watching this president engage in a war on the free enterprise system and realize they have to hunker down. The business community understands the broad and negative impact each of these programs will have on the economy. Furthermore, they have been listening to the tone of this president. They are scared.

This president has ordered the firing of the head of a private business. He helped lead a lynch mob to take the heads of people receiving their contractual due. He has talked of limits on pay of private businesspeople. Obama has inserted himself deeply in the ethos of the free enterprise system. They have no idea what this presuming tyrant may do next. They are waiting for the proverbial shoe to drop. In the mean time, they are preparing for the worst. The worst, which may never occur, certainly doesn’t include hiring full-time workers.  Instead it means they will continue to try and do more with less. This will continue our economic contraction because of Obama’s bullying and derisive tactics. Krugman don’t get it.

"Thousands are going door-to-door as part of Organizing for America, gathering support for President Obama's plan to invest in America's future. You can help, too. Call Congress and tell them to support President Obama's budget plan to get our economy moving again."